Talk:Main Page/Archive index/138

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Andreas Lubitz

It seems he was a Lutheran Christian.[1].--GhazS 11:03, 3 April 2015 (EDT)

I'm sure any headlines on the Main Page that suggest he was an atheist will be immediately retracted. --Randall7 14:15, 3 April 2015 (EDT)

The headlines are about liberal denial, nothing needs to change TheRedElephant 17:39, 3 April 2015 (EDT)

The article does not say the co-pilot was a member of that church and merely says he had attended the church. If memory serves, in the USA, about 10% of atheists go to church regularly. "A new study out of Rice University has found that 17 percent - about one out of five scientists who describe themselves as either atheists or agnostics - actually go to church, although not too often, and not because they feel a spiritual yearning to join the faithful."[2]
In addition, if he was an ardent Bible believing Christian, surely he would have not been suicidal (It is atheists who are more likely to be suicidal than the general population. See: Atheism and suicide and Atheism and depression). Furthermore, the Bible says to put others before yourself and teaches sacrificial love. Unlike Christianity, there is nothing inherent in atheism that teaches sacrificial love (See also: Atheism and uncharitableness and Atheism and love and Agape).
Another important point is that post-Darwinism and the rise of liberal theology in the 19th/20th centuries, many German "churches" are unbiblical in doctrine and are spiritually dead and losing members. Many mainline Lutheran churches are losing members in Germany and in other countries as well such as the United States (The Christian Post mentioned the co-pilot attended a Lutheran church).[3][4]
At the same time, on March 17, 2014, the news website Deutsche Well reported that evangelical Christianity has doubled in Germany in the last 10 years.[5] There haven't been any reports that the German co-pilot was a member of a Bible believing/evangelical church.

Exactly. Not a true Christian. Atheist. TheRedElephant 18:02, 3 April 2015 (EDT)

The pastor at the murderer's local church knew him from ... 13 years ago, when he was a teenager. [6] That doesn't sound like a churchgoing adult.--Andy Schlafly 21:05, 3 April 2015 (EDT)
Andy, where did you get the information from that he was a atheist and/or terrorist? Do you have a reference?--GhazS 21:08, 3 April 2015 (EDT)
You don't think the liberal media is going to admit this, do you?--Andy Schlafly 22:51, 3 April 2015 (EDT)

A few points:

In terms of evidence regarding any issue, there is direct evidence and indirect evidence.

The indirect evidence that the co-pilot was non-religious and/or an atheist:

Andreas Lubitz appears to be have been an egotistical, selfish, bitter and depressed individual who had suicidal tendencies in the past.[7][8]

According to the Eurobarometer Poll taken in 2010, 45% of Germans agreed with the statement "I believe there is a God".[9] See also: Atheism and arrogance and Atheism and social intelligence and Atheism and loneliness and Atheism and bitterness and Atheism and uncharitableness and Atheism and depression and Atheism and suicide.

I will let GhazS and AugustO determine if the characteristics of egotistical, selfish, bitter and depressed/suicidal best fit Bible believers or atheists/irreligious individuals.

Furthermore, there is the adage of if you were on trial for being a Christian, would there be enough evidence to convict you? There certainly appears to be a lack of compelling evidence that the co-pilot was a Christian! And it appears as if monotheists are a minority in Germany based on the previously cited Eurobarometer poll!!!!!

I hope that clarifies matters!!!! Conservative 22:57, 3 April 2015 (EDT)

It most certainly does not clarify matters. Cons has filled this whole section with speculation about statistical tendencies that he perceives, relating to atheism and various aspects of mental health. He has buttressed this with little more than a bunch of links to his silly pages on such topics as Atheism and love/depression/suicide/loneliness/bitterness/arrogance/uncharitableness/social intelligence/etc., along with something about Post-Darwinism, and something about the Lutheran Church losing members, and something about evangelical Christianity doubling in Germany in the last 10 years, and on and on and on. It is, of course, his right to fill Conservapedia with quotes that he picks up from around the web on the subjects of atheism and XXX. And to spout off on these subjects at every opportunity.
But there's something I can't help noticing. Everything he says in the dozens of silly pages relates to statistical effects, that is, poll results, along with his personal speculations. Presumably these insights arise from his use of the Generalized linear model that he and I have discussed so many times. Though Cons doesn't show his work and explain how the model was used. But there's one thing that sticks out like a proverbial sore thumb. In the middle of all this statistical number-crunching mish-mash, Cons says "if [Andreas Lubitz] was an ardent Bible believing Christian, surely he would have not been suicidal". Surely? He surely would not have been suicidal? Does Cons know something about the generalized linear model that the rest of us don't? SamHB 20:47, 5 April 2015 (EDT)
From the Daily Mail article that Andy cited: "The pastor added that there is no direct contact with the family at the moment, but that he believes they are receiving good assistance."[10]
The crash happened on 3/24/2014. Apparently, the the GermanWings co-pilot's family did not attend his church on Sunday 3/29/2015 nor has the pastor talked to the family subsequent to the crash. And consider this 2013 news report about godless Germany: "Of those that identify themselves as Protestants, the number of people who go to church regularly is far smaller with 4 percent of Protestants attending church on Good Friday, the paper reported."[11]
Is or was the family non-religious? If so, did they raise an irreligious son who become an atheist? Conservative 23:15, 3 April 2015 (EDT)
In 2008, in Germany, about 35% of people indicated that they never attend church.[12] Conservative 23:35, 3 April 2015 (EDT)
Recently, I watched an interesting documentary on the egotistical and suicidal German evolutionist Adolf Hitler which indicated that rather than end the war via a treaty which would have saved lives, Hitler chose to drag things on to the bitter end due to pride and other psychological factors and then ultimately committed suicide. And Hitler's psychological profiler within the U.S. government predicted this course of action. VIDEO
Interesting. You have a statistic from 2008, indicating that, according to someone's survey, 35% of people in Germany never attend church. And you conclude from that that Lubitz was surely an atheist? Are you sure you are applying Bayes' theorem correctly? SamHB 22:47, 5 April 2015 (EDT)
Sam, the murderer was educated in Christianity but obviously chose not to attend church for many years. His actions then speak volumes. What are you looking for, an admission on YouTube???--Andy Schlafly 22:59, 5 April 2015 (EDT)

Sam, are you familiar with the fallacy of exclusion? The reason I ask is that I certainly provided more data than you are alluding to!!! Strike one!

Second, where did I say that Lubitz was surely an atheist? I didn't. Strike two! Conservative 00:04, 6 April 2015 (EDT)

Great aviation accomplishments by godly Christian creationists

"The Wright brothers used intelligence, experience, and ingenuity to design their aircraft. From studying God’s creation in the form of bird-flight, they were helped to develop their own creation.

One Saturday afternoon in 1903, Wilbur and Orville Wright made final repairs and adjustments to their aircraft. This was the culmination of four years work by the brothers. Next morning, the aircraft was ready and wind conditions were perfect, but there would be no flight that day. This was Sunday, and Wilbur and Orville chose not to work on Sundays."[13] Conservative 00:48, 4 April 2015 (EDT)

Despicable News Item

"Liberal double standard, again: the lamestream media fail to mention the lack of church attendance by the murderer who increased the speed of the Germanwings plane as he crashed it into a mountain, killing all 150 on board, and the media also refuse to ask if it was atheistic terrorism."

What we know at this moment is that a depressed man committed suicide - and murdered 149 children, women, and men doing so.

  • "the media also refuse to ask if it was atheistic terrorism" Andy, perhaps because journalists are able to read? Perhaps they even used Conservapedia's article which states that terrorism is the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives. While Andreas Lubitz filled us all with terror, he didn't want "to coerce or intimidate governments or societies", and hadn't any "political, religious, or ideological objectives". It is the same as in most school-shootings: they are mass-murders, but no acts of terror. An lawyer should able to spot this.
  • The there is this ghoulish stampede to distance us from the murderer. In my opinion that is misplaced:
  • Andreas Lubitz was at first a depressed man. There are depressed atheists, there are depressed Christians. Atheists and Christians commit suicide, albeit at different rates - look at the number of suicides of veterans!
  • Andreas Lubitz was raised as a Christian - it seems, he received his "Konfirmation". Perhaps he was still an official member, paying his Church taxes (a German idiosyncrasy). Perhaps he saw himself as a Christian, perhaps he went to church from time to time. But probably we have lost him. Why? Could we have helped him? Or did we just add to the pressure?
  • What is the signal we sent to depressed men and women? Obviously our thoughts and prayers are mainly with the innocent victims of Lubitz's crime. But this ease to wash our hands of him, does it encourage depressed men and women to seek help in our Churches?
  • I even saw complaints that Lubitz's parents didn't attend their church over the last days - without asking the obvious, like whether they were in town (in their house, beleaguered by journalists, and object to investigation by the police), or just avoided publicity!
  • Last, is there any human catastrophe which Conservapedia doesn't use to score points? There are many news items which can be described as "we don't know what happened, but it is the fault of the Muslims (or atheists)" - or in this case, both, successively!

--AugustO 06:09, 6 April 2015 (EDT)

Questions for AugustO

1. AugustO, you wrote: "Andreas Lubitz was at first a depressed man. There are depressed atheists, there are depressed Christians." Question: Do atheists have higher suicide rates than the general public? Are atheistic societies more suicidal? See: Atheism and suicide and Atheism and emotional intelligence

2. Second, we know that Lubitz had an ego issue and I cited an article pointing that out.[14][15] Do theists commonly perceived atheists as being egotistical and is this perception warranted? See: Atheism and arrogance.

3. Someone who kills themselves in a way that kills others has a selfishness issue and is less empathetic. Is there social science data indicating that atheists/irreligious are more selfish and less empathetic? See: Atheism and uncharitableness.

4. Someone who kills himself in a way that kills others is acting in a very self-centered and unsocial manner. Is there social science data indicating that atheists have lower social skills? See: Atheism and social/interpersonal intelligence and Atheism and loneliness.

5. Is Germany a religious country? If is not a religious country, could Lubitz have been socialized into various atheistic/irreligious values? According to the Eurobarometer Poll taken in 2010, 45% of Germans agreed with the statement "I believe there is a God".[16] Have German values improved post Friedrich Nietzsche? See: Atheist population and immorality

6. Germany has one of the highest rates of belief in evolution in the world. In 2005, it was estimated that 70% of Germans believed in evolution.[17]

Have German values improved post Charles Darwin/Ernst Haeckel? For example, see: Bestiality and Germany and Atheistic Germany and alcoholism and Atheistic Germany and loneliness

Did the egotistical evolutionist Adolf Hitler kill himself and cause WWII to end in a manner that showed bitterness and a disregard for his fellow countrymen's lives? Did the German people elect Adolf Hitler?

Is there social science data and historical data that shows that evolutionism increases immorality?

Consider: In July of 2000, Creation Ministries International reported:

"For years, many people have scoffed at any suggestion that the evils in society could be linked with the teaching of the theory of evolution. But new research has confirmed what Bible-believers have known all along—that the rising acceptance of Darwin’s theory is related to declining morality in the community.

The research survey of 1535 people, conducted by the Australian National University, revealed that belief in evolution is associated with moral permissiveness. Darwin himself apparently feared that belief in evolution by the common man would lead to social decay. The survey showed that people who believed in evolution were more likely to be in favour of premarital sex than those who rejected Darwin’s theory. Another issue which highlighted the contrast between the effect of evolutionary ideas and that of biblical principles was that Darwinians were reported to be ‘especially tolerant’ of abortion.

In identifying the primary factors determining these differences in community attitudes, the author of the research report, Dr Jonathan Kelley, said: ‘The single most important influence after church attendance is the theory of evolution.’"[18]"

See also: Social Darwinism

7. Did the atheistic Soviet Union shoot down Korean Airlines Flight 007 and was their actions warranted at the time?

8. When was the last time that the co-pilot Lubitz went to church? Are Germans church going people? If Lubitz had been an outspoken, church going, evangelical Christian or even a church going, evangelical Christian, do you think that the press would have reported this?

9. We do know that a country that practiced state atheism and Muslims have brought down a commercial airplane filled with passengers, can you name one instance of an evangelical Christian doing this?

10: You wrote: "Andreas Lubitz was raised as a Christian - it seems, he received his "Konfirmation"."

Was he raised as a Bible believing Christian which would have required his repentance and having Jesus be his Lord and savior or was he raised to believe a false, watered down "gospel" typically offered by liberal Christianity "churches" which is often anti-supernatural in nature and teaches than men are basically good which is contrary to what Jesus/Scriptures teaches (Matthew 7:11 and Jeremiah 17:9 for example teaches that human nature is evil. That is why is is necessary for men to be born again as per John 3:1-15 and be empowered by the Holy Spirit)?

I do agree with you that definitive statements without adequate proof should be avoided. At the same time, I do believe it is fair to raise questions on the main page - especially when their is social science data and/or previous historical events justifying raising questions.

