Talk:Main Page/Archive index/139

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Obama trade agenda

You heard it here first, Republicans in the Senate will surrender to progressive demands in order to pass this legislation. As bad as the deal is, this GOP leadership is the worst in generations. --Jpatt 22:30, 12 May 2015 (EDT)

You may be right. I was shocked that no Republican Senators voted against this terrible giveaway of jobs.--Andy Schlafly 00:08, 13 May 2015 (EDT)
Jpatt proven right. Establishment GOP are our adversaries.--Jpatt 17:09, 23 June 2015 (EDT)
This deal is bad for all involved as it also gives away too many sovereign rights of nations to large corporate entities. JohnSelway 17:57, 23 June 2015 (EDT)
Kakistocracy--Jpatt 21:15, 23 June 2015 (EDT)

Reviews of our atheism article.

Could you post a link to these reviews please?--CuthbertA 14:36, 14 May 2015 (EDT)

People should keep in mind that all of our articles are being "reviewed", all the time, by the public. The fact that the atheism article is being reviewed by "a Christian community" is only noteworthy if that community is noteworthy. But the community isn't identified. Is it a specific church? An entire denomination or sect? A small Bible group? Some identification would be useful, as would some description of the type of review. Are some people simply reading it? (People do that all the time; it has 5.6 million hits.) Are people writing up a scholarly analysis? When and where will it be published? SamHB 15:06, 14 May 2015 (EDT)
SamHB, as far as scholarly analysis, the book Atheist Persona: Causes and Consequences by the Rev. John J. Pasquini, ThD., cited Conservapedia atheism material several times in his book. In addition, the prominent intelligent design proponent Michael Behe positively reviewed the book Atheist Persona: Causes and Consequences. Conservative 17:11, 14 May 2015 (EDT)
That's my point. The atheism page has a lot of visibility. The fact that some friends of yours are also reading it in secret is boring. SamHB 17:27, 14 May 2015 (EDT)
Gentlemen, a perfect clandestine operation is an operation that goes completely unnoticed by the general population. On the other hand, a covert operation is an operation where the agent/agents identities is/are hidden. Gentlemen, this covert operation is on the internet. I dare you to find it!
"Secret operations are essential in war; upon them the army relies to make its every move." - Sun Tzu. "Of all those in the army close to the commander none is more intimate than the secret agent; of all rewards none more liberal than those given to secret agents; of all matters none is more confidential than those relating to secret operations." - Sun Tzu. "Be extremely subtle, even to the point of formlessness. Be extremely mysterious, even to the point of soundlessness. Thereby you can be the director of the opponent's fate." - Sun Tzu.
"知彼知己,百戰不殆;不知彼而知己,一勝一負;不知彼,不知己,每戰必殆" - Sun Tzu Conservative 16:33, 14 May 2015 (EDT)
True and the most important facet of secret operations is deception, deceiving the enemy into believing something is happening when it is not. I believe that is the case with these reviews.--CuthbertA 17:22, 14 May 2015 (EDT)
Oh, Cons! You're reverting to the "old" Cons, with all the silliness about Sun Tzu and nonsense in non-ANSI character sets. You were doing so well recently as the "new" Cons. Could you bring that persona back, please? And please don't tell us that your CP account is operated by multiple people; we're tired of that nonsense.
If you really are having some people "review" the article in secret, one might wonder why you put that fact on the front page.
By the way, I dare you to figure out what I had for breakfast this morning. SamHB 17:27, 14 May 2015 (EDT)
CuthbertA, the evolutionary racist Adolf Hitler didn't believe that there was going to be an attack on Normandy orchestrated by the creationist General Dwight D. Eisenhower among others. :)
Churchill was not as keen on D-Day, which involved a dangerous hundred-mile crossing of the English Channel into northern France. The British had already tried an amphibious assault on their own, targeting the French port of Dieppe in August 1942, with disastrous results. [1]
It took a creationist to get the job done right!!!! :)
By the way, 2015 is going to be the WORST year in the history of atheism!!!! It is already happening!!!!! See: Decline of global atheism and Growth of evangelical Christianity in Europe and Google trends - Atheism and agnosticism terms. Conservative 21:40, 14 May 2015 (EDT)

Yet it was atheists who "ripped the guts out of the Wehrmacht" at Stalingrad, atheists who stopped the panzers at Kursk, the biggest tank battle in history, and an atheist who took Berlin... Rafael 17:39, 15 May 2015 (EDT)

Rafael, the harsh Russian winter (and Hitler's folly for attacking that time of year after it proved unsuccessful for Napolean) and the Russian strategy of scorched earth withdrawal had a lot to do with the Stalingrad victory for Russians. ""The history of war proves that nine out of ten times an army has been destroyed because its supply lines have been cut off...” - General Douglas MacArthur
Second, the USA entered into the war late and when it did it was fresh as a daisy (not war weary) and had a lot of industrial might and troops behind them. This certainly played a role in the Russians being able to prevail in Berlin.
Darwinism/evolutionary racism had a lot to do with the origination of WWI and WWII (see: World War I and Darwinism and Social effects of the theory of evolution) And Charles Darwin was an agnostic/weak atheist. Conservative 19:22, 15 May 2015 (EDT)

Yes, Hitler did invade at the same time as Napoleon, but that was the best time to invade. They could have attacked in the winter, like the US and Britain did in 1919, but that didn't go well at all. However, that's where the similarity ends.

Napoleon invaded in June and arrived in Moscow in September. He found the Russians had burned the town down and, because his army was not equipped for a winter war, fell back with winter and the Russians chewing away at his rear.

Hitler invaded in June and arrived in Moscow in October, where the Russians had dug in for a brutal siege. The Germans gave up by December - around the time the US entered the war - and dug in for the winter. The Germans reached Leningrad in September and the siege there lasted until January 1944. In July of the following year, they struck south towards the oil fields of the Caucasus and hit Stalingrad in August. The Russians, again, gave fierce resistance, at one point clinging on to a beachhead of, IIRC, some fifteen yards depth while supplies poured across the Volga from Voroshilov's brutally efficient war machine in the east. The Germans dug in for the winter, again. When the Soviets counterattacked and surrounded the Germans, Hitler forbade the Sixth Army to break out. The Germans were supplied by air until the Soviets denied them airfield after airfield. Without supplies, the Soviets crushed the Sixth Army in what Churchill considered the turning point of the war. At about the same time, US personnel started arriving in Britain.

Hitler's folly was fighting on two fronts at once (IIRC, he had written in the 20s that Germany could not win a war on two fronts) and allowing Stalingrad, with its personal connotations, to distract his forces from their main objective.

On June 6, 1944, the Russians were already in southern Poland, facing three times as many Germans as were in the whole of France. The atheists did pretty well, with or without the winter.

I recommend Winston Churchill's History of the Second World War. If you're after a more modern approach, Antony Beevor's books on Stalingrad and Berlin are excellent.

Speaking of books, can you recommend a good biography of Eisenhower? Apart from his two foreign policy meshuggenahs, I get the impression he was the most visionary president of the twentieth century and I'd like to know more. Rafael 12:34, 17 May 2015 (EDT)

Rafael, a high school history teacher told me that Hitler attacked Russia at a bad time and because he was such an excellent teacher overall and in terms of his lesson preparation, I just assumed he was right (which admittedly I should not have done). We all agree that Hitler's decision to attack the Russians opened an additional front and was a serious military strategic error. In addition, Operation Barbarossa was delayed and scholars debate the implications/importance of the delay (Bradley, John; Buell, Thomas (2002). Why Was Barbarossa Delayed? The Second World War: Europe and the Mediterranean. Square One Publishing).
Lastly, as much as I like the topic of history, apart from biblical history, I don't see my reading an history material any time soon. But I appreciate your recommendations. When I finally do get to reading some history books, I plan on reading the book A History of Strategy: From Sun Tzu to William S. Lind by Martin van Creveld. Conservative 19:56, 17 May 2015 (EDT)
SamHB, judging by your slothfulness in finding these reviews on the internet, I doubt you got up in time to eat breakfast! :) Conservative 22:15, 14 May 2015 (EDT)
Nice one! I actually laughed out loud, and I don't normally laugh at things I see on the internet.
You're actually a little close to the truth—I had nothing for breakfast this morning, but not for the reason you think.
But seriously, I had no idea I was supposed to be trying to find the reviews, and therefore that I was slothful in not doing so. Your MPL item simply said that it was "being reviewed" (well, now it says "examined".) It didn't exhort everyone to figure out what that Christian community was. I apologize for not having risen to the challenge.
Now, if I could just figure out why I'm always so hungry before lunch.  :-) SamHB 23:32, 14 May 2015 (EDT)

The Vatican, climate change, and "capitalism"

I see a top Vatican adviser has denounced "capitalism" for ruining the environment.[2][3] I wonder how this guy interprets the parable of talents (Matt 25:14-30). A tale of a greedy servant who doubled his portfolio by making explotative investments? The servant with the smallest carbon footprint certainly didn't win the competition. The media is (mis)reporting this as an attack on "climate change skeptics," although it doesn't look like he made any statement regarding the scientific issues involved. PeterKa 01:42, 15 May 2015 (EDT)

Amtrak train engineer - homosexual activist (as per gotnews). Is he an atheist too?

The Amtrak train engineer is a homosexual activist according to[4]

Does anyone know when is the last time he attended church? The conservative journalist Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth wrote: "Anyone who has researched the subject of homosexuality knows that many of the most staunch advocates of homosexuality are those who hold a decidedly secular outlook."[5] See also: Atheism and homosexuality Conservative 02:33, 15 May 2015 (EDT)

So it is beginning to look like the train conductor was an American Andreas Lubitz. So much for feeling superior to the Germans. Somehow, we need to find jobs for these sexually confused individuals where they can't do so much damage when they inevitably snap. Whatever happened to fashion, Broadway, and interior decoration? PeterKa 03:04, 15 May 2015 (EDT)
The Amtrak train wreck appears to have been an accident and possibly negligence. The investigation should reveal more details. Conservative 03:23, 15 May 2015 (EDT)
Report: Engineer of crashed Amtrak train declined to give statement to police. One man noted, "Judging by the Lois Lerner standard, he'll be sentenced to 8 weeks paid vacation." VargasMilan 03:26, 15 May 2015 (EDT)
They've established that Bostian accelerated the train while he was approaching this notorious curve.[6] How is it possible that he is not in custody at this point? PeterKa 19:18, 17 May 2015 (EDT)

Jade Helm 15

32% of Republicans agreed that "the Government is trying to take over Texas". What does CP think? ABauers 20:55, 15 May 2015 (EDT)

There are something like 20 lawsuits brought by Texas against the federal government, so there is no denying a conflict. Also, supporters of same-sex marriage want the federal government in D.C. to impose it on Texas.--Andy Schlafly 21:01, 15 May 2015 (EDT)
But is Obama trying to take over Texas by military force? ABauers 21:03, 15 May 2015 (EDT)
No, and there is no reason to as long as liberals continue trying to take it over by regulations and judicial supremacy.--Andy Schlafly 21:08, 15 May 2015 (EDT)
So are 32% of Republicans wrong, and only 28% correct? If so, what could motivate those 32% to believe something that is incorrect? ABauers 21:11, 15 May 2015 (EDT)
The poll question did not asking about a takeover by force, rather than by judicial decision or regulation. An ambiguous question will elicit a response that cannot be interpreted as meaningful.--Andy Schlafly 21:16, 15 May 2015 (EDT)

Encyclopedia of Conservatism Project

Does anyone or any Conservapedians want to launch a Conservapedia: Encyclopedia of Conservatism which would be featured on the main page?