I hope the above questions help you clarify your thinking! Feel free to engage in last wordism.Conservative 00:06, 7 April 2015 (EDT)

You can't ask someone a series of questions and then accuse them of last wordism when they reply, don't you think? KevinLisbie 16:59, 7 April 2015 (EDT)
KevinLisbie, if the person's past behavior has a history of last wordism and if you strongly suspect that they will largely dodge the questions and mainly engage in hand waving, you most certainly can. AugustO's response to the 15 questions for evolutionists did not inspire confidence - especially since he refused to debate the biology major VivaYehshua in an oral debate that would have been seen by tens of thousands of people.
And just as I suspected, AugustO largely dodged my questions above which was no great surprise.
KevinLisbie, by the way, if you scroll down the page, you will see that the liberals SamHB and Eg were similarly humbled by a few reasonable questions. Liberalism cannot withstand scrutiny/cross-examination (for example, see: Creation scientists tend to win debates with evolutionists and Atheism and cowardice).

Twelve Betteridgeisms (and a Godwin too) in One Section!

I think that's a new record for making a section out of stupid questions. Does Cons believe that this is a good way to make a point? Does he believe that people will find that style convincing? Is there some reason why he puts in links to his stupid articles after nearly all of them? Does he realize how stupid those articles are? Does he think people haven't noticed that they are basically retreads of the same thing? Is he willing to show us the connection ("new research has confirmed") between "the rising acceptance of Darwin’s theory" and "declining morality in the community"? That is, information from other than a fundamentalist extremist web site? SamHB 17:23, 6 April 2015 (EDT)

SamHB, is Richard Dawkins the most high profile evolutionist or at least a very high profile evolutionist? Has the evolutionist Richard Dawkins said that he would hate to live in a society governed by Darwinistic morality? Did Richard Dawkins indicate that it is hard to say if Adolf Hitler was right? Is it hard to say? See: Richard Dawkins' commentary on Adolf Hitler
SamHB, I provided social science data from a secular university showing that Darwinism has a deleterious effect on morality and cited history by way of mentioning Social Darwinism. Where is your social science data showing that Darwinism does not have a deleterious effect on morality?
Did you show that my articles were "stupid" or merely assert they were? The reason I ask is that he who asserts move prove! Affirmati Non Neganti Incumbit Probatio! Also, you wrote previously on this wiki: "Maybe one of our more prolific writers who is interested in music (yes, Cons, that's you) would like to write articles for these people."[19]. If I/we have written several stupid articles at this wiki as you claim, then why did you request that I/we write more articles for this wiki?
There is data showing that questions can improve persuasiveness under various conditions[20] and it is a common device used by coaches of persuasion.[21]
Was a portion of your argumentation illogical? Specifically, regarding a website that I chose to cite? What is the genetic fallacy?
By the way, I added a few more questions for AugustO. Conservative 19:02, 6 April 2015 (EDT)

Suggestion for Conservative

Conservative, "When you're in a hole, stop digging." Meaning, now would be a good time to shut up, because you're being extremely annoying. StaceyT 18:04, 6 April 2015 (EDT)

Can you demonstrate your assertion that I am in a hole? If you can, do so. The reason I ask is that he who asserts move prove! Affirmati Non Neganti Incumbit Probatio!
"Proof by assertion" is an informal logical fallacy. Liberals, stop being so illogical! Conservative 18:56, 6 April 2015 (EDT)

Answer to User:Conservative

You wrote:

AugustO, you wrote: "Andreas Lubitz was at first a depressed man. There are depressed atheists, there are depressed Christians." Question: Do atheists have higher suicide rates than the general public? Are atheistic societies more suicidal? See: Atheism and suicide and Atheism and emotional intelligence

You make my quote look like I'd deny that there are differences in the suicide rates of atheists and Christians, while I've said:

Andreas Lubitz was at first a depressed man. There are depressed atheists, there are depressed Christians. Atheists and Christians commit suicide, albeit at different rates - look at the number of suicides of veterans!

Your out-of-context quotation shows that you don't address what I've written (perhaps because you haven't read it at all), but just a straw-man of your own design. You are completely missing my point by showing that with a high degree of probability your brother has a splinter in his eye... --AugustO 03:48, 7 April 2015 (EDT)

AugustO, you are projecting from Conservative's comments way more than what can be reasonably concluded. It looks to me like you were trying to withhold the full truth about the consequences of atheism as practiced in a society, and that Conservative was calling you out on it, not that he was trying to distort what small amount you said about it. VargasMilan 04:56, 7 April 2015 (EDT)

Andreas Lubitz: More evidence that he was not a committed Christian

Consider this information about Germany:

"The Protestant state church is fairly dead. The percent of committed Christians in Germany is maybe at 3 or 4 percent. Eighty percent belong to a church nominally, Protestant or Catholic. A mere 0.5 percent belong to a free evangelical church. The percent of people believing in life after death is fewer than 50 percent. It's what a German philosopher, Ruediger Safranski, calls "cold religion," very left-brained, very cognitive, focused on rituals and membership but not on personal commitment. Sometimes the mainline bishops say we need to be more mission minded. But they don't put any money into it."[22]

Before the plan crashed, The pilot yelled to his co-pilot Andreas Lubitz who locked himself behind the cockpit door, "For God's sake, open the door".[23] Andreas Lubitz did not open the cockpit door and shortly afterward purposefully crashed the jet full of passengers.

There were signs that Andreas Lubitz was egotistical and depressed.[24][25] We also know that the atheists/irreligious tend to be more depressed/suicidal and self-centered which is the type of person who would more likely commit suicide by crashing a loaded commercial passenger jet. See also: Atheism and suicide and Atheism and arrogance and Atheism and social/interpersonal intelligence

The last reported instance of him attending church was 13 years ago and we know Germany is currently not a nation of church goers as noted above. Conservative 20:40, 9 April 2015 (EDT)

Yes, the circumstantial evidence is quite clear. Although I must say (referring to "For God's sake, open the door"), if a non-Christian (the pilot in this case) tried to command me to something by taking the Lord's name in vain ... well I certainly wouldn't be moved to action!!! TheRedElephant 18:50, 10 April 2015 (EDT)

Western atheists have developed a reputation for being egotistical/narcissistic/selfish and for having more suicidal/anti-social behaviors. See also: Atheism and arrogance and Atheism and social intelligence and Atheism and loneliness and Atheism and bitterness and Atheism and uncharitableness and Atheism and depression and Atheism and suicide.

Now the beautiful thing about Switzerland, which is more theistic than Germany, is that you get the germanic cultural influence of adherence to order, efficiency and timeliness without the atheistic post Ernst Haeckel/Friedrich Nietzsche present day atheistic values of Germany. Swiss International Airlines has a fantastic safety rating.[26]

Third, aviation incidences like Andreas Lubitz didn't happen in 50s America, Latin America. South America or the Philippines because these societies were more theistically/Christian/community oriented. I have spoken to older people who lived in cities where Christianity used to be more prevalent and they told me that when they grew up people did bother locking their doors at night.

Fourth, I will make a prediction: In this decade, there will be no evangelical/Amish school school student or evangelical/Amish homeschooled mass murders. On the other hand, evolutionists/atheists have a checkered past when it comes to this type of behavior. See: Young mass murderers

Fifth, let's face facts. The post evolution loving/irreligious/atheistic behavior exhibited in Germany society has not been impressive. See: World War I and Darwinism and Holocaust and WWI and WWII and Bestiality and Germany and Atheistic Germany and alcoholism and Atheistic Germany and loneliness. Conservative 20:15, 10 April 2015 (EDT)

Liberal double standard

Why is Wisconsin playing Duke in the NCAA basketball final an example of a liberal double standard? --Mjachimstahl 15:54, 6 April 2015 (EDT)

The headline explains why.--Andy Schlafly 17:13, 6 April 2015 (EDT)
Color me confused as well. The media didn't place these two teams in the championship game. Are they supposed to criticize the fact that a predominantly black team is matching up against a predominantly white team? What exactly is the problem here?--eg 6:15, 6 April (EDT)
The NCAA and the media harshly criticized Indiana for allowing businesses to choose, based on faith, with whom to do business. But segregation in their own NCAA finale is apparently fine with them. That's called a double standard.--Andy Schlafly 18:27, 6 April 2015 (EDT)
I just...there are no words. To paraphrase TV's King of the Hill, just when I think this website can't say anything stupider, it keeps publishing.---eg 7:10, 6 April 2015 (EDT)
Are you suggesting that the Wisconsin athletic department is rejecting qualified black basketball prospects based on racism, or that Duke is rejecting qualified white prospects for the same reason? It would be interesting to hear your thoughts on how the situation could be remedied. What policies would ensure an appropriate racial distribution on all NCAA teams? --Mjachimstahl 20:01, 6 April 2015 (EDT)
Nothing in the Indiana religious liberty bill authorized discrimination, so why did the NCAA harshly complaint about that, and then promote a white-versus-black tournament finale?--Andy Schlafly 20:42, 6 April 2015 (EDT)
Where has the NCAA promoted the championship game as being "white-versus-black"? Are you aware that neither team is made up solely of players of one race, that both teams have white AND black players? These are the last two undefeated teams in the tournament. The media isn't criticizing it because there's nothing to criticize.--eg 21:48, 6 April 2015 (EDT)

"USA Today asks: 'Why is the Badgers' roster predominantly white?'"[27]

Eg, why did you dodge Andy's question about the Indiana religious liberty bill? Conservative 22:22, 6 April 2015 (EDT)

Yes, BEFORE THE FINAL FOUR EVEN STARTED (as in, before the matchup for tonight's championship game was set), USA Today pointed out that Wisconsin has more white players than black players, as other media outlets already have this season as well. That is not the NCAA promoting tonight's game as a "black vs. white" event. As for Mr. Schlafly's question, the reason for the NCAA's criticism of the Indiana legislation is obvious, whether one agrees with it or not. I was responding to the 2nd half of his question.--eg 21:53, 6 April 2015 (EDT)

If the rationale for NCAA's criticism of Indiana's law was so correct and obvious, then why are you still dodging Andy's question and not able to fully address it? Yet another example of liberalism's intellectual inferiority and deceit? Conservative 23:23, 6 April 2015 (EDT)

I neither dodged the question nor did I say whether or not I'm liberal or conservative, or whether I agree with the NCAA's position on the legislation. Whether one agrees with them or not, it is plainly understood by all that the NCAA criticized the Indiana legislation because they felt it allowed for discrimination against a minority, specifically gays. There is absolutely no discrimination involved in the NCAA championship game, so it is absurd for Mr. Schlafly to suggest that the media should criticize them for it. User: Conservative, are you dodging my pointing out that the USA Today article you referred to had nothing to do with the championship game, or do you acknowledge your error?--eg 23:57, 6 April 2015 (EDT)
You mean "allowed for discrimination against" the acknowledgement of a secularly-perceived equality of the same-named but differing acts of a majority and a minority not "against a minority [group of individuals]". Just how remote are we going to get from actual discrimination against individuals before you stop calling it discrimination? VargasMilan 00:13, 7 April 2015 (EDT)

Congratulations Jahlil Okafor, Justise Winslow, Tyus Jones, Quinn Cook, Matt Jones, Marshall Plumlee, Amile Jefferson and Grayson Allen, the eight young men who carried Duke's team to victory. VargasMilan 23:49, 6 April 2015 (EDT)

Eg, "plainly understood by all"? Did someone conduct a large scientific poll on this matter? Is this a failed attempt to engage in the bandwagon fallacy and are you bluffing about this alleged overwhelming consensus? If it is "plainly understood by all", then why did Proposition 8 pass and why did the Defense of Marriage act pass? If it is "plainly understood by all", then why do 78 countries have anti-homosexuality laws?
I fail to see why the USA Today article has no relevance to your previous posts on this matter. They are a key player that is relevant to this discussion. I see your response as prideful denialism. Conservative 00:21, 7 April 2015 (EDT)

This still doesn't make sense.

I don't follow sports much, but, as far as I can tell, the NCAA administers a college basketball tournament know as "March Madness". As far as I know, they do not enforce, or demand that the participating colleges or teams enforce, any kind of segregation or bigotry. If they did, they would indeed be guilty of hypocrisy for also opposing Indiana's legislation on the subject. But they would probably also run afoul of a great many laws and policies. (That's just my guess, I'm not a lawyer, coach, or college administrator.)

As far as I can tell, the teams near the end of the tournament, Wisconsin and Duke in particular, were chosen for those spots based on their scores in basketball games earlier in the tournament. The NCAA "promoted" that basketball matchup only insofar as they promoted the entire tournament, allowing teams to move up based on winning earlier games. As far as I know, those games were won fairly, based on skill, not race.