The project would focus on creating/expanding Conservapedia's articles on liberal/moderate/conservative leaders/politicians and political organizations. In addition, political movements could be covered as well.

The project page would have three sections in terms of articles that need to be created or expanded: a conservative section, a moderate section and a liberal/leftist section.

Feel free to create/join a conversation about this at Conservapedia: Encyclopedia of Conservatism Project. Conservative 14:17, 18 May 2015 (EDT)

A friendly site

Please see:

--Joaquín Martínez 09:27, 20 May 2015 (EDT)

News bulletin change request.


I think we really should change one of the news bulletins. Namely, I think we should at the very least remove this tidbit from the news bulletin about Christian Europeans not attempting to stop the Holocaust: "For that matter, why didn't Pius XII excommunicate Adolf Hitler and other top Nazis?" If not reword the entire news point to avoid implying that Christianity at large didn't do anything at all to help the Jews.

First of all, despite what you might think, the Pope doesn't actually have the power to excommunicate people. That authority lies with the local bishops in the area. If you're going to pin blame on anyone, do it to those who actually DO have the power to excommunicate, ie, the local bishops. Second of all, at the very least Hitler had already left the Catholic faith, and in fact also demanded for Christians of all stripes to be wiped out (it might surprise you to learn that a lot of the people killed in the Concentration Camps were actually Christians), so trying to excommunicate him would be utterly pointless as he's not even a Christian. Protestants may believe that you're automatically a Christian if you're baptized, even if you've left the faith, the old "once saved, always saved" fallacy, but we Catholics don't believe that at all. Now, I can't speak for the Catholics in Germany who may have smelled the burning flesh yet did nothing, but I can assure you that Pope Pius XII as well as several clergymen up to even Denmark actually did a LOT to try and save all of the Jews that they could. For starters, a lot of the Catholic priests actually doctored IDs and papers to ensure the Jews were given new identities, hiding their Jewish heritage from the Nazis, and also hid them inside the churches. In fact, that's actually one of the reasons why the Catholics and other Christian sects actually made clear that during bombing raids, the churches be spared. And yes, even Protestant sects attempted to spare the Jews as well, although not for any direct morality against slaughtering or rounding up humans so much as they think their being converted would settle the issue. It's still something though. Now, I might admit that Pius XII may not have actually openly spoken out, but here's the thing, if he did openly speak out, he'd pretty much make things even worse for not only the Jewish people, but also the Catholics, as Hitler and his men would have started rounding up various bishops. Also, Pius XII's efforts in trying to save the Jews was extensive enough that the Chief Rabbi of Rome not only converted to Catholicism, but actually chose his Christianized name to be Pius XII's civilian, pre-Pope name specifically as gratitude towards his efforts.

Implying that only a few Christians tried to stop the Holocaust is actually a huge disservice and extremely disingenuous. If anything, it's more accurate to state only a few Christians didn't even attempt to do a thing about the Holocaust at all. So really, this should be changed. Besides, this sort of thing ends up promoting the disinformation that the Soviets pushed that Pius XII was "Hitler's Pope" despite all the evidence being against it, and I thought this was a Conservative-based Wiki. Pokeria1 17:13, 20 May 2015 (EDT)

You put a lot of effort into your objection and I am not sure TerryH reads the main page talk page.
Second, I amended the main page post in question to a Pokeria/TerryH compromise version. Conservative 18:39, 20 May 2015 (EDT)
I'd prefer removing the excommunication bit entirely since again, it's pointless to try and push for someone's excommunication if they've already left the Catholic faith anyways (at least in the case of Hitler). It's not like the Protestant faith where they believe you're still a Christian even if you stop going to Church. But I guess we'll have to make do for the moment. Pokeria1 19:06, 20 May 2015 (EDT)

You May Already Have Won...

A new U. S. recession. Friday, May 29, 2015 the U. S. Bureau of Economic Analysis will take a second look at the January-March GDP percent increase, which was very close to zero last time they looked. Two negative three-month percentage increases in a's recession time (it's a widely-shared rule of thumb). News outlets like to announce the results with no warning whatsoever so you're too jarred to question their usually bogus analysis. VargasMilan 09:17, 21 May 2015 (EDT)

The U.S. economy is giving conflicting signals in terms of what will happen in 2015.[7][8][9][10] Conservative 18:58, 23 May 2015 (EDT)

The verdict: a -0.7% decline for January through March 2015. They'll take a third look at the end of June. VargasMilan 08:52, 29 May 2015 (EDT)

The third look showed a -0.2% decline. But the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta offered a prediction of about 2.5% annualized growth for the April-June GDP percent increase to be announced next week. Thankfully that means a very low expectation of being in a recession. VargasMilan 02:14, 21 July 2015 (EDT)

Australia rejects referendum?

I don't really think this is news as a referendum in Australia is only used to alter the constitution, and this is not a constitutional matter. This is what the Prime Minister is explaining and it's also confirmed by the pro-homosexual leader of the opposition and advocates as well. I'm not sure who put that article there (it looks like they either didn't understand or perhaps didn't even read it) but could it be changed or removed? It's not even news, it's just ... nothing.

I thought a proponent of homosexual marriage criticized Abbott for his statement.--Andy Schlafly 23:26, 24 May 2015 (EDT)
The Leader of the Opposition agreed with Abbott that there should not be a referendum although he himself is pro-same sex marriage - he just believes Parliament should decide, not a referendum. Abbott is in the minority here. The last opinion poll on the subject has 72% for, 21% against ( ) and Abbott himself admits that even in his own family he is "probably the last holdout for the traditional position." ( ) AlanE 00:56, 25 May 2015 (EDT)
The Australian prime minister has promised an open parliamentary debate on the issue and in all likelihood Australia will allow it by the end of the year. Tony Abbot clearly has a weak stance and is caving in to the homos

Why do liberals defend brutal dictators like Saddam Hussein but then get all worked up over an alleged juvenile offense by Josh Duggar?

Make no mistake, what Josh Duggar allegedly did was sinful and possibly an undetected crime, but his sisters have reportedly forgiven him, along with his wife, in laws, and parents. Meanwhile, they don't want to talk about Uday Hussein and Saddam Hussein. Liberals are still angry they were deposed. I don't get the severe lack of logic of liberals.

I would defend the Iraq War today. I respect, but don't agree with Rand Paul's assessment on the costs of war. But the War in Iraq was absolutely noble. BlueStateGOP 14:36, 25 May 2015 (EDT)

(A) Why is Hussein relevant to Duggar? One is a private figure, the other is an authoritarian dictator.
(B) Which liberals think Hussein was good? Some liberals might think Hussein would have been better than war, but that's quite different.
(C) What does Conservapedia think on Duggar's Christianity, conservatism, and molester status? ABauers 20:39, 25 May 2015 (EDT)
(A) You just made my point even stronger. Duggar is a private figure and thus politicians should not express any type of extra condemnation of an alleged juvenile offense.
(B) Liberals are still angry that Saddam Hussein and Uday Hussein were overthrown. Some defend Saddam Hussein's Iraq as a better place for women, even before Obama let ISIS take over.
(C) molester status? Josh Duggar was never arrested, even as a juvenile. Why do you think the U.S. Constitution is silly, because apparently the concept of due process seems foreign to you? It's this line of liberal anti-Bill of Rights thinking that has led to many of the police community riots we have seen in the past year. BlueStateGOP 10:13, 26 May 2015 (EDT)

Irish Referendum

Should we mention that Ireland overwhelmingly (62%) voted to legalize gay marriage? [11][12] ABauers 20:34, 25 May 2015 (EDT)

It was mentioned on the news page as evidence of Ireland's abandonment of Christianity, and is still there now. I understand liberal denial is characteristic, but does it even extend to claiming the words which are right in front of their faces are not there? Perhaps that's why so few liberals accept the Bible. ChrisBaker 01:06, 26 May 2015 (EDT)

News pick: Nebraska Legislature abolishes death penalty

Christian Science Monitor. This is a wonderful development, especially for those who understand the Church's teaching on capital punishment. GregG 20:48, 27 May 2015 (EDT)

Amen. SaulJ 16:37, 28 May 2015 (EDT)

Greek monks resist homosexual agenda

A good story here. Could someone put this on MPR? StaceyT 17:59, 28 May 2015 (EDT)

Jpatt, re: Egyptian article/video/satire

This article is satire. It even says so at the top.

The piece may be satire, but the points it raises are valid. We have an affirmative action President who, while he may at some point in his life have worked a day or two, definitely does little work now, and clearly thinks that liberal pseudoscience like climate change is not only a credible national security threat, but a greater one than REAL things such as ISIS and Iran! --ChrisBaker 20:14, 28 May 2015 (EDT)

Got it. I guess you have never been wrong. Did you vote for the smartest man alive?--Jpatt 20:12, 28 May 2015 (EDT)

Patriot Act vs. Freedom Act News Item on MPR

In the MPR item on the Patriot Act vs. the Freedom act, the link provided is, flatly, disturbing. Specifically, my issues lie with the points below and the entire tone of the article. Emphasis will be mine throughout.

  • Referencing a "shared user" folder used by Apple computers to provide a clear path for app downloads on her new computer, titled "adi" which the author deleted and was restored three days later:
    "‘Adi’ is a special, private nickname for Adolf Hitler, employed by his nearest and dearest... 3 days, 3rd Reich. Aren’t they clever?! Hitler’s Invisible Presence; there, but ‘not there’. To ‘remind’ me. Evil eye. Evil ear. Evil heart."
Comparing the US Government to Nazi Germany is nothing new, but, to me, it doesn't grant you a huge amount of credibility as an author if you take it a step further and flat out state that our government is A: a mass of Neonazis, B: so inept at spying that you found them in your "shared user" folder, and C: so obsessed with symbolism that they name their backdoor after Hitler, and wait three days to restore it, because that's the number of the 3rd Reich.
  • "Think back to the Obamacare Strong-Arming in 2009 and 2010. Then, forward a bit to the Supreme Court’s caving on its responsibility to rule Obamacare UNCONSTITUTIONAL. One by one, A.k.a. Obama’s Opposition fell back, politically struck dead by an Invisible Hand. How? Right before our eyes, the wicked Power-Over of the NSA’s unconstitutional Patriot Act played out. Constituents fumed. Pundits spit fire. Why? Did they not see The Unseen? The Monster created by what soon may well be proven the wickedest false flag in American history – the Attacks of September 11, 2001..."
My biggest issue with this quote is the implication that 9/11 was a false flag operation, and the majority of this portion was included to give context to my next issue, but I'm interrupting to make special note of the "false flag" implication.
  • "As at election time, coast-to-coast, robust deployment of the latest ‘political management tool': anonymous Digital Death Threats. À la Adolf Hitler, civilian and military assassinations, enforcing the terror. Shall We The People take a survey, starting with 111st Congress, elected in 2008? If you’ve received a death threat, anonymous or otherwise, raise your hand. If harm to your family, property, business, or career in politics has been threatened, raise your hand."

Are we truly expected to believe that the Obama administration is competent enough to blackmail and threaten enough Congressmen to push Obamacare through without misplacing the evidence or sending the wrong threats to the wrong people?
  • This is, admittedly, a description for a hypothetical YouTube video, but it speaks to the author's mindset, as well.
    "Adi’s Neuordnung, run out of our White House. A credit rolls on a news-ticker: Special thanks to The Patriot Act’s Creation of The Digital SS!
"State-Sanctioned Intruders, inside your sacred spaces, firmly planting the Nazi Flag, despite any and all security protections you put into place. Invisible, silent, Strong-Arm Invaders appointed with 4th Reich Armbands – Adi’s Finest, digital-style – ruthlessly patrolling your lebensraum. Omnipresent Occupiers entrenched in your private devices, your entertainment electronics, your land and cell lines; heavily armed with State Power To Persecute. Ever-watching, ever-threatening. Stealing. Storing. Evil ears, evil eyes, evil hearts."
My argument here is that the Patriot Act was enacted in the wake of September 11, seven years before Obama took office. The continuity involved in something like this would be amazing. A Republican Congress, with a Republican President, approved the Patriot Act, a bill designed specifically to allow a liberal Congress, with a liberal President, to create the 4th Reich. Our current political parties can't even agree on a budget without closing the national parks, much less create the dystopia this author lives in.

There are reasonable criticisms of the Freedom Act all over the internet, ones that don't rely on massive, 15-year plans in 70-year conspiracies, false flag attacks on American soil, rampant blackmail, cronyism, and naivete at the highest levels of government.

In two minutes of searching for an alternative, I found this (admittedly biased, but at least grounded in something approaching reality) article. [Quick edit here. Forgot to sign] IHop

I heard that Hitler didn't use the term "Third Reich". VargasMilan 14:18, 4 June 2015 (EDT)
I can't speak to whether or not Hitler himself used the term, but it was used in the propaganda of the time, and it is a lasting legacy of Nazi Germany that it is known as such. Regardless, the exact name Hitler used is not particularly germane to my problem with the link involved. My problem is that the page linked:
  1. Is bare inches from declaring the Bush administration responsible for 9/11, in collaboration with the Democrat Party,
  2. Actively proclaims that the US Government is capable of, and willing to, connect to a computer that has not been connected to the Internet since it came off the factory floor,
  3. Promotes a paranoid, deluded image of a dystopian government that is simultaneously capable enough to blackmail, bribe, and threaten its elected representatives, while simultaneously being so inept that they are bound by such absurd practices as "name the back door into computers after Hitler's childhood nickname," and "wait three days after this back door is found in a pathetically obvious file location, to send a message, meanwhile, the person we're monitoring can do whatever they want."
Maybe I'm the crazy one, but this author seems almost ready to declare the Queen of England and Vladimir Putin to be reptilians. IHop 15:14, 4 June 2015 (EDT)

This all comes back to a point I've made over and over again. I first came to Conservapedia when I heard Mr Schafly talking about the project on the BBC back in 2007. Then, MPR was a wonderful place for a non-American to get a fresh perspective on the US and what real Americans were thinking. Now, most of the MPR comes from two places - a blog and a site that "borrows" news items word for word from other sources. As MPR is locked down, and whoever posts these links doesn't seem to concerned about quality control, I maybe swing by the site once a week now, in case something interesting comes up. I wonder if the number of visitors has changed since MPR became a link farm for TeaPartyCrusaders and ConservativeNewsAndViews? Rafael 09:51, 8 June 2015 (EDT)

IHop, reading your assessment, I expected to encounter some exhibitions of distress from the author, but found them notably absent. I looked for your second item and found that her real concern was that the computer she bought seemed to have connected to the internet without her intending it to. It is entirely possible that the bundled software was programmed to do so, which in itself is grounds for concern that, as well as the possibility of it occurring, seemed to escape your notice. The reference to the "Adi" file may have represented a file downloaded by the rogue software, the name of which, and its subsequent reappearance, appeared to her to be the icing on the cake, so she had a little fun with the name.
I think it's enough to say that the subtleties of her depictions, as I said, may have escaped your notice, so I won't pursue their interpretations beyond what I already have. VargasMilan 20:30, 8 June 2015 (EDT)
While it's absolutely possible I missed some subtlety in the article, I can't imagine one that would substantially change the overall tone. That said, if I missed something that changes the tone, then I would greatly appreciate the insight.
About the computer in question in Point 2, though. It's not that the computer connected to the Internet without a prior connection being set up. That is impossible without A) a built-in mobile wireless connection, B)an unsecured network within range, or C) a direct wireless connection to the Apple update servers. Most computers perform automated updates between the hours of 1-4 AM, since that is generally when people are in bed, and the update won't inconvenience the user. Before it can connect to the automated update servers, however, it creates a "user" named "adi." Apple computers are set by default to check for updates every three days.
IHop 10:21, 9 June 2015 (EDT)

Question about uploading images

I'm wanting to upload images to illustrate the following orbital characteristics/directions

  1. apoapsis
  2. periapsis
  3. prograde (orbital mechanics)
  4. retrograde (orbital mechanics)
  5. normal (orbital mechanics)
  6. antinormal (orbital mechanics)
  7. radial (orbital mechanics)
  8. antiradial (orbital mechanics)

Would someone with the appropriate rights be willing to assist me? Red links will be addressed before images are uploaded.

Atheism Testimonials

If at all possible, could someone link the people praising our atheism article to some other things they've written? From what they're saying about it it's obvious they have their heads on straight, and I think a lot of us homeschooling parents would be able to use some of their materials in our lessons. --ChrisBaker 12:35, 17 June 2015 (EDT)

You have to scroll down the page HERE. Conservative 13:50, 17 June 2015 (EDT)
Much obliged, sir. This will be a great teaching aid! --ChrisBaker 18:46, 17 June 2015 (EDT)
Yep, our organization try's to do that. I have also been pushing for us to start a little campaign to get more conservative editors on sites like conservapedia so people don't have to rely on the overly atheistic sites such wikipedia. I have a colleague in China who tried to register to edit here but he said registration wasn't open so you might want to fix that before we start a drive to get some more editors here from our side. FFAF 10:03, 19 June 2015 (EDT)

Racist Terrorist...

... seems to be much more appropriate a description than "bigtime facebook user"! --AugustO 14:57, 18 June 2015 (EDT)

BTW, Andy, how do you know that he was a "bigtime facebook user", and not only a common one? --AugustO 15:28, 18 June 2015 (EDT)

From media reports, it seems he also had an unhealthy addiction with very hardcore pornographic materials and was into atheistic forums too (perhaps why he did it in a church) FFAF 10:05, 19 June 2015 (EDT)

Also I don't find Facebook to be that bad if used for constructive purposes. I am involved in a number of pro-Christianity and anti-atheism groups (such as FFAF) that would not be able to get their positive word out about our lord saviour jesus christ, blessed by his name, or other such positive christian messages. FFAF 10:08, 19 June 2015 (EDT)

Voter ID news pick

North Carolina's Legislature passes an amendment to its voter ID law to allow voters with a "reasonable impediment" to obtaining voter ID to vote. This measure, obviously based on South Carolina's provision approved by a three-judge panel in 2012, is a very good one. More of the strict voter ID states should adopt it. GregG 20:53, 18 June 2015 (EDT)

This bypass procedure seems to undermine much of the purpose of a voter ID requirement. The point of the requirement is for there to be independent verification of identity, not for the person merely to vouch for himself.--Andy Schlafly 12:29, 19 June 2015 (EDT)
I disagree. The procedure would still require those possessing qualifying photo ID to present it when voting; it would address those voters for whom obtaining ID is unduly burdensome (think those that need to pay the costs associated with getting a [corrected] birth certificate from where they were born or going to an ID-issuing location). Also, voters using the reasonable impediment procedure would still be required to provide non-photo identification (such as the last 4 digits of a social security number), similar to the HAVA requirements for first-time voters who registered by mail. Unless, of course, you think those voters not willing to meet these burdens should be barred from voting.  :P GregG 19:08, 19 June 2015 (EDT)

Lubitz vs. Roof

Andy, after Lubitz's mass-murder-cum-suicide, you even changed the definition of terrorism to claim that "the media also refuse to ask if it was atheistic terrorism". Now, I wonder will Conservapedia refuse to ask whether Roof's action was an act of racist terrorism? It seems to fit the description!--AugustO 08:28, 19 June 2015 (EDT)

Much of the terrorism in the Middle East has been racial in nature, so I wonder what the adjective "racist" would add to the term "terrorism". Some might find the term "racist terrorism" to be redundant. What liberal denial seem to resist admitting is that "atheistic terrorism" occurs.--Andy Schlafly 12:34, 19 June 2015 (EDT)
  • Much of the terrorism in the Middle East has been racial in nature Really? I think that most of the terrorism in the Middle East is religious.
  • That's a yes, then, I suppose.
--AugustO 14:20, 19 June 2015 (EDT)
I haven't seen any compelling evidences that point to this being racial in nature. What Dylan did was nothing more than a simple atheistic attack on all of Christianity. --GordonR 15:17, 20 June 2015 (EDT)
[13], [14], [15], [16], [17]. GregG 20:54, 20 June 2015 (EDT)
I said "compelling evidences." I know that the liberal media has cooked up all kinds of false racial evidences to hide the fact that he was a liberal atheist. --GordonR 02:24, 21 June 2015 (EDT)
Obvious troll GordonR is VERY obvious troll. 2 edits, both to talk main page, both obviously trolling. Davidspencer 03:23, 21 June 2015 (EDT)
This site...*tsk* *tsk* *tsk*. Trying so hard to ignore the racial motivations of this monster. Roof posted a manifesto citing Earl Holt, a well known white supremacist and conservative activist. I hope you're just bad at reporting news, and not seriously trying to account for the actions of a militant racist. --Tryagain 13:36, 22 June 2015 (EDT)
Tryagain, no one in the conservative media is trying to hide—or failing to condemn—the racism of this atrocity. Andy has said a month or two ago when pruning the articles of the Conservapedia news feed that the news feed is not a straight news feed of general news or commentary on the news, but designed to especially report conservative perspectives of world events that are not being reported elsewhere. VargasMilan 22:33, 23 June 2015 (EDT)
To clarify, I don't think I over-interpreted, but judge for yourself—Andy said: "Trim headlines to insightful news items, not just any news". VargasMilan 23:14, 23 June 2015 (EDT)

Before his shooting spree, when was the last time that Dylann Roof went to church?