As far as I know, the lopsided racial makeup of those two teams was a concidence, a statistical fluke. As far as I know, athletes are selected for those teams (and all teams) based on their playing ability. For coaches to choose players based on race would probably violate all sorts of laws and policies. There is no evidence that such a thing happened. SamHB 12:43, 8 April 2015 (EDT)

SamHB, conservatives and libertarians are for free association. And various conservatives/libertarians argue that free association is clearly constitutionally protected. For example, a Christian baker should not be forced by the state to bake a cake for a homosexual "wedding". Boy Scouts USA should not be forced by the state to have homosexual scoutmasters. Boy football teams should not be forced by the state to have girls on their teams if they don't want to. Today's liberals on the other hand are often more authoritarian and often trample on individual liberties and on the ability of people to freely associate.
Second, conservatives/libertarians often advocate equality of opportunity whereas liberals frequently advocate equality of results. For example, conservatives would be more apt to say that a man without any disability who was jobless his whole life and on welfare was due to laziness and a small business owner who was prosperous was industrious. On the other hand, using "liberal logic" the top 1% are wealthy and this must due to these people or the economic system oppressing the poor, etc. etc.
So using "liberal logic", the WI team which has less minorities than other teams must be discriminating and things must be equal with other teams (There must be equality/sameness). Now I realize that Wisconsin is whiter on average than most states (this is probably partly due to past immigrants often preferring to live together, For example, German/Scandinavian/British immigrants, etc.) and so they may not have actively discriminated against minorities, nevertheless they do not have equal results and using "liberal logic" which demands equal results and sameness, they are guilty of a misdeed. Using "liberal logic", the state must insure that there are an equal amount of male/female ballet dancers and male/female weight lifters otherwise discrimination/privilege, etc. etc. must be occurring. I believe this is Andy's position. Conservative 16:37, 8 April 2015 (EDT)
Is it Conservapedia's position then that constitutionally protected free association should allow a baker not to bake for a homosexual 'wedding', and for a university team to exclude members of a particular race? That would appear to be a consistent standard. --Mjachimstahl 18:34, 8 April 2015 (EDT)

SamHB, below is an example of a conservative mocking atheists, who tend to belong to the secular left, for their lack of diversity and sameness/equality with the general population and engaging in liberal hypocrisy/Atheist hypocrisy:

"According to the extensive survey from the Pew Research Center on Religion and Public Life, both atheism and agnosticism are subject to a lack of ethnic diversity that would impress any Ku Klux Klan grand dragon.

Just three percent of America’s atheists and agnostics are black. A mere six percent are Hispanic. And only four percent of the nation’s unbelievers are Asian."[28]

See also: Western atheism and race

No doubt part of the lack of diversity is due to evolutionary racism, but part of it may be due to the non-racist activity of white, atheist nerds proselytizing other nerds at Star Trek conventions.[29] There was a documentary on nerds being more white/atheistic than other subcultures which featured a white, atheistic nerd wanting to be friends with some African-Americans who did not want to befriend him. Conservative 17:57, 8 April 2015 (EDT)

I must admit to being confused as well. Are you suggesting that the NCAA should disqualify teams that are mostly segregated? Or that they should shuffle the results in such a way as to ensure that such a matchup does not occur? A bracket system, such as March Madness, is arguably the best way to come up with a champion. The only data points that matter in the equation are raw scores. That is very much a meritocracy. Conservative, I'm not sure what your point is in your post about liberal logic. I've never heard someone suggest that the racial composition of a sports team must be equal or proportional. That would be quite absurd given that spots on sports teams are very often attained via tryouts that focus on skill, particularly at the college level where money is not so much a concern. Could you provide a link where people are asking for the type of equality you're suggesting? I've honestly never heard such an argument. ScottH35 18:42, 8 April 2015 (EDT)
For the most part, I was largely explaining right/left ideologies to SamHB.
Second, it is common for left/liberals, particularly the far left, to advocate excessive/strict equality of results and for the state to get involved to make this happen. In Mao's China they often dressed the same, etc. etc. And the left, particular the far left, has a habit of being relentless in wanting sameness (equality of results) even though they are often hypocritical. The book Animal Farm focuses on the frequent hypocrisy of the left (Some animals are more equal than others).
Lastly, I don't have anything more to say about this matter. Bickering about racial politics doesn't have much appeal to me. At this juncture, I don't think the left is offering the right solutions in terms of racial harmony and they seem to be stirring the pot of racial tension in order to get votes. I tend to agree with the historian Martin Creveld that the state is losing power all over the world as a general trend. I think a lot of Western World governments are going to go though financial problems due to excessive debt. So I think the state's power to engage in excessive meddling in society as far as social/financial matters is going to become less and less as a general trend for awhile. See: The Fate of the State by MARTIN VAN CREVELD. And recently, the political pendulum seems to be swinging to the right in the USA/Europe and Australia. Conservative 21:23, 8 April 2015 (EDT)

Since there has been some false accusations by some gentlemen on the internet that I made up the political ideologies of "equality of opportunity" and "equality of outcome", here is an extensive article by several editors at Wikipedia on equality of outcome: Equality of outcome.

Although I disagree with the article in several places, here is an excerpt from the article about socialists: "They often see greater equality of outcome as a positive long-term goal to be achieved, so that individuals have equal access to the means of production and consumption. Only a small minority of socialist theories advocate complete economic equality of outcome (anarcho-communism is one such school)."[30]

I realize the article is mainly talking about wealth and not about racial issues. At the same time, affirmative action programs often have "quotas" and the USA Today article does question why WI is whiter than other teams.[31] Evidently, they didn't meet their minority "quota" in the eyes of the USA Today reporter. Has the USA Today recently questioned: Why there are so many female ballet dancers compared to men? Is their discrimination in ballet dancer hiring? Why white men are being discriminated against in the Chinese restaurant industry in terms of hiring? I have yet to see a white, male worker in a Chinese restaurant! Nor have I seen any African-Americans/Hispanics working in Chinese restaurants. In addition, in the Caribbean restaurants and soul food restaurants I have eaten at, there are no Asian/white/hispanic workers. I also went into an Italian restaurant and all the workers were of Italian descent! Now that's Italian! And how could I not mention that in the German restaurants I have eaten at there was not a single non-white worker! All their German restaurant workers were white! Were the German restaurants run by Nazis???!!!! Discrimination? Does the government need to step in?

Using leftist logic, clearly the government needs to step in as far as the ballet and the Chinese/Italian/German/Caribbean/soul food restaurant sectors of the economy in terms of their hiring practices and the current situation is intolerable. And liberals need to do a campaign to get more men in the ballet field!! Conservative 17:38, 10 April 2015 (EDT)

Where are these restaurants you eat at? Where I live Italian, Chinese, etc restaurants mostly have Hispanic and white serving staff. And many Hispanic eateries (there are probably more than 1,000 within 30 minutes of my house) have white serving staff. I find it very hard to believe that all of the restaurants you go to are so monocultural.
As for men in ballet, I'd imagine the reasoning is similar to women in STEM fields. They either feel unwelcome or are discouraged from doing so. Men with an interest in ballet are often bullied and treated quite poorly (See: Billy Elliot as an example). Boys are regularly encouraged to engage in more stereotypically masculine activities. There are many fantastic ballerinos, but they are vastly outnumbered by ballerinas.
Equality of outcome may very well be a thing, but I have only seen such complete arguments in fringe movements before. The average liberal doesn't believe that everyone should make the exact same amount of money or that every basketball team much be racially accurate to the national racial stratification. It does nobody any good to engage in reductio ad absurdum. Maybe some time reading actually liberal arguments, rather than imagining them, would help with your assumptions. ScottH35 16:20, 13 April 2015 (EDT)

Liberals are angry

Are there really people so petty as to object to this? Church halls are often used by non religious activities such as scouts, army cadets and jumble sales. They are the center of many small communities. Not only do they protest they do it loud enough to be reported on. Small minded indeed.--GhazS 18:46, 10 April 2015 (EDT)

Many secular leftists are like vampires. They go nuts when they see a cross. :) Conservative 20:39, 10 April 2015 (EDT)

Nobel Prize For Physics In 2011 Falsified; Universe, Dark Energy Not Expanding At Rapid Rate

"But the lamestream media refuse to admit the falsification of a typically liberal Nobel Prize, which has happened more than once. " How fast should they react? The article was published only three days ago! At the moment, there is nothing to admit, just to check... --AugustO 15:18, 12 April 2015 (EDT)

The story is, "new discovery means we now know something we didn't know a few days ago". Big deal - that happens all the time in science. It's like Einstein's theory of gravity being an improvement on Newton's theory. Or lots of other examples. StaceyT 18:24, 12 April 2015 (EDT)
When the liberal Nobel Prize is awarded no one says, "there is nothing to admit, just to check" - it's reported immediately. Why not display a falsification of the theory just as fast as the alleged contribution to science is reported on? And the story says the discovery did falsify a supposed contribution to science, not that it "improved" on it. VargasMilan 18:35, 12 April 2015 (EDT)
So looking at various science news websites, I read: "Dr Milne and co-authors said that there is the possibility that the acceleration of the expansion of the Universe might be lower than previously thought. And: "“We’re proposing that our data suggest there might be less dark energy than textbook knowledge, but we can’t put a number on it,” Dr Milne said. And: "Most importantly, the findings hint at the possibility that the acceleration of the expansion of the universe might not be quite as fast as textbooks say." And: "The authors pointed out that more data have to be collected before scientists can understand the impact on current measures of dark energy." Possibility... Acceleration might be lower... Might be less dark energy... Can't put a number on it... Not quite as fast... Doesn't sound like Hold-The-Front-Page stuff, does it? If you actually take the trouble to find and read some articles about it, they've used some pretty nifty new technology to separate the two populations of Type 1A supernovae. New technology = new observations = new theories. That's science. StaceyT 18:33, 13 April 2015 (EDT)
Can I just preempt User:Conservative at this point and say that if he starts asking me if I'm an atheist because I think that news stories about science are really interesting and that Genesis might just possibly not be 100% literally true, that would be really predictable and boring. StaceyT 18:40, 13 April 2015 (EDT)
I'd suggest letting him speak for himself. I believe that, over the last several months, after being soundly thrashed by a number of people over this practice, Cons has moved beyond accusing people of being atheists whenever he disagrees with something they have written. But I could be wrong. SamHB 23:53, 13 April 2015 (EDT)

I think this is indicative of the dropping standards on the main page. Nowhere, in the linked article or the abstract does the word "falsified" appear. Similarly, the item about liberal anger about a meeting in a church links to an item about one - one - member of a school board who is concerned that some people might not like it. The item about the British NHS - a socialised health czre system that anyone can bypass and use private health insurance - and is nothing like the government brokered private insurance market that is Obamacare, is bizarre, to say the least. If anything, the British Conservative party dream about having an Obamacare type system in the UK. And so on...

Most of the material on main page right seems to come from two sources. First, teapartycrusaders, a site that cuts and pastes - often with very blurry attribution - from other websites, often at the end of a trail of Chinese whispers that leads back to a main stream media source. Second, op eds from small circulation blogs. Often, it seems that whoever posts the item hasn't even read what they are linking to.

It's a sad fact that the internet has become an echo chamber for kooks of all persuasions, where how a thing sounds is more important than how true it is. Where the likes of Pamela Geller and Andrew Breitbart are/were passionately outspoken, the items on main page right - and increasingly and inexplicably on "featured in conservapedia" - are increasingly unsubstantiated rants with no primary sources.

This is the page that greets visitors to Conservapedia. It would be interesting to see if the drop off in quality has brought about a corresponding drop in visitor numbers.

My tuppenceworth. Rafael 18:51, 13 April 2015 (EDT)

The main page news post Obama's election has often been glorious. For example, scandal after scandal being exposed which put a damper on the Obama Administration's leftist authoritarian efforts, the shellacking the Democrats got in the midtermn elections and the secular left is losing more and more of its grip in Europe and Australia.
I do understand though how the main page could be very disheartening to liberals. Conservative 20:03, 13 April 2015 (EDT)
You just don't get it, do you? SamHB 23:53, 13 April 2015 (EDT)
SamHB, 2015 is going to be a glorious year for Christianity and young earth creationism and it is going to be the WORST year in the history of atheism and Darwinism. And beware the Ides of March 2016! Conservative 00:04, 14 April 2015 (EDT)
Totally off topic as usual, but, sure, I'll bite. Glorious year for (extremist fundamentalist) Christianity and YEC? You say that every year, year after year after year. No one believes you. No one has believed you for years. It just makes you look stupid and childish. And your audience—the readers of Conservapedia—are not children.
So, instead of always making predictions about next year, why don't you tell us how last year's prediction turned out. That is, what were the glorious achievements of Young Earth Creationism in 2014?
And I specifically remember your prediction, early this year, that we (people who accept evolution, presumably) should beware the Ides of March 2015. I'm pretty sure I asked you just what you thought was going to happen (though I can't find it just now), and you did not reply. And I didn't notice anything unusual on that date. So, instead of warning us again about what is going to happen on the Ides of March next year, why don't you tell us what interesting evolution-related thing happened 30 days ago? SamHB 00:59, 14 April 2015 (EDT)
I suggest you stop picking fights with Conservative and begin working on behaving like a more creditable scientist. I sincerely doubt that your non-stop clamor is very welcome here. VargasMilan 01:36, 14 April 2015 (EDT)
Right. Sorry. I owe you a long message about relativity, science, personal insults, sycophancy, "mall cop" behavior, etc. etc. etc. I'll get to it; it isn't finished yet. Maybe tomorrow. But Cons's stuff about the Ides of March 2015 distracted me. Sorry. Some things require immediate attention, like endless predictions about glorious predictions for next year. I'll attend to your relativity/science stuff as soon as I can. Meanwhile, why don't you work out an articulate explanation of what you meant by "accounting" in physics. It's got my spider sense tingling. SamHB 02:13, 14 April 2015 (EDT)
It doesn't require a lengthy explanation, just a little humility. VargasMilan 03:19, 14 April 2015 (EDT)

SamHB, I realize that reality is hostile to your errant worldview and goes against the grain of your stubborn pride, nevertheless even the liberal Vancouver Sun mentions how global creationism is having great success in terms of its proliferation in the world (see: Global creationism). Furthermore, global Christianity is proliferating too.