From the Huffington Post:

"He was on the roll of our congregation," Rev. Tony Metze of St. Paul's Lutheran Church, told The Huffington Post. Metze is also the pastor to Roof's family, and said he has been providing them with "Christian care" since the shooting. The pastor did not respond to questions on how often Roof had attended the church or if had been there recently. He referred HuffPost to the South Carolina Lutheran synod bishop, who did not immediately respond to request for comment.[18]

Is that essentially what Lubitz's pastor said? Conservative 13:51, 22 June 2015 (EDT)

College is a con

I think the news item would benefit immensely from including the second sentence as well as the first: "It benefits immensely from right-wing McCarthy wannabes, who in an effort to restrict academic freedom and silence political dissent, depict universities as left-wing indoctrination centers." That sentence makes very clear what the Salon/Alternet article was really saying, and what was meant by the phrase "cloak of liberalism". SamHB 00:25, 30 June 2015 (EDT)

"Germany, ...."

Looks like rejecting homosexual marriage didn't help the Germans win the match. SaulJ 20:54, 30 June 2015 (EDT)

You're right about the outcome of tonight's game. But the bigger issue is this: should Germany even be allowed to participate in the tournament???--Andy Schlafly 22:01, 30 June 2015 (EDT)
I think the question you're trying to ask here is something along the lines of: "Is the moral opprobrium regarding the denial of marriage equality, as was the case with, for example, apartheid, a sufficient reason to ban a country from international sporting competition?" Right now, I would say no. Even among the gay rights activist groups that I follow, nobody really seems to be saying that, yet -- do any of the gay rights activists you read say that?
That said, as marriage equality becomes more and more the norm, as it will, (gradually, and with setbacks) countries that do not allow people to marry because they are not of the opposite sex will probably come to look as backwards and out of touch with a generally-shared international culture of rights as did, say, parts of the US before the Loving case. SaulJ 22:29, 30 June 2015 (EDT)
In other words, some may hope for a future whereby any nation that rejects same-sex marriage will be excluded from tournaments like the World Cup, right?--Andy Schlafly 23:05, 30 June 2015 (EDT)
Some may, I suppose, but nobody of note is now -- yours is literally the only analysis I've read that speculates on the possibility. Given how quickly marriage equality has become the norm in heavily-Christian societies such as the United States and Ireland, I can only imagine that activists won't need to resort to a strategy targeting international sports. But I've been wrong before. If you had asked me in 2000 if we would have legalized gay marriage before, say, 2020, I would have thought it impossible. SaulJ 23:15, 30 June 2015 (EDT)
Imposition by a 5-4 vote from D.C. is hardly a ringing endorsement.
As to the broader point, didn't Obama break protocol and refuse to attend the last Winter Olympics in Russia because of LGBT opposition to Russian policies on the issue? It seems likely that only reason that nations are not excluded from tournaments based on this issue is because too many nations would walk away if that stunt were attempted.--Andy Schlafly 23:24, 30 June 2015 (EDT)
"Imposition by a 5-4 vote from D.C. is hardly a ringing endorsement." Perhaps not, but that's how our system works, and I don't have to point you to the polling data that show that a growing majority of Americans support marriage equality. I don't really know enough about the politics of international sport to further comment on your speculation, though, as I said above, I think the "only reason" the strategy of excluding particular nations from international competition hasn't been pursued might have more to do with the activist community deciding it's not really a fruitful strategy. Opposition to white-minority rule was an internationally-coordinated campaign, and excluding rogue nations like Smith-era Rhodesia and apartheid South Africa from the Olympivs/international cricket/etc. made sense because of the scope of the opposition. While LGBT rights activism, broadly put, has its international dimensions, most international effots are focused on repressive things like the Ugandan so-called "Kill the Gays" bill or Putin's more egregious laws, and not on the more narrow question of marriage. SaulJ 23:57, 30 June 2015 (EDT)
The liberal media thought abortion was an inevitable trend, but history has proven otherwise. Public support is directly correlated to media bias on an issue, and over time that bias on an issue gives way to competing views. Support for abortion has predictably declined as a result of the public becoming more aware, and less tolerant, of the biased presentations in the media about it. Likewise, support for same-sex marriage will decline also as the public starts to demand more balanced presentations of the issue.
It is difficult seeing the percentage of those who accept the Bible changing much due to a 5-4 Court ruling, and the Bible stands clearly against it.--Andy Schlafly 00:25, 1 July 2015 (EDT)

re: "marriage equality" - "Another study involving male homosexuality examined the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexual men and was published in the Journal of Sex Research in 1997. This study of male homosexuality found that 2.7 percent of these men claimed to have had sex with one partner only." See: Homosexuality and promiscuity.

Like all liberal ideological talking points, so-called "marriage equality" is a farce. Never take any claim by a liberal at face value. Leftists constantly lie.

And when called on the carpet regarding their lies, leftists frequently resort to anecdotal evidence.Conservative 10:15, 1 July 2015 (EDT)

2016 Republican Nominee Race

Hey guys, with such a crowded field for the Republican Presidential field I am starting to wonder if it will be detrimental to the race. Whereas the Democrats have only two well known names in the race (Clinton and Sanders) the Republican field is so full of names that I wonder if their individual messages/positions will get through all that noise. What do you guys think? Personally I lean towards Bush being the favourite. JohnSelway 23:35, 30 June 2015 (EDT)

The large crowd makes it more difficult for a first-time candidate to gain sufficient support. Ultimately the race could narrow down to the more familiar names, such as Bush v. Huckabee. But it is exciting to have so many candidates in the race, and the end result will be more conservative than otherwise. The Democrats' approach for picking a nominee seems far worse.--Andy Schlafly 23:52, 30 June 2015 (EDT)
Bush will fizzle rather quickly. A Fox News/beltway GOP favorite but that is about it. I expect Walker will jump in with Koch backing.--Jpatt 01:10, 1 July 2015 (EDT)
Interesting points, thanks Jpatt and Aschlafly. I agree it is exciting but I fear that with Celebrity style candidates (like Donald Trump) sucking up the media oxygen it makes it more difficult for more grassroots conservatives to make an impact. I know almost nothing about the process the democrats use - I'm sure I can read about it here though. JohnSelway 02:20, 1 July 2015 (EDT)

Sanders is another McGovern and unelectable. He doesn't have the appeal of identity politics and guilt factor of the "first black president" and there is no indication he will run as the first Jewish president (perhaps due to fear of anti-semitism. In addition, Jewish values like the importance of family/education, etc. etc have made American Jews successful and Sanders' campaign is about the "have nots"). Clinton's scandals/health/age concerns seem to be weighing her down. She seems to have a bunker mentality. And running in a campaign is a grueling experience and although she has the ambition, I am not sure she has the energy to run.

If the Democrats win, it will be due to sowing up the black/hispanic/women/asian/young people vote and Hillary being the first woman candidate. In addition, Democrats seem to worry less about scandalous behavior and are more concerned about the "free goodies" that government doles out.

But blacks haven't gotten much from Obama's presidency and the economy and the current educational system is poor for young people (who have a lack of job experience and there seems to be a lack of confidence in their education to adequately preparing them for work). And the weak/fragile economy could effect the hispanic/women/asian votes. Furthermore, the economy could get worse between now and November 2016. For example, the economies of Greece and some European countries and China look weak right now and the global economy does effect the American economy.

There doesn't seem to be a lot of Republican/general public enthusiasm for RINOs. The RINO vote is split between Bush/Christie. And lately Rubio has seemed more and more RINOish.

Huckabee doesn't have the cash to run a strong candidacy and his prospects for getting more cash look unfavorable.

Although the press has a tendency to try to savagely attack evangelical conservatives, Scott Walker is likeable, has a good track record in his state, is a very tough candidate, is a disciplined candidate who is not gaff prone and he seems to be favored by the Koch brothers. Donald Trump has the money, name recognition and mental toughness, but his egotism/"The Donald" gives him less gravitas/likeability than Walker. In addition, I think Trump will be a less disciplined candidate who stays less on message than Walker and I think Trump will be more gaff prone.

It is a very tough race to call and anything can happen, but I think Walker has the best chance at this point. Conservative 06:52, 1 July 2015 (EDT)

"If the Democrats win, it will be due to sowing up the black/hispanic/women/asian/young people vote..." God forbid they "stir up" the majority of American citizens, which is exactly what such a coalition would represent. SaulJ 10:16, 1 July 2015 (EDT)
SaulJ, politics based on people's genetic makeup is not lofty politics. It is cynical politics that often divides people (whites vs. non-whites, women vs. men, X ethnicity vs. Y ethnicity, etc. etc.) and does not lead to solutions that are more apt to raise all boats. Conservative 12:34, 1 July 2015 (EDT)
For the foreseeable future, I don't think any American presidential politician is going to rally a sizable majority of Americans. Given the culture war, cynical identity politics and divided opinions about economic policy (class warfare and battles between takers and producers), I think divided government is going to be the rule for the foreseeable future.
Ronald Reagan managed to get about 58% of the popular vote in 1984 and Nixon got about 61% of the vote in 1972, but I think those days are over. People are more cynical/skeptical now and Reagan like charisma will only get you so far. And the United States hasn't had strong political leadership for some time. Hence, the 17 trillion dollar federal debt, etc. etc.
Maybe a crisis will happen and a demagogue will win a sizable majority due to people's desperation. But absence of that, I don't see any American politician winning a sizable presidential election majority for some time. Conservative 11:50, 1 July 2015 (EDT)
I also think that with the current 17 trillion dollar deficit, the large baby boomer population aging and seemingly being very resistant to raising the eligibility requirements for social security, the younger generations are going to feel more and more financially squeezed due to the rising costs of supporting a non-working older generation. If this continues, more friction between the young/old will occur. Social security was not designed for people living as long as they do now.
Also, the United States does not seem to be going in the right direction. If the USA continues to go on the path it is on, its financial situation could get worse. If this happens, people will be looking for scapegoats and mud slinging and negative campaigning could increase. Of course, this could potentially perpetuate divided government.
It will require a lot of work/commitment to erase the 17 trillion federal deficit, improve the U.S educational system and create a situation where people would more harmoniously work together. Short of a religious revival in the United States, I don't see this happening through human efforts alone. Conservative 12:24, 1 July 2015 (EDT)