Furthermore, in the Western World evangelical Christianity is seeing growth even in atheistic France/Germany (see: Secular Europe) and if I am not mistaken it is growing in the Godless UK too.[32][33] It may not get all the press that burqa clad, rioting and decapitating Muslims get in Europe, nevertheless French religious scholars recently indicated that evangelical Christianity is the fastest growing religion in France.[34] Even Wikipedia (a wiki founded by an atheist/agnostic) declares, "Evangelical Christian denominations are among the fastest-growing denominations in some Catholic Christian countries, such as Brazil and France."[35]

Furthermore, according to the British scholar Eric Kaufmann, who is an expert in religious/political demographic trends (by the way, he is an agnostic and an evolutionist too), the religious block of evangelical Christianity/Islam/staunch Catholics (who have more kids than nominal Catholics) will turn the tide of secularism in Europe in the 21st century and conservative Christianity/religious fundamentalism will grow (see: Desecularization). And evangelical Christianity and Islam are both opponents of Darwinism/evolutionism.

SamHB, like it or not, evolutionism is going to be crushed like a cheap aluminum can! And every year brings us closer and closer to this happening. Conservative 04:02, 14 April 2015 (EDT)

By the way, SamHB, the Elevatorgate scandal/uproar is symptomatic of the atheist/Darwinist teams losing. Losing team members are often on edge and bickering amongst themselves. Dawkins is sweating bullets because he sees the stormclouds of desecularization already starting to appear in various places in the UK/Europe (and in the world as a whole it is already apparent) and the rapid growth of global creationism. An atheist even indicated the matter of Dawkins' fear of desecularization and the global resurgence of religion/fundamentalism in The Guardian.[36]
Evolutionists are also bickering amongst themselves more and this will intensify due to the bankruptcy of evolutionism.[37][38][39]
In the USA the future is harder to predict as far as its religious landscape.
On the one hand, millenials are less religious.
On the flip side of the coin you have these factors: hispanic evangelicalism rising, Creation Ministries International is expanding into the USA, the Christian apologetics community is belatedly becoming more aggressive in its outreach (Ratio Christi and Lee Strobel is launching a new initiative and partnering with other Christians)
In addition, as far as the religious side of the coin, the United States economic situation looks problematic which could affect the religious landscape due to stressful condition causing people to turn to God/religion more which often happens (Atheism/irreligion often does poorly in economic downturns while pentecostalism/holiness/fundamentalism often grows and sometimes quite dramatically[40] ). For example, here are some of the negative economic indicators: 17 trillion federal government deficit, "too big to fail" banks gaining market share via risky endeavors, high young people unemployment and low productivity in terms of job skills, etc. etc. The USA may see economic depression like conditions for about 15-20 years according to various economists in the Austrian School of Economics which historically has been more adept at predicting economic downturns. [41][42]
So you could have another Jesus Movement/revival happen in the USA and since the USA economy is so large and since modern national/regional economies often are very interdependent as far as other national/regional economies, it could easily affect the entire global economic system in a big way and also affect the global religious landscape (see: Atheism vs. Christian revival, Christian apologetics and creationism). Conservative 07:33, 14 April 2015 (EDT)

And the connection with Dark Energy is...?? StaceyT 10:41, 14 April 2015 (EDT)

Since the "existence" of "dark energy" is pseudoscience and not real science [43][44], searching for "dark matter" is similar to snipe hunting. Missing links, the "gay gene", and dark matter - all mythical legends of liberal ideology which will never be found because they do not exist and never have existed. Conservative 11:17, 14 April 2015 (EDT)

Why do you say Dark Energy and Dark Matter are pseudoscience? StaceyT 12:09, 14 April 2015 (EDT)

Dark matter for one must exist, spiral galaxies do not have enough visible or detectable matter to be held together at the speed they are rotating without it existing. The gravitational energy from the visible matter alone would mean they would scatter of into space and not hold coherent form. What dark matter is is unknown but there has to be something there or all the rules of gravity and physics must be false.--GhazS 12:15, 14 April 2015 (EDT)
Dark matter must exist or you wish it existed and are engaging in wishful thinking? See: Is Dark Matter everywhere in the cosmos? A product of the Dark Side Conservative 17:12, 14 April 2015 (EDT)
Stacey, please see: Has Dark Matter really been proven? and Dark matter crisis for the big bang and Is Dark Matter everywhere in the cosmos? A product of the Dark Side.
In addition, please see: Age of the universe and earth
I hope you find these resources helpful. Conservative 17:18, 14 April 2015 (EDT)

Thanks but IMO they're not very helpful. Dr Hartnett doesn't answer the main reasons (observations) why almost every other physicist thinks there's Dark Matter and Dark Energy (two different things). He puts up a whole lot of straw man arguments, arguing against other reasons for DM & DE but he doesn't try to falsify the main evidence. As for his Israeli pal's 5-dimensional thing: well, I guess if he can make a prediction that isn't made by General Relativity, scientists can try to falsify it. And that stuff about the universe being 6000 years old - it's pretty nutty. Anyway, you still haven't said why DM and DE are "pseudoscience". Those theories came about by the normal route of Existing theory > New observations > Old theory doesn't quite fit new observations > New theory which fits better > More observations > and repeat (and repeat and repeat). That's science! StaceyT 20:19, 14 April 2015 (EDT)

Not if the interpretations of the observations are specially made to retain as much of the content of the pseudoscientific premises as possible. VargasMilan 20:41, 14 April 2015 (EDT)

"U.S Supreme Justice Antonin Scalia"

There's a key word missing here. IsabellW 23:10, 13 April 2015 (EDT)

Thank you. I appended the news item entry. Conservative 04:23, 14 April 2015 (EDT)
What changed? I was referring to the omission of "Court" in the headline. IsabellW 09:59, 14 April 2015 (EDT)
Thanks again. I just made your suggested change. As far as what changed, the previous changes were minor changes and the history of edits can be found HERE unless they were oversighted in which case you will not be able to see them (Oversight is "a form of enhanced deletion which, unlike normal deletion, expunges information from the" edit history).[45] Conservative 11:01, 14 April 2015 (EDT)

Conservative: Just asking - why did you delete (and oversight) IsabellW's question about why you do so much oversighting? I saw it earlier today. Are you unhappy about people asking you questions about your own activities on this website? StaceyT 20:24, 14 April 2015 (EDT)

I, too, have a question Stacey. Why do you falsely portray yourself as a 15-year-old girl on your user page? Is it to enable you to troll with impunity? VargasMilan 20:29, 14 April 2015 (EDT)
Look at the dates, VargasMilan. Little girls grow up into big girls. StaceyT 10:53, 15 April 2015 (EDT)
Yet you'd have had everyone believe otherwise until I pointed it out. VargasMilan 11:27, 15 April 2015 (EDT)
No, I assumed anyone who was interested enough would do a basic check by looking at the page history. StaceyT 11:45, 15 April 2015 (EDT)
For the record, I saw a question about oversighting here that was removed, but not made IsabellW, but by a user who had made many talk page contributions but zero article contributions. VargasMilan 21:04, 14 April 2015 (EDT)
VargasMilan, I saw "Stacey"'s recent edits. They focus largely on sports, war/politics and arguing on talk pages. :) Conservative 21:45, 14 April 2015 (EDT)
I'm sooooo sorry. I'll do Lipstick next, then How to ice a cup-cake. StaceyT 10:50, 15 April 2015 (EDT)
This is silly...Stacey asks a question about oversighting we have all asked in our minds at some time. (Well, maybe not all of us; but those of us who joined CP for reasons to do with the Trustworthy Encyclopedia and wonder why such "luminaries" as Cons have turned much of it into a blog supporting their own ideologies. Stacey; never try and honour the war dead - Cons will crap all over it with an anti Darwinism post.)
VG. Why did you come into this fray. It had nothing to do with you. Cons doesn't need your support. He's big enough and smelly enough to fight his own battles.)
So ... Cons....why do you oversight so much? AlanE 00:09, 16 April 2015 (EDT)

That says it all. You think the Main Page talk page is an arena for combat and that it's Conservative's job to answer every half-baked accusation leveled at him however meritless. VargasMilan 07:04, 16 April 2015 (EDT)

Yes, this (main talk) page is the site of a huge amount of argument, debate, and rancor. You can't possibly be unaware of that, since you participate in it as much as anyone. Cons often does battle with people such as myself, AugustO, EJamesW, AlanE, and others that I can't think of just now. Like a simultaneous chess exhibition, he takes on all comers. And he's very good at it, as are we all. We've known each other for years. Of course this isn't just a game; we are trying to help Cons improve his writing skill, so that he can communicate more effectively and we can all make Conservapedia a better place.
It is not Cons's job to answer every accusation, half-baked or otherwise, that is leveled at him, and he knows this. In fact, he rarely replies on topic to anything. Cons does not need you to defend or protect him. He can (and does) take care of himself. SamHB 21:41, 18 April 2015 (EDT)
VargasMilan, another atheism related article will be posted to Conservapedia soon. Thanks again for your footnoting improvements to the main CP atheism article. Conservative 08:01, 16 April 2015 (EDT)
AlanE, it is largely due to me not being a fan of the preview button. :) Conservative 16:55, 16 April 2015 (EDT)
Well, that says why you oversight your own contributions but not why you oversight other people's. StaceyT 13:03, 17 April 2015 (EDT)

re: other oversighting, the main portion of it in the past was due to socially challenged atheists/liberals (see: Atheism and social/interpersonal intelligence).

Although there are cordial atheists such as John Gray, Michael Nugent and others, post New Atheism the percentage of socially challenged anti-theists has increased although the New Atheism movement is petering out post Elevatorgate so that is less of an issue. Also, Eric Kaufmann wrote in 2010: "Worldwide, the march of religion can probably only be reversed by a renewed, self-aware secularism. Today, it appears exhausted and lacking in confidence... Secularism's greatest triumphs owe less to science than to popular social movements like nationalism, socialism and 1960s anarchist-liberalism. Ironically, secularism's demographic deficit means that it will probably only succeed in the twenty-first century if it can create a secular form of 'religious' enthusiasm."[46]

The morale of socially challenged militant atheists seems lower lately so they have been less active at Conservapedia (see also: Atheist movement). There are other reasons as well but for the sake of brevity that is all I have to say on the matter. Conservative 13:34, 17 April 2015 (EDT)

The reason they are inactive on Conservapedia is that they cannot get a word in before Conservative or Karajou brings down the banhammer. Now prove my point, ban me and oversite this edit before anyone else can see.--AaronR 14:02, 17 April 2015 (EDT)
Conservative, nothing you say has anything to do with my question: why do you frequently oversight other people's contributions? I'm listening... StaceyT 15:49, 17 April 2015 (EDT)
AaronR, if a person is rude/uses profanity/trollish and/or will not follow a few simple/reasonable rules, then there are consequences.
I realize that rebellious and coarse atheists often are not willing to do this (see: Atheism and profanity and Atheist bullying and Atheism and social/interpersonal intelligence and Atheist population and immorality and Atheism and poor relationships with parents and Causes of atheism), nevertheless we will not lower our standards. Conservative 18:21, 17 April 2015 (EDT)

Thank God for the American press (USA Today in particular) for exposing the behavior of Britt McHenry

Britt McHenry has been suspended by ESPN for the recent "parking lot attendant" incident. This was reported by USA Today, about as mainstream an American news organization as there is. It is not necessary to go to Britain (Daily Mail) to find coverage of this. Also, the Daily Mail article doesn't seem to say anything about a double standard in the American press, just the double standard of Britt McHenry. SamHB 21:41, 18 April 2015 (EDT)

I think the suspension was too brief and not substantial enough. Also, the American press is usually not critical enough of one of its own.--Andy Schlafly 22:18, 20 April 2015 (EDT)

Tebow is entering NFL again! And it was predicted!

Tebow is entering NFL again. Just like it was predicted!

And with his Protestant work ethic, which he no doubt continued to use to improve his Quarterback skills, no doubt he will be even better this time around! Conservative 11:41, 20 April 2015 (EDT)

Tebow: Even better than before!

"What amazes me is this young man, with no job prospects, has prepared just as hard as he would if he were the No. 1 quarterback for an NFL team. He's busted his butt. He spins the ball better than he did, and he's much more accurate than he was. I think he's ready." - Quarterback Guru Tom House [47] Conservative 12:19, 20 April 2015 (EDT)

Israel's daily terrorism

You lost me on that one. I find their current and past leaders to be of exceptional character. Plus, most of us know a different leader will do nothing to change the minds of Arabs and Muslims.--Jpatt 22:04, 20 April 2015 (EDT)

Great points. But although I didn't write the headline and would not have posted it, I'm reluctant to change or remove it. The headline is thought-provoking.--Andy Schlafly 22:15, 20 April 2015 (EDT)
Between the Arab dictatorships, beheadings, honor killings/mistreatment of women, Muslim terrorism. frequent warlike behavior of Muslims (see below) and Muslim slaughter of Middle East and African Christians, it is certainly fair to question this headline. Conservative 16:11, 24 April 2015 (EDT)

Islam and warlike behavior

In his book The Irrational Atheist, Vox Day wrote:

“It’s also interesting to note that more than half of these religious wars, sixty-six in all, were waged by Islamic nations, which is rather more than might be statistically expected considering that the first war in which Islam was involved took place almost three millennia after the first war chronicled in the Encyclopedia, Akkad’s conquest of Sumer in 2325 B . C .