SaulJ, by the way, the secular left does not care about minorities, women or homosexuals. What they care about is power. See: No truce with the left and Atheism and social justice and Western atheism and race and Atheism and women and irreligion and domestic violence and Secular Europe and domestic violence and Atheism and actions against homosexuals. Conservative 14:59, 1 July 2015 (EDT)


It should be the 4th of July, not the 4Rth of July as it says on the left of the page. FFAF 20:30, 1 July 2015 (EDT)

Thanks. I will fix it. Conservative 20:31, 1 July 2015 (EDT)
Even better, it should be Independence Day !!! I fixed it.--Andy Schlafly 20:42, 1 July 2015 (EDT)

"Oregon State issues gag order against opposing homosexual marriage"

I read the decision referred to (I don't agree with it either); it contains no such "gag order" of the scope indicated by the headline. The order applied only to statements threatening to refuse business on the basis of sexual orientation, not to "opposing homosexual marriage" more generally. (This sort of clickbait appears to be par for the course at TPC, along with risque and intrusive advertisements.) GregG 00:12, 6 July 2015 (EDT)

Correct. As citizens, the Kleins have the right to publicize their opposition to homosexual marriage, and their reasons. But their business cannot publicize that they violate state law. It's the same situation as people having the right to join the KKK but not put up a sign saying they refuse to serve blacks at their restaurant. MelH 16:33, 7 July 2015 (EDT)

re: Greece

Who thinks this will wind up like Iceland where the Greek/European bankers take a big loss, the Greece economy tanks for awhile and then the Greeks bounce back? Not sure if this applies. The people of Iceland seem more disciplined than the Greeks. See: Greece isn’t the first country to have a debt referendum. Does Iceland provide useful lessons?

Who do you think is going to blink first in this game of chicken? It seems like a game of political brinksmanship at this point. If so, typically these things get decided at the very 11th hour. The bankers have a lot to lose if Greek defaults. They may decide that something is better than nothing and cave in to Greek demands.

What do you think will happen to the European/global/USA economy?

Will the Greeks leave the EU and go back to the drachma? If so, when?

What do you think the future of the EU will be? Conservative 00:32, 6 July 2015 (EDT)

I think Greece will leave the EU. JohnSelway 00:41, 6 July 2015 (EDT)
Here is what Trump says who is pretty good at dealmaking: "Trump said the U.S. should rely on Germany to take care of Greece's debt problem, calling it "peanuts" for them. "Germany is very powerful, very strong," Trump said. "I’d let Germany handle it. We have enough problems; let Germany handle it. Germany will take care of it. This is peanuts for Germany. They’ll take care of it."
Trump believes if Germany doesn't step in he fears Vladimir Putin will come in and "save the day."
"Frankly, Putin probably comes in to save the day, if Germany doesn't," Trump said. "So I think that Greece is going to be better shape than people think."[19]
I think there is a 80/20 chance that Germany will cave in due to the political influence of their bankers and the possible loss of imports due to the European economy possible tanking. And it will be the German taxpayers who are left holding the bag or pain sharing between the German taxpayers/bankers. If Germany caves, then Italy/Portugal/Ireland have more leverage.
Long term things are going to get financial ugly in Europe with their aging population and many anti-growth policies. Conservative 00:53, 6 July 2015 (EDT)

Actually, the more I think about it, the odds are 50/50 that Greek will completely default and wind up leaving the EU. The culture clash between Germany with its greater economic discipline and leftist Greek spendthrifts seems like too wide a divide. Rueters may have it right: Advice for Greece: Never play chicken with Germany

Maybe the leftists Greeks will cave and come crawling back to get their bailout money. Leftists are often weak, but often they doubledown rather than lose face so it makes things hard to call. Conservative 01:28, 6 July 2015 (EDT)

I doubt very much Greece will leave the EU. This is not and never has been about the EU, it is about the Euro/currency union. The problem was that Germany and others deliberately distorted the figures to allow Greece to join the Euro when they knew full well that Greece did not meet the necessary conditions. After doing that they then leant far too much money to Greece and then when it all fell to pieces blamed the Greeks. Trump knows nothing, his supposed empire is built on debt, bankruptcies and business failures. And you may not like it but, for good or bad, the Greeks voted overwhelmingly in favour of the NO option. It's called democracy and any US president would sell everything they own for such a vote. As for who will blink first? The Germans and French. They can't afford to let Greece fail, they badly misjudged public opinion in Greece and now they are going to have to find a face-saving solution All IMO of course. Davidspencer 09:48, 6 July 2015 (EDT)

Trump knows nothing about deal making? Trump's ego is often too large, but his net worth is 4 billion dollars and if I am not mistaken he owns a lot of valuable real estate NYC and other places. His book The Art of the Deal was on the NY Times best seller list for 51 weeks and sold over 1 million copies. And he graduated from Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania which is a tough business school to get into. He probably makes a lot of money of his entertainment businesses (golf courses, etc.) and he probably made a lot of money from the Apprentice.

The position Trump knows nothing about deal making is difficult position to maintain. Can you show me that his business and real estate investments are overleveraged? I don't think that you can. At most, you might be ab;e claim that his entertainment businesses may not do well if bad economic times come.

Next, HERE and HERE is what Forbes and Philadelphia Magazine has to say about his former business bankruptcies (not personal bankruptcies).

Next, the annals of business history show successful businessman who failed at business ventures - often multiple times. And each time they often learned a lesson. This is not at all unusual. Henry Ford, Bill Gates, Colonel Sanders, Rowland Hussey Macy, Richard Branson, Walt Disney, Thomas Edison, etc. all had their business failures and/or failed at business before they succeeded.[20]

And if memory serves, and I think it does, about 66% of new products fail, but the 1/3 that do succeed for companies more than make up for the losses. According to the Harvard Business Review's article Why Most Product Launches Fail, "According to a leading market research firm, about 75% of consumer packaged goods and retail products fail to earn even $7.5 million during their first year. This is in part because of the intransigence of consumer shopping habits. The consultant Jack Trout has found that American families, on average, repeatedly buy the same 150 items, which constitute as much as 85% of their household needs; it’s hard to get something new on the radar."[21] Conservative 13:31, 6 July 2015 (EDT)

I know trump has an estimated worth of $4billion but that is all it is, an estimate, and until he opens his books to reveal his leverage, if any, it will only ever be an estimate. His business model tends to consist of bullying and litigating against anyone who tries to compete with him or baulk him.
But anyway, back to the topic. He can say what he wants whenever he wants but Greece and the other EU countries will likely pay as much attention to his comments as they deserve. I repeat, all the leading financial commentators here in Europe are agreed that Germany will do anything they can to prevent Greece leaveing either the Euro or even more so the EU. It MAY possibly be that a default occurs but you can bet your mortgage (if you have one that is) that behinds the scenes right now hectioc work is taking place to find a way to prevent a default occuring. Davidspencer 14:04, 6 July 2015 (EDT)
Upon further reflection, I think the odds are about 10-15% that Greece will not be able to strike a bargain with the Germans/bankers.
Over the longer term though, the EU will probably break up and Europe/Western World will see a lot of financial and societal pain. It has several overledged countries in terms of sovereign and external debt and it has an aging population that is retiring too early. For example, Italy/Portugal/Ireland/Greece have sovereign debt issues. Per capital, UK citizens have about $ 160,000 in external debt and external debt is about 406% of their GDP.[22] Europe/EU has a lot of economic stagnation and hesitant reformers and the prognosis does not look good.[23][24] About the only country that I would be willing to bet on in Europe over the next several debates is Switzerland which incidentally has one of the high rates of creationism in Europe.[25] :) Protestant work ethic? See: Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism.
Given the rapid Christianization of China (of the evangelical Christianity variety) and the history associated with the Protestant work ethic, long term, I think Asia will rise in the 21st century and secular Europe will lower in stature. See: Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. There is a lot of good evidence supporting the position of an ascendant Asia and declining Europe in the 21st century and many leading financial analyst with successful track records, such as Jim Rogers, take this position. See: 6 megatrends which will affect world for decades
As much as I hate to say it, from a global perspective, many creationists and Bible belivers are going to be ascendent in the 21st century and many Darwinists/atheists/agnostics are going to experience some humbling! See also: Desecularization Conservative 14:34, 6 July 2015 (EDT)
*LOL* Given that you have a history of being wrong about what happens on the next ides of March, I cannot put much trust in this bold prediction! --AugustO 14:44, 6 July 2015 (EDT)

I'd like to second David Spencer's contributions.

Trump is entertanining and rich, yes, but he has the foreign policy understanding of a house brick. Of course the US isn't going to bail the Greeks out. They're not involved. Neither is Russia; Putin is no more likely to bail out the Greeks than I am. China may invest in Greek infrastructure like it has in Spain, maybe buy a cartload of bonds, but there will be no bail out from anyone apart from the ECB brokering loans from other banks.

While I'm here, let's nail the Iceland thing. The leftist Greeks would love to do what the liberal Icelanders did and punish the banks. However, the Greeks are in the Eurozone and their hands are tied. Iceland, like Norway, is not in the Eurozone and not a full member of the EU so they can do as they please.

The idea that Iceland should be held up as an example of conservative governance is waaaaaaaaaay off the mark. Rafael 16:08, 6 July 2015 (EDT)

My response to AugustO

Did I say anything about the Ides of March and can you prove that nothing deleterious happened to Darwinism on the Ides of various Marches? And don't forget that there is evidence that more than one person edits using the User: Conservative account which certain gentlemen at an atheist wiki were forced to admit!

By the way, even The Daily Beast was forced to confess that "2013 was a terrible year for evolution".[26]

Johns Hopkins University Press reported in 2014: "Over the past forty years, creationism has spread swiftly among European Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Hindus, and Muslims, even as anti-creationists sought to smother its flames." (see: Evolution).

In 2014, the Vancouver Sun declared: “Creationism, a religious world view that adamantly rejects Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, is on the rise among evangelical Protestants and most of the world’s Muslims." (see: Global creationism).

Google trends - Atheism/agnosticism/evolution terms

According to Google trends data, online interest in Jesus Christ is growing, while online interest in atheism, agnosticism and evolutionism topical areas is declining or is stagnating.

Google trends measures the interest in various words/phrases as far as Google searches over time.

Below is Google trends data for various terms relating to atheism/agnosticism for various countries and the the world as a whole and in general their is a recent downward trends as far as atheism related searches:

Specific atheism terms:

Worldwide interest in evolutionary ideas:

Online interest in Jesus is growing while internet atheism/agnosticism/evolutionism is in a slump

According to Google trends data, online interest in Jesus Christ is growing, while online interest in atheism, agnosticism and evolutionism topical areas is declining or is stagnating.