In light of this evidence, the fact that a specific religion is currently sparking a great deal of conflict around the globe cannot reasonably be used to indict all religious faith, especially when one considers that removing that single religion from the equation means that all of the other religious faiths combined only account for 3.35 percent of humanity’s wars. See: Irreligion/religion and war/peace Conservative 16:14, 24 April 2015 (EDT)

Michelle Obama

I'm not sure where in the linked article or associated video that Mrs Obama freezes. Could you possibly point it out to me please? Davidspencer 14:50, 26 April 2015 (EDT)

Thank you. I will double check my links from now on. HERE is the link to the right news story. Conservative 15:18, 26 April 2015 (EDT)
TY users:conservative. I see what was meant now. Davidspencer 16:33, 26 April 2015 (EDT)

Bruce Jenner

Wall-to-wall coverage really ticked me off that I have to explain this to my 12-year-old. America celebrates mentally ill people. --Jpatt 22:59, 26 April 2015 (EDT)

I agree with you. (See? I'm not always hostile to the admins.) The internet news sites have been absolutely obsessed with this one person, often posting several articles at a time on their front page. There are thousands (? I don't have any idea what the actual number is) of transgendered people in this country. Why be obsessed with this one person? Of course the connection with the Kardashians must have something to do with it. That makes it Earth-shatteringly important, I'm sure. No, I don't know or care what the Kardashian connection is. SamHB 00:24, 27 April 2015 (EDT)
But how many of them are "conservative Republicans? PeterKa 01:12, 27 April 2015 (EDT)
You mean how many are Conservatives or how many are Republicans? In Jenner's instance, Christian Constitutional Republican.--Jpatt 02:05, 27 April 2015 (EDT)

Celebrity gossip of the lowest kind, covered to the point of absurdity in the mainstream media. Why is it on the front page of Conservapedia? Rafael 09:43, 27 April 2015 (EDT)

Rafael, gossip is idle talk and/or rumor.
As far as rumor, you didn't point out any factual errors/speculation in the articles.
Second, as you might be aware, Jenner is not merely a celebrity, he is a cultural icon as he is an American who won the decathlon in the Olympics and subsequently was featured on a Wheaties box. And gossip is not social/cultural commentary which comments on contemporary culture and/or critiques liberalism/liberals.
I hope that clarified things for you. :) Conservative 11:03, 27 April 2015 (EDT)
You can reframe and reword what I wrote as much as you like. I haven't pointed out any factual errors or speculation in the articles because, as a conservative, I find it distasteful to discuss the Kardashians etc and shameful to discuss someone else's sexuality in public. As JPatt pointed out above, do we really want to discuss this with our kids?
BTW, you haven't explained why this "story" - which is saturating the lower end of the mass media - is something the "MSM isn't fully covering". If anything, the MSM are squeezing every last, festering drop out of it. Rafael 12:33, 27 April 2015 (EDT)
Rafael, you mentioned that you are a conservative. Is homosexuality a sin? And since committing sins requires volition, is homosexuality a choice?
Second, can conservatives ethically discuss the topic of sexuality? If so, can they mention groups/persons when doing so? I know the Bible mentions the sexual misbehavior of Lot, the Sodomites, David and the Corinthian Church.
Third, as you know, the main page news has traditionally been a mixture of widely covered news and lesser covered news. And there has been little to no complaints in the past about CP covering widely covered items such as presidential elections, natural disasters, riots, unemployment, etc. For example, when the U.S. Supreme Court renders its decisions concerning to matter of homosexuality soon, I fully expect the owner of CP to cover this matter on the main page. Conservative 13:25, 27 April 2015 (EDT)
Featured on Conservapedia: "Bruce Jenner: Olympian disgraces himself Video: Watch the pantywaist cry!" which directs us to a tertiary source entitled 'Bruce Jenner ex Linda Thompson details how marriage crumbled from family secret: ‘Daddy has boobs!’ If I want tabloid garbage gossip, I know where to find it. I don't expect to find it on Conservapedia. Rafael 15:04, 27 April 2015 (EDT)

Rafael, I notice you did not answer my questions such as the ones about homosexuality. Just as I suspected. Another faux conservative! Go back to your faux conservatism which caused your country to be overrun by atheists, unemployed rioting Muslims, socialized medicine, Darwinism and rabid gun control!

In the meantime, we will continue to feel free to mock liberal freak shows! A sex change in your 60s. Brilliant! Liberalism is so lame!

By the way, if it wasn't for the American creationist Dwight D. Eisenhower and others like him, you might be speaking German now![48] Conservative 19:36, 27 April 2015 (EDT)

Among all your ad hominems, no true Scotsman, genetic and historica1 fallacies, there's a real irony.
Its 2015.  : It's coming up to the 70th anniversary of VE day. I've asked before why Conservapedia hasn't been celebrating the achievements and sacrifice of that greatest generation. Now is a good time to take stock and evaluate how the world has come along since. The MSM isn't doing it.

The 150th anniversary of the end of your Civil War. A good time to take stock and evaluate how far you've come, particularly given your racial tensions today. The MSM isn't doing it.

Its the 100th anniversary of the Gallipoli campaign, the beginning of the end of the Ottoman Empire and the beginning of clumsy intervention after clumsy intervention in the Middle East. A good time to take stock and evaluate. The MSM isn't doing it.
It's coming up the 70th anniversary of Winston Churchill's rejection by the British electorate, a socialist landslide that not only brought about our NHS but, through Ernest Bevin's Atlantic facing foreign policy, NATO and the final form of the Marshall plan. A good time to take stock and see what lessons we can learn from the rise and fall of the post war consensus. The MSM isn't doing it.
We're less than two weeks away from the British general election, one that might see David Cameron's Conservatives replaced by Red Ed Miliband's liberal leftists, one that will significantly influence the future of the EU. Your MSM isn't covering it.
Is any of this on Conservapedia's front page?
No, but we have "Daddy's got boobs".
When the Libyan revolution began, I was given a draft report from an analyst with Chatham House connections for circulation to whoever wanted it. I offered it here and was told "we don't indulge in gossip". Conservapedia has come a long way since then.
Feel fee to indulge in lastwordism, but the front page will bear silent testimony to the problems you don't want to talk about. Rafael 09:55, 28 April 2015 (EDT)
The family is a fundamental building block of society. When Jenner, the media and others want to promote transgenderism and celebrate a married man choosing to adopt that lifestyle, there is going to be some backlash. Expect it.
At the present time, in general, European politics does not excite me. Much of Europe is unmotivated to make positive changes and seem resistant to change. Yet, I do have some admiration some of the things the Swiss are doing and Switzerland has one of the highest rates of creationism in Europe.[49][50]
Lastly, it doesn't look likely there will be any dramatic changes due to this UK PM election.[51] (see video in article). Conservative 12:09, 28 April 2015 (EDT)

Supreme Court

There isn't any trust left in the high court doing what is right. My prediction is that gays win 5-4 with Anthony Kennedy the final nail in the coffin.--Jpatt 14:34, 27 April 2015 (EDT)

A pleasant surprise? As The Supreme Court Takes Up Gay Marriage, This Justice Said One Word That Could Signal The Vote.[52] Conservative 10:03, 29 April 2015 (EDT)

Nepalese earthquake

Please can someone who has access to MPR say something about the terrible earthquake in Nepal which killed thousands of people and left hundreds of thousands (millions?) of people homeless. And please encourage Christians to give very generously to disaster relief. StaceyT 19:18, 29 April 2015 (EDT)

Truly devasting and horrific. I am weary of fundraising efforts for the people who need it most are pawns. Look at what Clinton did with Haiti relief [53] or Superstorm Sandy [54] It has almost become a "don't let a crisis go to waste" scheme.

I'm not against donations, I just don't know who to trust for real relief today, not 5 years from now.

Also, we have a human caused disaster that nobody seeks to raise funds for. Genocide in Syria and Iraq. Innocent Christians shot, beheaded, raped, and turned into slaves. Kurds desperate for weapons. More than 10,000 have died.--Jpatt 08:01, 30 April 2015 (EDT)

JPatt, I'm calling you out on this. You've got editing rights to MPR, haven't you? Go post an appeal for Nepal there. It took me 5 seconds to find this page. These are big charities with the capacity to work in the very tough terrain of Nepal. No more excuses! Think Good Samaritan! (Oh, and it took me 5 more seconds to find websites for big, trustworthy charities working to help refugees in/from Syria . No more excuses about that one either, please.) StaceyT 17:00, 30 April 2015 (EDT)
Thanks to the person who did the post on MPR. Here are two more Christian charities who have been doing long-term work in Nepal. Please give generously to earthquake relief in Nepal - one of the worlds poorest, most inaccessible yet densely populated countries. International Nepal Fellowship. United Mission to Nepal. StaceyT 18:23, 30 April 2015 (EDT)
StaceyT, how were are atheists doing in supporting charitable donations to Nepal? Is there a single atheist hospital in the entire world?--Andy Schlafly 21:22, 30 April 2015 (EDT)
Here in the UK where I live, there's a thing called the Disaster Emergency Committee. It includes big charities with resources to do major relief work in disaster areas. Christian Aid and Cafod are members but so are non-religious charities (Oxfam, Save the Children). Loads of Brits give money to it, not just Christians. OK? No more excuses for not getting your wallet out for Nepal please. StaceyT 10:06, 1 May 2015 (EDT)

StacyT, not OK. Just because a charity is not explicitly religious that does not necessarily make it an atheist charity (for example, Save the Children is not a atheist charity and a former Pope endorsed the charity[55]). In the United States, atheists/agnostics are substantially less charitable than religious people even when church giving is not counted (See: Atheism and uncharitableness). Conservative 11:22, 1 May 2015 (EDT)

Save the Children, what a fantastic organization. Over 90 cents of every dollar goes to helping those in need. Truly, a stand out organization worthy of donations.
I do implore you, StacyT, to spend more than 5 seconds searching for charities. In my decision, I weighed the good and the bad. How much is the CEO from Save The Children donating to Nepal? I don't know but her salary in 2013 was over $400,000. In the urgency of the situation, donations are requested. 10% of the money you donate for Nepal will go to future emergencies. Why not make 100% of donations today go toward Nepal relief efforts? Do they not need all the help they can get?
In conclusion, I am dismayed at the urgency for Nepal and not Iraq/Syria. The media is good at highlighting and ignoring tragedy. BTW, I thought it was offensive to say Brits and not English. --Jpatt 11:41, 1 May 2015 (EDT)
?????!!!!! Scottish? Welsh? StaceyT 17:07, 1 May 2015 (EDT)
I'm not sure why you would find it offensive Jpatt? I am guessing that from what Stacey writes she resides here in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as do I. England is only one constituent part of that United Kingdom and many of us use the colloquial term Brit to refer to ourselves. Davidspencer 18:45, 1 May 2015 (EDT)
I don't find it offensive. When I have communicated with other British, they tell me it is offensive. So I was surprised that somebody from Britain would use the word Brit. No big deal. Are you a Scottish Brit, Northern Irish Brit or Welsh Brit?--Jpatt 18:51, 1 May 2015 (EDT)
Ahh, there's a question. I was born in England, Derbyshire to be precise, to Scottish parents one of whom was actually born in Argentina (his parents were Scottish though). My mothers father, was born in Wales to a Belfast Irish father and Scottish mother but he grew up and lived in Scotland and my mothers mother (it gets complicated I'm afraid) was born in Scotland to Scottish/Dutch parents. So if I go back 3 generations I am English\Scottish\Welsh\Irish\Dutch - with a dash of Argentinian claimed because that's where my father was born. So it's easier for me just to say I'm British and that is what it says on my passport as well :-) Davidspencer 02:21, 2 May 2015 (EDT)

JPatt, setting aside the issue of the impactfulness of their work compared to other charities (I don't know much about the Save the Children organization), I think 90% of the money raised going to the charitable work is a good percentage when you consider the expense of fundraising (mailings, expenses for charitable events, online fundraising expenses, grant writers, etc.) and administrative expenses (managers, secretaries, office space, etc.). That is why they have a 4/4 star rating with a leading charity evaluation organization.[56].

As far as the CEO pay issue, I know that American CEOs get paid at a rate of 354 times the average worker whereas in Japan it is 67 times what an average worker earns (perhaps American companies are more performance pay oriented via stock options plus Japanese culture is more egalitarian).[57] And European CEOs get paid somewhere between the USA vs. Japan pay scales depending on how egalitarian/socialist the societies are (for example, France is more socialistic than Germany). [58] In addition, if memory serves and I think it does, I recall reading that non-profits typically pay 75% of what a for-profit company will pay for the same comparable job. So while a non-profit organization in the Western World may get lucky and find a high caliber individual who is willing to work very cheaply, I would think this would be a difficult thing to pull off.