See also: Internet atheism

AugustO, I hope this clarifies matters for you! Conservative 15:01, 6 July 2015 (EDT)

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks" --AugustO 16:10, 6 July 2015 (EDT)
You didn't give me one iota of evidence showing that the long term prospects for Europe and Darwinism look bright in the 21st century and do not look like they will be deleterious. Nor did you give me any evidence that the prospects for global creationism and global conservative Protestamtism do not look bright. See also: Global creationism and Global Christianity
In addition, you did not give me one shred of evidence showing that nothing positive happened to advance biblical creationism on various Ides of March.
And don't think I didn't notice. I did! As much as I hate to say it, I have to declare a hands down victory in this skirmish - especially since you have repeatedly failed to give satisfactory answers to the 15 questions for evolutionists.
Feel free to bitterly engage in last wordism at this point while the lukewarm and watered down liberal Christianity churches in Germany continue to bleed members and continue to descend step by step into more immorality (Are some churches in your denominational still "blessing" homosexual "weddings"? If memory serves, and I think it does, you said that this was occurring. See also: Morals decline linked to evolution via university study and Social effects of the theory of evolution). Conservative 16:34, 6 July 2015 (EDT)
It's about honesty in advertising: If you proclaim that something will happen on the "Ides of March", the reader expects that this is something extraordinary, perhaps not as dramatic as the death of Julius Caesar, but at least something remarkable. Proclaiming that at this date a trend manifests just like the days before is quite a disappointment. You are technically correct, but the reader feels betrayed nonetheless. --AugustO 17:03, 6 July 2015 (EDT)

Given all the fraud and foolish speculation that has been used by evolutionist, such as the German evolutionist and atheist Ernst Haeckel (see: Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation and Atheism and deception), one would think that common decency would keep you from charging a creationist with a lack of honesty - especially given the weak support you gave for your contention.

I also cite from a 2013 Question Evolution! blog post entitled 5 strategies for collapsing Darwinism:

"Sun Tzu's strategies and tactics embody the "Eastern tradition of strategy that emphasizes outwitting an opponent through speed, stealth, flexibility, and a minimum of effort." An essay discussing Sun Tzu declares that Tzu promotes "fluidity, flexibility, surprise,,, and intelligence over sheer military might."

Other key principles of Sun Tzu are: finding ways of conquering an enemy without actually fighting (putting the opposition in no win situations), attacking an enemies strategy, attacking weak points of an enemy, the importance of timing and bringing war to an end as quickly as possible.

Sun Tzu is widely credited for writing the classic work The Art of War which is still studied by military strategist today....

In addition, Sun Tzu taught the importance of surprise and stealth to keep your opponents off balance. We have a number of things planned that we we think will be very effective once they are released to the general public....

Alex White, a manager for non-profit causes, says that often modern day ideological wars are wars of attrition and there is some wisdom and applicability in this statement. On the other hand, in an information age and various technologies to rapidly get out one's message, the applicability of White's statement is mitigated and is not a blanket statement. It all depends how entrenched an ideology is in various regions and sectors of the populace."[27]

AugustO, did you notice the words "stealth" and "often modern day ideological wars are wars of attrition". Why are you looking some decisive Battle of Creation vs. Evolution Waterloo? Who is being inattentive/forgetful or dishonest here? Certainly not the biblical creation side of the ideological aisle!

And as I clearly showed above, creationism is making progress as far as grinding down evolutionism in an ideological war of attrition which may or may not have decisive battles as far as gaining more adherents.

I am sorry to hear that you are having a hard time predicting the actions of biblical creationists. The German evolutionist Adolf Hitler had the same problem and the creationist Dwight D. Eisenhower's D-Day invasion was a big success! Conservative 18:07, 6 July 2015 (EDT)

Sorry to hear that you were disappointed though. As an evolutionist, you must be very used to disappointment. For example, the lack of compelling missing link fossils despite having over 150 years to find even one such fossil! See: Evolution and the fossil record and Paleoanthropology Conservative 18:27, 6 July 2015 (EDT)

A note to the Europeans

Although I offered some valid criticism of some European countries/figures, I know that the West and the world at large have been enriched by European culture and European figures (Martin Luther, John Bunyan, King James Bible, William Shakespeare, etc.).

So no hard feelings. And if Europe experiences hardship in the 21 century due to past mistakes, there will be no gloating on my part. Conservative 23:52, 6 July 2015 (EDT)

No offence taken, User: Conservative. I appreciate and enjoy your frank opinions. What gets my goat is the gross innaccuracies and simplifications here and on many other websites. Thirty years ago, they were avoidable. Today, they are inexcusable. Rafael 10:00, 8 July 2015 (EDT)
Based on what I have been reading, Europe and the USA will experience some extremely large financial troubles within 2 to 20 years.[28] And the Austrian School of Economics has been much better at predicting economic recessions/depressions. See: List of people who predicted the 2008 financial crisis and Correct Predictions by the Austrian Economists and Austrian predictions.
I think the best course of action is to increase your skill set, invest in gold/silver once they begin to go up again, invest in MOAT stocks and other recession/depression resistant businesses and follow some of the advice of the preparedness/survivalist movement.
Financial collapses/troubles can be very ugly as can be seen by the thousands of people in Greece committing suicide and as can be seen here: Financial collapses
Greece, America's Great Depression, the 2007/2008 recession and the collapse of the Soviet Union (China still has a planned economy compared to many countries and its economy can have significant effects on the rest of the world) were warnings that governments don't have complete control over their economies and that things can go horribly wrong. 2007/2008 was bad and the next one could be much worse give that the big banks have gotten bigger and given that sovereign debt in the Western World seems to have gotten larger.
Remember, God, gold, guns and a getaway plan! :)

MOAT Strategy - Value Investing - Warren Buffet - Morningstar

20 stocks for the long term

I hope this material is helpful. Conservative 10:58, 8 July 2015 (EDT)

Liberal double standard

Sure, the media have ignored the fact that the World Cup team is mostly white, as long as you ignore all the media stories that have pointed it out, like The Federalist or the New York Daily News to name a few. It would appear that Mr. Schlafly was looking forward to gloating over the team's disappointing World Cup performance and linking it to the gay marriage ruling, and was presumably depressed at the team's domination instead. Only Conservapedia would so desperately search for an angle to whine about regarding one of the great moments in American sports history, but I guess that's what the liberal media boogeyman is for.---Eg 12:15, 7 July 2015 (EDT)

So why doesn't the American women's soccer team have more diversity, and why aren't liberals criticizing that fact? It is not difficult to see the double standard by the liberal media.--Andy Schlafly 19:49, 7 July 2015 (EDT)
  • eyeroll* I just pointed out that they---both liberals and the boogeyman liberal media---have. And while the team's racial diversity may currently be lacking, their sexual orientation diversity certainly isn't.--Eg 21:34, 7 July 2015 (EDT)
Sexual orientation diversity? How many transexuals were on the team? Were they disqualified because they weren't women?! Another case of liberal hypocrisy? Conservative
Transsexuality and sexual orientation are different things. But you knew that.--Eg 19:38, 8 July 2015 (EDT)
The liberal media won't be able to run with their double standard about diversity forever, and their liberal denial about the lack of racial diversity among Americans on the team is, no pun intended, striking.--Andy Schlafly 20:01, 8 July 2015 (EDT)
Not nearly as striking as your complete inability to grasp that there IS no liberal denial about it, because it HAS been noted, and in multiple places. But keep sticking with your pathetic false narrative.--Eg 22:31, 8 July 2015 (EDT)
Nothing like the Augusta National Golf Club media uprising, for example. And the women's national soccer team is much bigger than that one club. VargasMilan 23:06, 8 July 2015 (EDT)
So the new item on MPR whining about the "liberal media" and its alleged denial about the lack of racial diversity on the US women's soccer team contains, as evidence, a link article in the liberal media pointing out the lack of racial diversity on the US women's soccer team. I just...I can't even....----Eg 22:53, 9 July 2015 (EDT)
The headline is clear and logical in pointing out how the media are "largely ignoring" the lack of racial diversity on the field and the coaching staff.--Andy Schlafly 23:50, 9 July 2015 (EDT)
I guess I have to commend you on your....special and unique relationship with reality, Andy. It takes quite a mind to insist that the Earth's spherical shape proves that it's flat, but bravo to you. With that, I should probably bow out from this website as a (admittedly rare) contributor, as it's clearly not the place for me. Godspeed.---Eg 9:58, 10 July 2015 (EDT)

Eg, as far as transgenders who were born males and now self-identify as females, should they or should they not be allowed to play for women's sports teams - including the Olympics? If they should be allowed, what's to prevent liberal cheaters from bringing in male ringers into female sports teams?

Second, if I was born in the USA and now self-identify as Swiss, should I be allowed to move to Switzerland as a Swiss citizen?

Third, if I self-identify as a French poodle, should I be allowed to enter into French poodle dog shows?

Fourth, if a man self-identifies as Napolean Bonaparte, do you think there is a strong possibility that he belongs in a mental institution? Conservative 23:25, 8 July 2015 (EDT)

Of course transgender people will not be able to compete in top level sport, particularly if it were a male to female transgender. Take Caster Semenya, without doubt a female, but she was suspended for a long time when an investigation was carried out about her male hormone levels and it was only after this was concluded that she was allowed to keep her Olympic Gold Medal. If that were the case there would be some weird journeyman 100 meter sprinter, say a 10.2 runner, who would consider a sex change just to get an Olympic medal. As for Andy's argument, It is hard to disagree but in my experience the best people will be picked for a sports team despite race, belief or even behavior. A counter argument could be made about the US 4x100m relay team, it has been a long time since it had a white member. It was excellent performance by the USA women's team so who can argue with the selection?--ColeP 11:27, 10 July 2015 (EDT)
ColeP, you wrote: "As for Andy's argument, It is hard to disagree but in my experience the best people will be picked for a sports team...".
It was recently pointed out to me that when liberals/left are faced with a significantly amount of evidence which is contrary to their position, they very frequently appeal to anecdotal evidence or personal experience. I don't know how the law affects sports team composition. But one thing for certain, I am not going to relay on some someone's purported personal experience or anecdotal evidence. Conservative 12:17, 10 July 2015 (EDT)
Factual evidence, The USA beat Japan 5-2 in the World Cup Final. If there were some enforced quota on them they would have to drop some of the players who were part of a very good team and bring in a weaker replacements. They may not have won. It is not a liberal position to believe people, in whatever walk of life, should be selected on merit rather some other factor.--ColeP 13:00, 10 July 2015 (EDT)
The entire coaching staff of the American women's team is all-white, and for the first 75 minutes of the finals the players on the field for the American women's team were also all-white. The men's team is diverse. The contrast cries out for an explanation by the liberal media, which insists that diversity is so important. Yet mostly media silence under the liberal double standard.--Andy Schlafly 14:15, 10 July 2015 (EDT)

ColeP, I wasn't sure if you were a liberal, conservative or moderate. Regardless, you made a good case in your last post. Conservative 14:32, 10 July 2015 (EDT)

Thank you Conservative. I hope you do not misunderstand me on the media, there is no doubt that if the team had slumped out in the group stage they would have been all over them, digging out the dirt from every corner and recess. --ColeP 15:53, 10 July 2015 (EDT)
I doubt it. Liberal journalists like the liberal overtones of soccer (like internationalism, the egalitarianism of lack of star players) too much to use their intemperate mob tactics to attack soccer. VargasMilan 17:43, 10 July 2015 (EDT)
In response to Cole, I wouldn't expect the liberal media to criticize the women's soccer team if they were to underachieve. Lack of racial diversity is supposedly considered by liberals to be far worse than underachievement, yet almost no one in the liberal media is criticizing the team for its lack of racial diversity among its starting line-up and coaching staff.--Andy Schlafly 19:55, 10 July 2015 (EDT)

Unemployment rate

This link featured on our main page features sophomoric, erroneous analysis that a bright macroeconomics student would notice (and which a commenter indeed noticed). I'm not sure why this article is linked on our main page. GregG 21:47, 10 July 2015 (EDT)

Seriously? You're saying the US unemployment rate might be nearly 60%? (10 x 5.8). BrianKay 18:29, 11 July 2015 (EDT)
I'd like to echo this - even during the Great Depression unemployment was only 20-30%. Are we really suggesting things are twice as bad now and that this writer is the only person who has noticed? Unemployment has been measured the same way for many, many years - trying to change that to suit one's agenda is fairly petty in my opinion. TheRedElephant 10:10, 14 July 2015 (EDT)

The Gallup Organization, a respected U.S polling organization, said in 2015 that the 5.6% unemployment touted by the Obama Administation was a "big lie" as can be seen here: Conservative 18:44, 14 July 2015 (EDT)

According to Forbes, "In 2004, the federal debt was $7.3 trillion. This rose to $10 trillion when the housing bubble burst four years later. Today it exceeds $18 trillion and is projected to approach $21 trillion by 2019. When you break this down to an amount per taxpayer, the numbers are substantial. The chart below contains this data which shows how it has more than doubled over the past 11 years, rising from $72,051 per taxpayer in 2004 to $154,161 today. As the debt continues higher, the liability of every taxpayer is also rising. The change in the amount of the federal debt per taxpayer from 2004 to 2015 represents an average annual increase of 7.16%. This is much more than the average annual wage increase during the same period."[29]
The per capita income for the USA population in 2008 was $26,964.
Sooner or later, Americans are going to have to retire later and the labor participation rate is going to have to increase.Conservative 17:52, 14 July 2015 (EDT)
The Clinton administration made significant changes to how unemployment was measured.[30]
In terms of full employment, probably the most accurate rate of the unemployment rate is 23.1% which takes into account short-term discouraged and other marginally-attached workers as well as those forced to work part-time because they cannot find full-time employment (I think ObamaCare reduced the amount of full-time jobs thanks to employers having an incentive to keep workers under 30 hours of weekly work). [31]
Personally, I think modern Americans get discouraged too easily and give up looking for work too soon. And they need to work harder on developing useful skills - especially with robots/droids changing the nature of the labor market.
At the same time, I don't know how many people are cobbling together full-time work by working several part-time jobs. Plus, post Obamacare, there may be more independent contractors instead of them being employees. Conservative 18:17, 14 July 2015 (EDT)
Here is how the United States ranks on the misery index: The United States ranks 95th, which makes it the 14th least miserable nation of the 108 countries on the table.Conservative 18:28, 14 July 2015 (EDT)

Trump: Good or Bad for the GOP race?

So Donald Trump has been saying some controversial/stupid stuff about the other candidates in the race, and the MSM has been pouring all over it, trying to get Trump to leave the race. It almost makes me want to support him by default, if the mainstream media is so against him, he must be doing something right. But Trump really didn't help the republicans defeat Obama in 2012, though granted he wasn't technically in the race then. I guess the Obama Administration was able to make all of the birth certificate stuff go away somehow.

Now everyone but Ted Cruz (bless his heart) is attacking him viciously, all in lock-step. I think it goes to show how the Republican establishment doesn't tolerate a certain level of deviancy from their set agenda and views. Would Trump be able to survive a general election campaign and emerge victorious? Is Trump a red herring from the Democrats to take away attention from Hillary and the other candidates? Because that's my theory: look at all of his donations to the Clinton Foundation. Something's going on that we're not being told. Thoughts? RittMomney 15:56, 21 July 2015 (EDT)

If Trump chooses to stay in the face and wants to win it, he should apologize for his remark about McCain's service, and then resist and not cave in to steps #4, #5 and #6 of a SJW attack by pointing out how veterans are treated in the USA, cultivating veteran allies, demanding an apology from McCain for calling American citizens who want a secure border "crazy" and by saying that his opponents are trying to disqualify him because they cannot compete via useful ideas for the American public.
Personally, I see both Obama/Trump of being symptomatic of baby boomer narcissism/arrogance (Given the baby boomer generation's size and influence and the prosperity that they grew up in and have seen in their lifetime, the baby boomer generation has acquired a degree of arrogance. And although some good things happened in the 60s, America sowed the seeds of its decline in the 60s counterculture, irreligious leftism which has continued among a significant segment of the population even today. And the irreligious often have big pride issues. See Atheism and arrogance).
I realize that George Washington said cricket clubs have presidents and that he wanted be called "His, High Mightiness" and there is a certain amount of egotism that can be possessed by even good political leaders, but Obama/Trump have huge ego and narcissism issues. For example, both Washington/Coolidge did not seek a second term and I don't see Obama/Trump ever considering such a thing. At the same time, I think Trump has less ego problems than Obama and that says a lot about Obama. Trump actually ran large companies which does require some degree of human relations skills.
Trump gave to politicians in order to gain influence for his business enterprises.
Romney lost because he was a RINO who made a huge gaff with his "47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what" comment. In this day of cell phone sound/video recorders, such a gaffe was a very foolish gaff to make. In addition, Romney could not connect with the working class vote.
Lastly, the very pro-business president Calvin Coolidge was an outstanding president and a pro-business president like Trump could help the economy. The federal government has gotten too big (and is not sustainable) and the private sector needs to grow more and have a firmer foundation and not be reliant on Federal Reserve economic stimulus tactics which just create big economic bubbles which later burst. Conservative 17:13, 21 July 2015 (EDT)
Early days but it seems to be Trump vs Clinton. If either win I believe that both will be the second oldest President at inauguration behind President Reagan. President Reagan was noted for his "laid back" approach, starting work at 10 am and finishing at 4pm (on a quiet day). The world has changed and politics have become more complex since the 1980s so neither Trump nor Clinton will have the luxury of the relaxed workload of President Reagan. This brings into account the age of both, will they have the energy to fulfill the very stressful role of President without it being detrimental to their health, I have my doubts.--ColeP 18:02, 21 July 2015 (EDT)
Calvin Coolidge, due to his small government philosophy, did not put in a huge amount of hours. If Trump adopted a more minimalist foreign policy and focused on things like reforming the tax code and cutting government, he should be able to handle the workload. He seems to have a lot of energy whereas Hillary does not seem to have a lot of energy. Spouses often have similar eating habits and Bill Clinton was not known for his healthy diet.
I don't think Trump will apologize to McCain and the two political parties are weaker than they used to be. So Trump is probably not going away anytime soon. See: Trump to GOP: You're fired. This is especially true since wages are pretty stagnant and the continued flood of illegal immigrants is suppressing wages. It is also widely felt among conservatives that a continued flood of illegal immigration will push the country leftward in its politics. Conservative 18:29, 21 July 2015 (EDT)

Three words summarizes Trump's rise: Republican base anger.[32] So I think many people will look the other way as far as Trump's anger and inappropriate commentary about McCain's war record. They will say McCain provoked Trump.

Many liberals/moderates in the media say Trump's right leaning, celebrity candidacy cannot last, but Arnold Schwarzenegger became California's governor, California elected actor Ronald Reagan who later became president, Italy elected the Italian comedian/actor politician Beppo Grillo and Europe has elected right leaning, angry nativist politicians. Conservative 19:21, 21 July 2015 (EDT)

The grammatical error in the post I am replying to is left to the reader as an exercise. GregG 20:10, 21 July 2015 (EDT)
  • The point of the process is get a conservative in the White House. From that perspective, Trump is not our guy and never has been. His polling negatives are overwhelming.[33] And that's just one of several reasons he could never be elected. PeterKa 20:38, 21 July 2015 (EDT)
Politics is a game of relative strength.
With Hillary's poll numbers going down, her vulnerability as far as the scandal front and with an unpredictable global economy due to European/Chinese/Japanese economic weakness, I don't think it is easy to predict who will be the next president of the United States.
Since Obama/Clinton are both Democrats, a souring economy could very much hurt Clinton's electability. And perhaps, it would make a more business oriented candidate like Trump look more attractive. Conservative 22:29, 21 July 2015 (EDT)

My politics aligns with Cruz. I have a great deal of respect and admiration for what Walker has accomplished. With that said, I love Trump in this race. He is a pit bull fighter. He's cocky, a huge ego, blunt and over the top. After witnessing Republicans working with Obama, it's refreshing to see them getting slapped around by The Donald. But but but his negatives. Blah, force the party to move to the right and grow a spine. It will all be worth it if that happens.--Jpatt 23:35, 21 July 2015 (EDT)