Of course, the impact of the work they do is very important too and that should be a consideration when donating to a charity. For example, the old adage about teaching a man to fish vs. giving him a fish. Conservative 12:27, 1 May 2015 (EDT)

JPatt, do you realise ?ou're just like the priest or levite who walked past on the other side, leaving the serious work to the good Samaritan? I'm watching BBC News right now. They're saying: "Nepal is one of the most difficult places on Earth to organise a relief operation" - "Every house here has been destroyed" - "Everyone in a village of 400 hundred people is living under tarpaulins" - "This is a calamity of enormous proportions". Why do you think it's so important to find excuses not to make a donation to a large, competent charity? StaceyT 17:15, 1 May 2015 (EDT)
Stop with the superiority complex. Give generously and then hit the pubs makes you feel good? Get on a plane and go help the people in Nepal. Anything less is hypocritical. I am not knocking donations or providing excuses, it is important. I suggest be careful who to send money with the hope that it is used wisely now. Caring because it is on the news 24/7 is an excuse by you not to care about Iraq/Syrian people. --Jpatt 18:20, 1 May 2015 (EDT)
(1) I didn't say anything about pubs. (2) An individual going to Nepal would be daft because they'd just get in the way of people who know what they're doing. (3) There are plenty of good charities who will use donations responsibly. (4) I care about it because 20 million people are in a disastrous situation. (5) I didn't say I didn't care about Iraq & Syria. (6) No more excuses! StaceyT 16:25, 2 May 2015 (EDT)

StaceyT, if you really care about this issue as much as you say you do, why don't you stop wrangling on this talk page and launch the blog, promote it and have it take donations for an appropriate charity. Right now, it seems like you are more interested in trolling. Conservative 17:52, 2 May 2015 (EDT)


Oh please Cons!! If you and JPatt (good Christians both I am told) want to gang up on an 18 year old British lady for having a possibly well founded view that CP may be putting the importance of one human catastrophe over another' that's one thing. But if you, Cons, want to annihilate 1500 years of the English language whilst doing it, then I am up in arms. Impactfulness is not a word, Cons. It never has been a word. I mourn that because of illiterately ignorant Americans who cannot remember the difference between "effect" and "affect" it may become a word. I really do mourn, Cons, because English is my language, Cons and is very important to me. Now; I am not as articulate as I was a year or two back, but I still feel the need to defend this beautiful language of mine as well as I can from the barbarians like you.

And I feel I must say a word in defence of Stacey. She made made 5 points in her last edit that were completely and utterly ignored. Why?
AlanE 00:24, 3 May 2015 (EDT)
AlanE, a few points:
According to the websites Wiktionary,,,,,, and, impactfulness is a word.[59][60][61][62][63][64][65] In addition, the word impactfulness is used in the academic journal Academy of Marketing Science and is cited by[66] Furthermore, Google scholar cites many instances of the word impactfulness being used as can be seen HERE.
Did you do your due diligence before making your complaint? Is English an ever changing language? The reason I ask is that I wish you to consider that the possibility that the impactfulness of your criticism was not as strong as you may have wished! Also, as a young earth creationist, I do find it rather humorous that a Darwinist such as yourself didn't consider the fact that the English language evolves over time! :) Of course, it does so through intelligent agents and it is not a random process!
By the way, have you ever heard of the style over substance logical fallacy?
Next, see VargusMilan and my comments above re: why we believe "StaceyT" is not a female, but instead is male troll (see topic areas that "StaceyT" has edited).
Lastly, I made the comments that I wished to make about "Stacey's" edits, I will let JPatt continue his talk page discussion with "Stacey" if he wishes. Conservative 17:29, 3 May 2015 (EDT)
"we believe "StaceyT" is not a female, but instead is male" - I think that's because I'm interested in politics. I give you Maggie Thatcher, Indira Gandhi, Golda Meir, Dilma Rousseff, Angela Merkell, Hilary Clinton, Nicola Sturgeon......... Oh sorry, I forgot you think girlies should stay in the kitchen and not have minds of their own. StaceyT 17:31, 3 May 2015 (EDT)
Like a true secular leftist, "StaceyT" uses the fallacy of exclusion/strawman fallacies. There must be some reason you left out mentioning your warfare edit(s). I think its time you cease butting heads with other editors and start editing some articles on womanly topics! :) Conservative 17:40, 3 May 2015 (EDT)
Congratulations, StaceyT! You have now been the victim of one of Cons's ad hominem attacks. That is a rite of passage around here. You are now a full-fledged member of the Conservapedia community. Though, while he accused you of being an evolutionist (I hope you are) with the comment "Darwinist such as yourself", he didn't accuse you of being an atheist. I guess that will come later.
If you are looking for ladylike topics about which to write, you might want to consider Chuck Norris's "svelteness", and "thin Indian Christian lady dancers".
SamHB 23:16, 3 May 2015 (EDT)
Of course it would be in a journal to do with Marketing Science (an oxymoron if ever there was one.) The marketing game has done more to degrade the English language than anything else. I'll grant you the word exists but those who use it have no respect for the beauty of our tongue - for my tongue at least and not for the tongue spoken in this house. I was offered a job in an advertising firm as a young man. I knocked it back because it may have required me to use terms like free gift. I treasure the language and try and stay away from buzzwords and other cliches unless using them as tools in humour or for dramatic effect (or should that be dramatic impact?)
You can find anything and everything under the sun in Google, but it doesn't make it right.
Cheers old bean. AlanE 18:22, 3 May 2015 (EDT)
Cons, from my recent observations, it's clear that StaceyT is 10 times the man you will ever be. Among other things, she does not retreat to her "intellectual bunny hole", complete with pictures of cute bunny rabbits and chickens, when challenged.
But I do want to congratulate you on stopping the practice of beginning a sentence with "Plus". SamHB 18:59, 3 May 2015 (EDT)
I too shudder at "impactfulness," and I am very much an American. It's just a misspelling of "impact." I cannot stay silent on this topic, I fear. Please note that all the citations that User:Conservative gives are verbatim clones of the first one, from wiktionary. I own a dozen print dictionaries and none include the word. It seems particularly odd to accept the authority of a wikimedia project over all established lexicographical standards at Conservapedia. Please, "impact" will have much greater impact than "impactfulness." MelH 21:30, 3 May 2015 (EDT)
Cons, I somewhat apologize for the tone of my comment above, but you did have it coming. Now, about all your research of word lists on the internet, in an attempt to make "impactfulness" seem legitimate: It should come as no surprise that, on an interconnected planet of 6 billion or so people, you can find something to support any point you wish to make. In fact, you are obviously an expert in this. Scouring the dregs of the internet does not impress us. Citing high-quality sites would have much greater "impactitude". (Sorry.) So, instead of spending your time scouring the internet for inane things to quote (something which you do with great intensity, as a check of you contributions will show), why don't you devote some effort to improving your mind? In particular, how about improving your knowledge of statistical analysis? On 10 December 2011, you said (in the "cute bunny rabbits" page I cited above) that "in the next 2-5 years, I am thinking of enhancing my knowledge of statistics." How's that going? SamHB 23:16, 3 May 2015 (EDT)

ALanE, Google Scholar enables one to search a large body of scholarly online materials in a wide variety of fields (academic journals, etc.). Google scholar cites 286 instances of the word impactfulness being used in scholarly publications as can be seen HERE.

Your dismissal of scholars in a variety of fields using the word impactfulness demonstrates that you are not only a petty and careless person who wrongly accused another in an ostentatious manner, but you are also a vain person who tried to minimize his error in the eyes of others.

My suggestion: Grow up and man up to your errors when you make them even when it is embarrassing to do so.

I suspect liberals hate the word impactfulness due to the fact that liberal ideology produces little to nothing in terms of beneficial results!!!!

By the way, have you taken the Word Dynamo test in order to test the breadth of your vocabulary? If so, were you able to achieve a score of 50,026? If not, perhaps you need some vocabulary tutoring from an editor who uses the User: Conservative account who was able to achieve that score on the test. Create twenty 1,500 word articles for the Conservapedia Atheism Project and I will consider giving you the vocabulary tutoring that you evidently need after so thoroughly embarrassing yourself!!! :) Conservative 23:32, 3 May 2015 (EDT)

Oh, Cons, you are so charmingly entertaining! Vox Day? Vox Day? VOX DAY? You are criticizing Alan's language skills? With some silly vocabulary test from Vox Day? And making claims about your score on it? And continuing with the "multiple personality" nonsense that I'm sure you know that no one believes?
Your next project for improving your rhetorical skills might be to try to move away from the constant ad hominem attacks that you make. You frequently write things along the lines of "The fact that you said ABC shows that you are an XYZ." You did this just above, with the "petty and careless person" and "vain person" comments. While this characteristic is charming in its own peculiar way, you might want to move on. And perhaps study mathematics. SamHB 01:42, 4 May 2015 (EDT)
While I was struggling with the following, Sam was elucidating the above....
The preceding sentence (by AlanE) initially had a typo "while I wa struggling....". Attempts to fix it led to an amazingly childish, malicious, vindictive, and destructive series of actions by VargasMilan. All persons please note that the intended word was "was", not "wa". Draw your own conclusions about AlanE and VargasMilan, and move on. SamHB 16:29, 5 May 2015 (EDT)
And you most definitely never exaggerate to further your own selfish interests. Yeah, it was a real trainwreck, genius. VargasMilan 22:51, 5 May 2015 (EDT)
Since I'm not convinced that is an actual sentence yet, I will dismiss it with the comment that you are free to struggle with your "wa" but others may not share your interest.
But I am convinced that Sam is losing his sight. He is constantly repeating words he evidently didn't see correctly, becoming louder and louder still until he attracts the attention of the whole website with his unruly clamor. I would suggest he use a magnifying glass next time rather than raise a ruckus due to his failure to come to terms with the lack of convenient transmission of his senses, a failure obviously a result of his doddering state and a further proof of it. VargasMilan 03:25, 4 May 2015 (EDT)

You do go on don't you....

but first to Sam.....impactuality may be a better word. And if one misses, is it disimpactuality or unimpactuality? Or, getting back to your suggestion, misimpactitude, the study of which would be misimpactiology. In your field, misimpactiography may have some meaning. Or maybe not.
Now. Cons. My dislike of impactfulness has nothing to do with anything other than my love, appreciation and knowledge of the language I was born into and which owes much of its richness to a certain St. Dunstan whom you refuse to acknowledge because he was not of your Protestant cast. ( three 10th century Protestants.) . That you have to bring Voxday into the mix appals me for it indicates a triumph of ideology over language. And I find success at Scrabble tends to indicate a certain proclivity in the use of words more than the rantings of a right wing twit. AlanE 02:01, 4 May 2015 (EDT)
What a coincidence! I was just playing Scrabble with some friends, and I put up "impact" across the top row, on a triple word score. Then another player extended that to "impactual", and I extended it to "disimpactuality", placing letters at both ends. And I got on two triple word scores simultaneously! SamHB 02:28, 4 May 2015 (EDT)
I am not sure I would have allowed that...MATE. Depends on what my score was at the time I suppose. AlanE 02:46, 4 May 2015 (EDT)

AlanE, some additional information on the Word Dynamo test which was created by Word Dynamo test. So AlanE, what is your score on the test? Unless of course you are afraid to take the test. :)

By the way, don't think I didn't notice that you once again dodged my Google Scholar evidence. I did. Why are leftists so afraid to tackle sound evidence/arguments? Foolish pride? Lack of machismo? Both? :)Conservative 03:01, 4 May 2015 (EDT)

I'm sure your skill at Scrabble parties partly makes up for your unpopularity with your nursing home compatriots due to the above-displayed symptoms of loudness from impending senile dementia. VargasMilan 03:25, 4 May 2015 (EDT)
VM, I don't know whether you are refering to me or to Sam, but either way, mate, you are Not A Christian! AlanE 03:58, 4 May 2015 (EDT)
I am very solicitous for Sam's mental well-being and believe he should stop editing Conservapedia immediately, for his mental health's sake. VargasMilan 04:10, 4 May 2015 (EDT)
VM, your style of humor falls flat, at least in my opinion. Perhaps it's because your style of insanity is focused on just one topic—a singleminded obsession with my health and well-being. Cons, on the other hand, can express insanity on several different levels and several different topics in a single sentence. His writing is truly a delight to read.
You might do well by picking a topic about which you like to write, and then doing that. SamHB 21:21, 4 May 2015 (EDT)
Sam's response in a nutshell: "You're the crazy ones!". Congratulations, Sam, you just laughed your way some more out of what little credibility and effectiveness you have left. VargasMilan 02:05, 5 May 2015 (EDT)

In an internet age, MelH claims he owns 12 print dictionaries. :) Meanwhile, AlanE still hasn't mastered Google Scholar. First, the leftists showed they were technically incompetent with and now this!!!! Conservative 07:41, 4 May 2015 (EDT)

Claims? I do not claim things that are not true, even in the internet age. Nor have I ever insulted you, User:Conservative. I have collected books my entire life and have no idea why you see that as "leftist." Here is a bit of evidence: the Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition (yes I have the 20-volume set) would have "impactfulness" on page 695 of Volume VII (Hat-Intervacuum); the Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictonary, Second Edition would have "impactfulness" on page 958; the Merriam-Webster Webster's Third New International Dictionary would have "impactfulness" on page 1131; the Funk and Wagnalls Standard Dictionary of the English Language would have "impactfulness" on page 899 of Volume 1 (A-L). As wonderful as the internet is as a source of information, I doubt that any of these citations could be verified online, whereas a good library would have them all. As does my book-stuffed home. MelH 10:38, 4 May 2015 (EDT)
That is evidence? I don't think so! Get back to me when you have photographs of a dictionary collection on a home book shelf and proof of a bona fide affidavit! See also: Never trust liberal "fact checkers" Conservative 12:23, 4 May 2015 (EDT)
This will have to do for now.MelH 13:00, 4 May 2015 (EDT)

MelH, based on the pictures shown, you have a set of the Oxford English dictionary (published at an unknown date) and a couple of other dictionaries (also published at unknown date). That falls short of a dozen dictionaries.

Furthermore, the English language changes over time so lacking proof of a known publishing date for the dictionaries in question is a major issue. One of the advantages of internet dictionaries and the public library system, as opposed to most home dictionary collections, is that they are regularly updated.

Some of the people who taught me the most about liberals/leftists/atheists said never take what they say at face value. In short, they must verify their claims and should not ever be given the benefit of the doubt. This is very sound advice. Conservative 13:49, 4 May 2015 (EDT)

If you look closely, there are six dictionaries in those pictures. One is the Grove's Dictionary of Music so we won't count it. This is a small part of my book collection, and there are many more dictionaries in other rooms. But I see no reason to continue to provide evidence that I am not a liar. The OED Second Edition is the latest version in print. The online edition is continuously updated but hasn't added "impactfulness." But you're free to accept it, or any other word; that's how the language grows. I'll remember your advice if I have to deal with liberals, leftists and atheists. MelH 14:17, 4 May 2015 (EDT)

MelH, 6 dictionaries? I don't see that many. But even if I did, 6 dictionaries is well short of a dozen. And the date these dictionaries were published is still unverified. Needless to say, I am not impressed and I do not expect you to provide a bona fide affadavit about possessing a dozen dictionaries.

Meanwhile, I provided multiple pieces of good evidence that impactfulness is a word.

As much as I hate to say it, I am afraid I am going to have to declare victory. :) Feel free to engage in last wordism. Conservative 14:47, 4 May 2015 (EDT)

Cons, you are a truly amazing person!!!!! SamHB 21:21, 4 May 2015 (EDT)

Mel, which edition of the Grove do you have? Rafael 02:45, 5 May 2015 (EDT)

Complete, I have the 1918 edition (Maitland) and the 1980 "New Grove's" first edition (Sadie). I also have a couple of individual volumes from other editions. I've had my eye on the New Grove's second edition, but my wife would not be too happy with another 29 volumes. MelH 09:53, 5 May 2015 (EDT)
What pettiness Vargas. I have fixed the typo after spending a minute or two finding it. Whilst searching, I came across your use of the word effectiveness. May I congratulate you for this correct use of our wonderful language. If Cons had used that word think how much time would have been saved. Perhaps we can all play a part in improving Cons' linguistic skills. For example, I see he has written below: "Don't forget to add Sarah Palin who was a former governor of Alaska...". Now, she is a former governor or she was governor. To have both was and former is tautolgical.
It seems pettiness is catching.

AlanE 02:59, 5 May 2015 (EDT)

You're referring to the edit summary where I asked that only you correct your error—yes, when otherwise changes the meaning of my response to it. And thank you for warning us of the perilous danger of synonyms; my word choice intended to avoid the unnecessary distraction of the issue altogether not to show disagreement with Conservative, but with the efficiency of a grammarian, you managed to home in on it. VargasMilan 04:05, 5 May 2015 (EDT)
Wow this thread, smhd. There seems to be numerous news articles that use impactfulness [67] That is all. I won't be sucked into further replies.--Jpatt 04:12, 5 May 2015 (EDT)

AlanE, the word usage Nazi prone to error, just accused VargasMilan of engaging in "pettiness". :) Conservative 05:23, 5 May 2015 (EDT)

Cons old mate: In the same breath I also accused myself of engaging in pettiness. You may take back the "Nazi" slur as it shows an unfortunate lack of social awareness. AlanE 02:02, 6 May 2015 (EDT)
re: pettiness comment: OK. I stand corrected.
Second, I am not going to wrangle with you about the latter matter. Given my present obligations, I am going to largely/completely cease engaging in talk page reading/posting for awhile.
Lastly, after completing an English course, I asked my English professor what book other than Elements of Style by William Strunk Jr. and E. B. White, he would recommend to someone who wanted to further improve his writing. He recommended the book On Writing Well by William Zinsser. In the next 24 months, I plan on tackling these two books. Conservative 05:47, 6 May 2015 (EDT)

Mel, sir, you have a cultured eye. Please don't mind user:Conservative's approach. He enjoys a bit of verbal rough and tumble and sometimes doesn't realise when he's outclassed. Being insulted, and having your intelligence insulted, by him is a rite of passage on this site. For all that, his passion and commitment are second to none. He's a diamond. Rafael 14:07, 7 May 2015 (EDT)

Stacey's back

OK, I'm not going away after all. Conservative, I've taken your advice and started a more lady-like topic. StaceyT 19:48, 4 May 2015 (EDT)

OK. Don't forget to add Sarah Palin (former governor of Alaska) and Mary Robinson (a former president of Ireland). Conservative 19:56, 4 May 2015 (EDT)
Cons, I don't often congratulate you for showing class, but you showed some class in the way you simply corrected your error about "is" or "was", without a lot of drama. SamHB 16:29, 5 May 2015 (EDT)
As CP's a community project, I'm happy to leave it to others to add significant women leaders. No CP page is the sole property of one person. StaceyT 20:00, 4 May 2015 (EDT)
The Conservapedia Atheism Project, which is a community project, is probably moving forward again this week or at the very latest this month. Conservative 20:04, 4 May 2015 (EDT)
Hope you have fun with it. StaceyT 20:19, 4 May 2015 (EDT)

Dream Ticket

It appears the party of old white people could be Democrats. Attention liberals, any criticism of Ben Carson is racist. Obama set that standard, adhere or be labelled a bigot.--Jpatt 03:59, 5 May 2015 (EDT)

vandal attack

(The Community Portal might be a better place to post this, but this page seems to be where all the action is these days.)

Isn't there supposed to be at least one sysop or admin watching this place at all times? Where is everyone? SamHB 17:01, 5 May 2015 (EDT)

Atheistic terrorism

Andy, you made this claim earlier - and I've already corrected you once before:

"the media also refuse to ask if it was atheistic terrorism" Andy, perhaps because journalists are able to read? Perhaps they even use Conservapedia's article which states that terrorism is the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives. While Andreas Lubitz filled us all with terror, he didn't want "to coerce or intimidate governments or societies", and hadn't any "political, religious, or ideological objectives". It is the same as in most school-shootings: they are mass-murders, but no acts of terror. A lawyer should be able to spot this.

--AugustO 04:03, 7 May 2015 (EDT)

There is a currently a debate thread on whether or not Andreas Lubitz was an atheist:
I have decided to not join the debate thread. :) I have decided to devote myself to other efforts which I believe will ultimately have more impactfulness. :) Conservative 04:58, 7 May 2015 (EDT)
Whether he was a Lutheran or an atheist doesn't matter for this question: it wasn't an act of terrorism! --AugustO 07:26, 7 May 2015 (EDT)
Evidence indicates that his crashing of the plane was premeditated and carefully planned. Did he also want publicity from it?
Within the definition of terrorism as being for "religious ... objectives," atheism should be included rather than excluded.--Andy Schlafly 10:01, 7 May 2015 (EDT)
So, which atheistic objective did Lubitz try to achieve? --AugustO 10:06, 7 May 2015 (EDT)
Good question, with plausible answers. Atheistic terrorists are often associated with highly public murderous statements against good. The crash certainly generated enormous publicity.
Do you deny that atheistic terrorism has long existed, for at least a hundred years?--Andy Schlafly 11:35, 7 May 2015 (EDT)
  • The crash generated enormous publicity, but it didn't "coerce or intimidate government or societies". Lubitz has not left any statement, the only message I get is that he was a deeply sick human.
  • Yes, there have been atheistic terrorists for at least 120 years. But when I think of, e.g. the anarchists, their objectives weren't foremost atheistic, but anarchistic. The idea of "atheistic suicidal missions" sounds quite counterintuitive.

--AugustO 12:21, 7 May 2015 (EDT)

Atheistic suicidal missions are consistent with existentialism. Perhaps the definition of terrorism as being limited to actions designed to "coerce or intimidate government or societies" is a bit too narrow. Existential, publicity-seeking acts of terror are still terrorism.--Andy Schlafly 16:49, 7 May 2015 (EDT)
Yeah, agreed. Forget it being 100 years in existence, though. I'd argue it's roughly two hundred years in existence (remember, the French Revolution was largely atheistic and also was pretty much the reason why the "terrorism" currently exists). In fact, I think it was Sartre who first advocated self-liberation through murder with the statement about how killing an European is "killing two birds with one stone" in the preface to Franz Fanon's Wretched of the Earth. Pokeria1 15:25, 14 May 2015 (EDT)

More fails about Britain

David Cameron may lead the Conservative Party but they are closer to Obama than the Republicans. This is the party that gave Britain gay marriage - not just civil unions - cut defence, increased spending on the National Health Service etc. Many of Cameron's ministers send their kids to state schools. Socially liberal with classical liberal economics.

The "stunning majority" is, in reality, 35% of the vote, on a 66% turnout.

In Parliamentary terms, the "stunning majority" is twelve MPs out 650: sufficient for routine business but not enough for any radical or controversial proposals. All it takes is a handful of by-elections and a handful of rebels and the government falls.

To put it in historical perspective, Clement Atlee got a majority of seventeen in the 1950 election, a result he considered a disaster. His government lasted until October 1951.

Then again, David Cameron is no Clem Atlee. Not by a long chalk.

Whoever is posting to the main page is not as rigourous as they used to be - sometimes they haven't read past the headline on a "borrowed" story on teapartycrusaders - but there are plenty of readers and users based in the UK. Why not go beyond whichever tabloid headline they teapartycrusaders have cut and pasted and ask one of us? Rafael 11:21, 9 May 2015 (EDT)

Rafael, the Tea Party Crusaders website pointed out that Britain has cut defense and that is now British policy. It looks like you did not read past the headline at the Tea Party Crusaders website!!! Conservative 13:28, 9 May 2015 (EDT)
The Tea Party Crusaders website didn't say anything. It lifted the story word for word from USA Today. What the MSM isn't fully covering? Rafael 15:55, 10 May 2015 (EDT)
It is highly likely that the Conservative party are shortly going to tear themselves into tiny little pieces over Europe. It's already starting with more right wing mp's, such as John Redwood, attacking official Conservative policy. The UK is in for 5 years of tory in-fighting and total ineffectiveness from the official opposition. Davidspencer 12:13, 9 May 2015 (EDT)
Folks, it was a stunning conservative landslide.--Andy Schlafly 12:20, 9 May 2015 (EDT)
No Andy, it wasn't. It was a stunning Conservative VICTORY, it wasn't a landslide by any meaning of the word. I was shocked when I woke up on Friday morning to hear what had happened over night. But a landslide it certainly is not I'm afraid. David Cameron currently has a smaller majority than did the last Conservative Prime Minister, John Major. John Major's entire premiership was characterised by Conservative in-fighting over Europe. I fear that this one will also be so blighted. Davidspencer 12:53, 9 May 2015 (EDT)

The UK election moved Scotland one step closer to leaving the UK and the UK one step closer to leaving the EU. The Conservative Party had to move right on the EU issue in order to pick off votes for UKIP which advocates the UK leaving the EU. And it is only a matter of time before Greece leaves the EU. Big centralized government is going to get smaller probably in this decade or the first half of the next decade as far as the UK and Europe as a whole.

Furthermore, the growing use of robots and high sovereign debt governments eventually having to cut government unionized workers due to austerity measures will further chip away at the Labour Party.

And with the growing evangelical Christianity and Muslim populations in the UK, you can kiss Darwinism and gay "marriage" goodbye in the UK in the 21st century (see: Desecularization and Growth of evangelical Christianity in secular Europe). Richard Dawkins is sweating bullets and ranting and raving in his Twitter account due to the growth of religious fundamentalism in the UK. Conservative 13:57, 9 May 2015 (EDT)

I understand I may be breaking a talk page rule but I joined CP just to give opinion and receive insight on the UK Election.
Conservative, your first paragraph shows well educated insight. I cannot speak for Greece but that indeed is going to happen, The UK will leave the EU. Can you give me your opinion on this: What is Scotland trying to say? Recently it rejected independence albeit with a huge minority saying "Yes". However most who voted "No" must have voted for the SNP. Would like to hear your views on this.--CuthbertA 14:33, 9 May 2015 (EDT)
Media influence kept Scotland in the U.K., but media influence cannot overcome the long-term trend which is against centralized government. The next time Scotland has a referendum on independence, I doubt the British media will be able to get its way again.--Andy Schlafly 14:52, 9 May 2015 (EDT)
This is NOTHING to do with 'centralised government', where did you get that idea from? The SNP is possibly the single most left wing party in the UK, possibly in the EU to be honest. It is unavowedly socialist in it's outlook. This is purely about nationalism, and nationalism of the most left wing variety rather than the usual kind of nationalism. Davidspencer 15:10, 9 May 2015 (EDT)
Right. Also what the media does not shout about is the result of any referendum on English independence. It would not be an easy pill to swallow. The days of the UK are numbered, I give it ten years. We will have the an Independent Scotland and a rump union of England and Wales. What happens to NI I don't know--CuthbertA 14:58, 9 May 2015 (EDT)

CuthbertA, the state is failing. See: The Fate of the State by MARTIN VAN CREVELD.

Second, Scotland was economically bribed to stay in the UK.[68][69] If UK politicians continue with this strategy, it is not going to sit well with the British public.

More and more people do not want to ruled by people who ignore their concerns like big government tends to do and so they want more localized governing (Hence, Scotland leaving the UK and the UK leaving the EU). I think Obama was the zenith of the time of big government in the Western World and the political pendulum began to swing more to the right particularly in the last year or so. Power corrupts and becomes arrogant and liberalism did not pay enough attention to middle class concerns and is now beginning to pay for it. I think when austerity measures occur due to aging populations putting a strain on welfare states, this trend of the state failing will accelerate.

God forbid WWIII happens or a global economic meltdown, but if this occurs maybe fascists/leftists (both advocates of big government) will seize more power for awhile.

Lastly, with the Eastern World advancing economically and with Christianity growing in the East/developing world (along with the Protestant work ethic)[70], due the effects of economic globalization, the West will have to become more and more efficient and big government tends to be inefficient in many ways. Conservative 15:05, 9 May 2015 (EDT)

The liberal dream of one-world government is a complete failure. Liberals cannot even keep the U.K. together. And without centralized government, there is not much that liberals can accomplish.--Andy Schlafly 19:14, 9 May 2015 (EDT)
  • Based on the pre-election polls, many were predicting a Labour/SNP coalition government. Given the current leadership of these two parties, this would have been a far left regime. This result is "stunning" in the sense that it is quite different from what was generally expected. As far as the popular vote goes, the The Independent did the math for what proportional representation would look like. To give you the gist, it would have been a Conservative/UKIP coalition. So the British people are to the right of the gerrymandered parliament. PeterKa 21:11, 9 May 2015 (EDT)
That is fascinating information about the British voters being to the right of the British Parliament, with gerrymandering making the Parliament more liberal than the public.--Andy Schlafly 22:51, 9 May 2015 (EDT)
  • Cameron plans to cut the number of seats in parliament from 650 to 600. Six hundred fifty seats is absurdly too many, but 600 would leave the parliament only slightly less overstaffed. The larger point is that the new constituency boundaries would be drawn by a commission appointed by the Cameron/Clegg government. So the changes are expected to disadvantage Labor. PeterKa 23:41, 9 May 2015 (EDT)
Thanks again for the insightful info.
Maybe the Labour Party should dissolve, or at least change its name (which does seem anachronistic today).--Andy Schlafly 00:39, 10 May 2015 (EDT)
The same could be said about the Tories. Centrists leaning to the right, hardly traditional conservatives.--CuthbertA 02:14, 10 May 2015 (EDT)

Just how big is Britain's debt mountain?[71] Many developed have debt mountains combined with aging populations and they are headed towards decline.

Jim Rogers, one of the most successful investors in the world, is investing in Asia and says the 21st century will be the Asian century.[72] Biblical Christianity, along with the Protestant work ethic [73], is growing in Asia (see: Global Christianity and Growth of Christianity in China).

The Spectator says that "Without Scotland, England will be a weedy laughing stock" and "One Labour frontbencher tells me that this country would be a "shi@#y Singapore".[74] In Singapore, biblical creationism is growing and Creation Ministries International currently has an office there.[75][76] According to the pro-evolution website Wikipedia: "Singapore is a highly developed trade-oriented market economy. Singapore's economy has been ranked as the most open in the world, 7th least corrupt, most pro-business, with low tax rates (14.2% of Gross Domestic Product, GDP) and has the third highest per-capita GDP in the world; in terms of Purchasing Power Parity (PPP)." If only England hadn't adopted Darwinism/godlessness and the UK hadn't put Charles Darwin on their currency - all this decline could have been avoided!!

Scotland has a cultural legacy of Protestantism and the Protestant work ethic. According to the pro-evolution website Wikipedia: "Scotland experienced a much deeper movement of Protestant reformation in the church than in any other nation in the UK." Wikipedia also declares: "Scotland was one of the industrial powerhouses of Europe from the time of the Industrial Revolution onwards, being a world leader in manufacturing. This has left a legacy in the diversity of goods and services which the Scottish economy produces today, from textiles, whisky and shortbread to jet engines, buses, computer software, ships, avionics and microelectronics to banking, insurance, investment management and other related financial services."

Harvard University historian Niall Ferguson stated: "Through a mixture of hard work and thrift the Protestant societies of the North and West Atlantic achieved the most rapid economic growth in history." (See: Protestant work ethic and capitalism).[77]

If only England hadn't adopted more of a biblical worldview along with the Protestant work ethic, then the upcoming loss of Scotland in the UK, wouldn't be such a big blow to the English economy and their national prestige! Conservative 06:05, 10 May 2015 (EDT)

Jim Rogers: "If you were smart at the start of the 19th century, you made your way to London. If you were smart at the start of the 20th century, you moved to New York. And if you are smart at the start of the 21st century, you will find your way to Asia."[78] Conservative 07:08, 10 May 2015 (EDT)

Reading this discussion, I accept that it was a stunning majority, as in completely and overwhelmingly unexpected.

In political terms, my point stands. This is the Prime Minister who gave is gay marriage. There was a real party of the Right, one celebrated on these pages as the British equivalent of the Tea Party: UKIP. Socially conservative, fiscally conservative but we were destroyed at the polls. Cameron's weakness helped us in the last parliament and it may in the next, but the political shift was towards liberalism.

Also, a working majority of sixteen (twelve + the Sinn Fein abstainers) is not enough. What's more, Cameron has to start talking to the EU about treaty changes - something that even a master statesman like Margaret Thatcher would have trouble with, let alone a proven foreign policy failure like Cameron. When (not if, when) he fails, he has to put the EU referendum before Parliament in the next session. That gives him five months before the 100-120 potential rebels in his parliamentary party start firing shots into the air. Although he can count on the support of the centre-left opposition parties, making the referendum a certainty, he wil­l have one third of his party on edge. All it takes is six defectors and he loses his majority.

Someone above mentioned John Major's second government. There are parallels, yes, but this is a much weaker, more liberal leader with ten times as many enemies in his own party. Rafael 16:07, 10 May 2015 (EDT)

Rafael, do you think Scotland will pull out of the UK in the next 10-20 years? If not, why not?
If Scotland does pull out of the UK, what will the likely effects be on England?Conservative 16:38, 10 May 2015 (EDT)
It is extremely unlikely that Scotland will pull out of the UK because it can't per se. Unless it issues a UDI it needs the approval of the rest of Britain through Parliament. David Cameron foolishly gave them the option before and he won't again. It would be the act of a political kamikaze and Cameron, for all his ineffectuality, is not stupid.
Note that there was a similar independence movement in the 70s, complete with an armed terrorist movement in the SNLA. It came to very little.
What is most likely is a federal union of autonomous regions, with very limited tax raising powers, alongside Parliament. About time too. Let's face it, as a Londoner my day-to-day has more in common with someone in New York or Barcelona than someone in rural Cumbria.
The effect on England, Wales and Ulster of the end of the Union? North Sea oil and gas output is declining. so it's nothing compared to the effect of leaving the EU. Apart from a serious dent to our pride, and pressure to create a federal system like Spain's, I can't see it being too painful. It would hurt Scotland much more. I stand to be corrected.
I'm interested to read your notes on Scotland and the protestant work ethic. You do know that the SNP, like the main Catalan nationalist parties, are way to the left even on the European political spectrum don't you? Scotland has been the most left wing part of Britain for decades - which is why Margaret Thatcher picked a fight with them over the Poll Tax in the late 80s. Rafael 02:49, 11 May 2015 (EDT)

I was very clear. I said cultural legacy. See: Generally speaking, the most economically productive countries in the world have a cultural legacy of Protestantism in terms of influence (Germany, Nordic countries, USA, Canada, Australia, etc.) and the deeper the Protestantism in the past or present, generally speaking, the more economically productive the societies are. Even Japan has a lot of influence from the USA post WWII. Please read this article along with the accompanying footnotes: Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. In addition, please read these articles about Scotland/Britain/Europe: Conservative 06:33, 11 May 2015 (EDT)

Thanks for the articles. As a former researcher for a senior Conservative party figure, I can still get the insider view but it's always nice to temper that insight with some blogs.
I'm not entirely clear what you mean by cultural legacy. The Anglican (ie Episcopalian) Church is established in the UK. Twenty-six bishops sit in the British Parliament and the Prime Minister is part of the selection committee for the See of Canterbury. Non-conformist Christianity has been a part of English public life since the seventeenth century. If anything, the Scots adopted liberal humanism far more than the English, which might explain why the Scots are more leftist than the English. What's more, a quick look at OECD productivity data shows Scotland in the third quartile, behind Italy and Spain.
Going back to the main point, Cameron has reappointed most of his last "don't rock the boat" cabinet. This is not a PM ready for action, this is a PM keeping his head down and saying "so far so good, so far so good". Rafael 11:43, 11 May 2015 (EDT)
OK. Thanks for the additional information and insight.
Second, I am really not that hopeful about the future of high sovereign/external debt countries/regions as far as the next 15-20 year time frame. And the UK's percentage of external debt to GDP is currently 406% which is very high compared to most other nations.[79] I think the UK will experience a very hard economic landing.
I take the view that a country is more apt to be profligate/liberal during good times and then when austerity/bad economic times come, the country is more apt to sober up and become more conservative (faith, family and more free market economics). This is probably more apt to be true in today's globalized/competitive economy (which occurred partly due to transnational financial investment being easier/information technology, etc.) which rewards efficiency. It is hard for liberalism to thrive long term when they have no "free" economic goodies to dole out. For example, after the bad economic times of Jimmy Carter then a more conservative Ronald Reagan happened (I will grant that although Reagan created more free market capitalism, he did create a lot of unnecessary debt due to his military expansion. I take the view the Soviet Union would have imploded on its own, but Reagan probably did speed it up as the Soviets built up their military in response to Reagan which put more strain on their economy). Margaret Thatcher followed bad economic times caused by liberalism.
I don't want for the UK to learn the hard way through very severe economic hardship and austerity measures to be less profligate and sober up, but that is what it may take. The UK may have to be a lot more industrious/frugal and make their educational system more sounder to pay for their past economic sins. I think this is true for all high sovereign/external debt countries.
At the present time, I am more hopeful about Asia than I am about many European nations/regions as far as the next several decades (see comments above). Also, the USA may bounce back from their profligate induced economic hardships felt by many due to sobering up as well (Historically, the USA seems to be more dynamic and open to change than Europe). On the whole, I think many European countries are resistant to change (bound by tradition) so I am not that hopeful about Europe as a whole for the first half of this century, but I agree with Eric Kaufmann about the desecularization of Europe achieving a tipping point which may occur as early as 2021 but as late as 2050 (see: Growth of evangelical Christianity in Europe and desecularization) which could certainly improve matters (see: Protestant work ethic). On the whole, barring the USA sobering up and becoming more economically dynamic and shedding their enormous debt, I think these graphs likely predict various countries regions future economic/power prospects (I don't agree with the climate change alarmism related graph).
Also, should Jesus tarry, I am hopeful about the prospects of Africa in the 21st century due to their increased Christianization which is now occurring. Most of the good countries/regions to live in have experienced Christianization in the past and/or are presently experiencing Christianization. See: A review of The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success by Rodney Stark, Random House, New York, 2005, reviewed by Lael Weinberger and The Protestant Work Ethic: Alive & Well…In China Conservative 14:33, 11 May 2015 (EDT)

To some extent, I will endeavor to be more favorable to the UK/England on the main page. The British and/or the UK did bring us: the Magna Carta, common law, the English language, the King James Bible, John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress, William Shakespeare, Robert Louis Stevenson, croquet, badminton, and fish and chips among other things. :) And thanks to the commonwealth nation of Australia, we have the organizations of Creation Ministries International and Answers in Genesis. :) Conservative 10:38, 12 May 2015 (EDT)

Thanks, we'd prefer greater accuracy and more fact checking. Remember, we're here to help. BTW, I'm surprised Oliver Cromwell and the strong, radical, republican Christians of the seventeenth century didn't make your list! Rafael 17:39, 14 May 2015 (EDT)

Seymour Hersh

I'm curious as to why Conservapedia is taking seriously (by posting on its front page) an article written by a journalist it describes as having a "long history of visceral anti-Americanism, which resonates with the journalistic elite." SaulJ 18:21, 11 May 2015 (EDT)

SaulJ, I didn't look at the news item in question. Regardless, aren't you committing the genetic fallacy in your quest to show hypocrisy? If not, why not? Conservative 18:33, 11 May 2015 (EDT)
Perhaps I am, but given that Conservapedia categorizes Hersh as a liberal and also defines liberals and liberalism as inherently deceptive or deceitful, the logic put in motion implies that as a liberal, and thus inherently deceptive, Hersh is not to be taken seriously. SaulJ 18:38, 11 May 2015 (EDT)
Perhaps? Why just perhaps? Why the reluctance to admit you were being illogical? Your use of "perhaps" certainly appears to be a grudging admission that you were being illogical. Why not admit to error and be more gracious when corrected? Conservative 18:51, 11 May 2015 (EDT)
  • Hersh is taken seriously because he has a history of uncovering startling material. But in this case, his version of events appears to be a lot of nonsense.[80] PeterKa 02:57, 12 May 2015 (EDT)

The Vox story, if true, is rather tragic. The world needs more good investigative journalists with newspaper organizations being trimmed down. There are plenty of conspiracy nuts already. If more investigative journalist were also trained in basic historiography/logic, that would be even better, but I doubt journalism schools will ever do that. Conservative 07:27, 12 May 2015 (EDT)