I really like Cruz, but because of his parentage, I don't think he is eligible as far as being a natural born citizen. I would prefer that Scott Walker win the nomination, but Trump is eating up all the political oxygen right now. But maybe with some assistance via Koch money, Walker can rev up his campaign. As JPatt alluded to, maybe Trump can push the party to support a more secure border and perhaps have the Republicans more willing to challenge the media and the left. Conservative 00:13, 22 July 2015 (EDT)
Scott Walker just said, "I don’t know if being gay is a choice".[34]
I grow more skeptical that politics is going to be an avenue that will turn America around. The USA/Western World may have to go through some economic hardship first and then hopefully sober up.
And I think America's current fiscal (growing federal government debt) and monetary policies (Federal Reserve policies) will ultimately cause a 15-20 year economic depression within 20 years. I tend to lean towards the Austrian School of Economics although I don't think they have all the answers.
I think doing things like developing multiple streams of income, earning income in recession/depression resistant sectors of the economy, having some hard assets and developing a strong work skill set is a very helpful thing to do at this time. The Western World has experienced unprecedented wealth for about 50 years, but it seems to be going through a period of cultural/economic decline at this point. And with the increasing Christianization of China, Latin/South America and Africa, the West could face increasing economic competition in the 21st century. See: Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism Conservative 07:29, 22 July 2015 (EDT)
However, one thing I have noticed is that the secular left is beginning to lose momentum. They did horribly in the USA midterm elections. And Gamergate just got two "social justice warrior"/SJW scalps.[35][36] The Supreme Court decision on homosexual "marriage" is fallout from the left's previous political victory of electing Obama. And there is already backlash against that Supreme Court decision and polling data shows that support for homosexual "marriages" has dropped.[37] Roe vs. Wade had the long term effect of rallying the opposition. Perhaps, long term, history could repeat itself.
And of course, global atheism continues to decline in terms of its percentage of global adherents. Professor Eric Kaufmann told a secular audience in Australia: "The trends that are happening worldwide inevitably in an age of globalization are going to affect us."[38] Conservative 09:41, 22 July 2015 (EDT)
Also, the liberal The New Republic imploded and is now bleeding online readers.[39]
Furthermore, the media played a major role in launching the New Atheism movement which has now petered out. And now newspapers are experiencing razor thin profits.[40]
So it's possible American politics can shift to the right. If it can happen in Europe in recent years, it can happen in the USA. Conservative 10:07, 22 July 2015 (EDT)

I'm not sure which part of Europe has shifted to the right. After the global economic crisis, governments across Europe shifted from right to left or left to right, same as in aftershocks of the 70s oil crisis. The right wing parties in government are the same old crony capitalists, throwing money at the banks, but more socially liberal than ever. The British Conservative Party, for example, gave us gay marriage where Tony Blair's liberal Labour Party pulled up short. There are some more right wing parties, like UKIP and Golden Dawn, but they are a minority parties a very long way from holding any kind of power. Rafael 09:47, 23 July 2015 (EDT)

Rafael, frankly, I think you are wasting my time and being contentious for no good reason.
I cite: The Guardian, November 2013: "Of course, the growth in support for far-right, anti-European, anti-immigrant parties has been fed by the worst world recession since at least the 1930s – mass unemployment and falling living standards, made worse by the self-defeating austerity obsession of European leaders."[41] Global Briefing website in 2014: "The 2014 European Union elections saw an unprecedented number of seats won by right-wing parties...".[42]. Huffington Post 2014: "Sudden Rise of Far Right Groups in EU Parliament Rings Alarm Bells Across Europe".[43] CNBC 2015: "European leaders have joined forces to warn of the rise of right-wing political movements on the continent".[44] Russia Today 2015: "Far-right movements are making political gains in several countries - The National Front in France, Golden Dawn in Greece, Lega Nord in Italy to name just a few. Where could this lead?".[45]
Social liberals typically have below average fertility rates. And Europe is bringing in many immigrants with low skills. Europe is headed for decline. In 2014, the Pew Research Forum indicated that Europe will go from 11% of the world's population to 7% of the world's population by 2050. Conservative 10:57, 23 July 2015 (EDT)

I'm sorry you find facts a waste of time.

Yes, minority right wing parties made gains in the EU elections. Those elections are traditionally the protest vote elections. Some years, the left sweep the board. Some, the right. Some, the greens.

However, lets look at two examples, UKIP in the UK and the Golden Dawn in Greece. Unprecedented success in the EU elections, ignominious failure in the national elections. UKIP, need I remind you, has one MP after the recent election. One. Even its own leader failed to get elected.

They are fringe parties appealing to marginalised voters.

And lets be clear on one thing. The likes of the French National Front, Golden Dawn and Lega Nord have more in common with Hitler and Mussolini than Trump and Cruz.

In the meantime centre left and centre right liberal parties dominate European parliaments and governments from Warsaw to Lisbon, from London to Tirana. The parties putting pressure on them and making a difference are the likes of the SNP in the UK and Podemos in Spain, parties way to the left of Obama.

Like I've said many times before, there are people using this site with genuine expertise and insight on British and European matters. We may not have the weight of cherry picked Google search results bringing up out of date articles from The Guardian, Huffington Post and Russia Today but we do know what we are talking about. Rafael 11:17, 23 July 2015 (EDT)

Rafael, I made the modest claim that Europe has shifted to the right. It has made a shift rightward in recent years. I did not say that the right controls Europe.
And as the social safety net gets pared down in Europe due to growing debt and the bond market financing getting more expensive (and due to the bankers lobbying for it) and as the young are taxed heavily to support an aging population, the left will have less and less credibility. Greece's leftist leader has very little credibility at this point due to his abject surrender.
The left has a smaller and smaller set of tools at its disposal and this trend will continue for some time (Shrinking newspaper influence, austerity budgets paring down freebies, etc. etc.). See: The Decline of the State by MARTIN VAN CREVELD Conservative 11:44, 23 July 2015 (EDT)

US-Iran nuclear agreement will be enforced by Iranian inspectors

Yes, a secret side deal has been uncovered according to which IAEA will use Iranian inspectors to collect samples from suspected nuclear sites.[46] I think John Harrington's words are appropriate at this juncture: "Treason doth never prosper; what's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason." PeterKa 09:47, 25 July 2015 (EDT)

Recent headlines

Why does every word in these headlines start with a capital letter?

"The "Donald Trump Act" Just Passed The House By A Landslide,"
"Sheriff Puts The Phrase "In God We Trust" On All His Police Squad Cars"
"Watch Donald Trump Insult CNN’s Homosexual Journalist Anderson Cooper to His Face: "The People Don’t Trust You"."

It does not look good.--ColeP 10:52, 26 July 2015 (EDT)

Popular Articles at Conservapedia

The header is a little bit misleading - could it be named something like "must reads"? --AugustO 18:11, 27 July 2015 (EDT)

"Must reads" is a bit Big Brotherish. Isn't it Leftists who like to tell people what to do?--Andy Schlafly 18:33, 27 July 2015 (EDT)
Calling an article with less than 200 views a popular one seems to be big-brotherish to me. You are the natural English speaker, perhaps you can provide a fitting title? --AugustO 18:36, 27 July 2015 (EDT)
You're citing an exception rather than a representative sample. Headlines are not defined by the exception, but the norm of what follows. But another headline could be better.--Andy Schlafly 18:53, 27 July 2015 (EDT)
I cited the latest addition to the list. I find your argument rather strange: Are you telling me that I can add "a pint of milk" and "the deep blue sea" to the "list of red things", as long as most things in this list are still red? I think you are misleading your readers... --AugustO 02:50, 28 July 2015 (EDT)
If someone adds a bit of milk or sugar to a cup of coffee, it is still called a cup of coffee.--Andy Schlafly 13:01, 28 July 2015 (EDT)
If someone added items about rainbows or gerbils to the "counterexamples to relativity" page, I don't think that would be right, even though most of the items are about relativity. @AugustO: what was the thing with only 200 views? SamHB 22:55, 28 July 2015 (EDT)

Andy, I understand that you wish for Best arguments against homosexuality to become one of the popular articles at Conservapedia. But at the moment, it has less than 300 views, and therefore it isn't a popular article - even if you add sugar and milk to it. Wishful thinking should not replace facts, otherwise we could already add the category American Presidents to the article on Ted Cruz! --AugustO 07:58, 29 July 2015 (EDT)

Why not expand the entry?
Research shows that the more a culture is pro-homosexuality, the more homosexuality exists within a culture. Second, more males choose to practice homosexuality than females. Thus, many woman who want to marry cannot. Thus, many sad ladies.
Homosexuality is not a victimless offense. Homosexuals are more like to get AIDS. AIDS has caused among other things, child hemophiliacs to die prematurely.
Third, in team sports homosexuality is often frowned upon by players. Homosexuality also causes many diseases. Also, homosexuality is more practiced by atheists (see: Religious Upbringing and Culture Affects Rates of Homosexuality). Atheists have lower sports performance (see: Sports performance: Religious faith vs. atheism). Both homosexuals and atheists have lower fertility rates. Thus, under ceteris paribus (all other conditions remaining equal) conditions (for example, wealth in a culture can produce arrogance/ungodliness), increased ungodliness as far as homosexuality and atheism, produces less Olympic gold. Conservative 09:41, 29 July 2015 (EDT)
Conservative, your remark on Olympic Gold does not hold water. The UK has become more permissive of homosexuality and more atheist as the 21st Century has progressed. In 2008 it won it's highest gold medal tally since the Olympics became a true global event, this was eclipsed in 2012 though home team advantage certainly came into play. I expect in 2016 they will win less gold as the home advantage is taken away but still more then 2008. Sports science, lifestyle, funding etc is far more important to success than belief or tolerance of homosexuality. I am not supporting homosexuality or atheism but saying that is not relevant to sporting success.--ColeP 10:51, 29 July 2015 (EDT)

My argument does hold water. More prosperous countries have better Olympic performance. I clearly addressed this matter vis a vis my "all other things remaining equal" comment. A prosperous country with less homosexuality is going to do better at sports than a prosperous country with more homosexuality all other things remaining equal.

And homosexuality hasn't been shown to produce the significant amount of wealth that the Protestant work ethic has produced (see: Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism). Harvard University historian Niall Ferguson declared: "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."

Just because a country has a cultural legacy of Christianity or past wealth generated by Christianity, which makes them more prosperous today (they have the capital required for capitalism, etc. etc.), does not make homosexuality a contributing factor which causes more Olympic gold or negate a loss of Olympic gold which is occurring.

By the way, how many full blown and public transexuals have won the decathlon? Jenner was better off not being preoccupied with transexualism in terms of being able to win the decathlon. Sissy Jenner couldn't have done it! Conservative 11:24, 29 July 2015 (EDT)


Are we calling Bruce the name 'he' wants to be known as, Caitlyn? As far as I know, the name on his drivers license is still Bruce. I am unaware of a court filing that states a name change.--Jpatt 12:39, 28 July 2015 (EDT)

Excellent point. Please feel free to edit as you think appropriate.--Andy Schlafly 12:59, 28 July 2015 (EDT)
His page should be titled Bruce Jenner, shortened to Jenner on subsequent reference. Bruce was his name as an Olympian. To call him "Caitlyn" suggests that his plastic surgery is more notable his athletic accomplishments. I suppose history will judge, but I certainly hope it doesn't turn out that way. No, I don't subscribe to the "driver's license name" concept. PeterKa 00:53, 29 July 2015 (EDT)
How about the civil suit name concept? --Jpatt 01:21, 29 July 2015 (EDT)
The purpose of writing is to communicate with the reader. So we should use names likely to be familiar to the reader. In this case, the reader is likely to be familiar with both names. But when one name is much less familiar, it should be avoided, regardless of its legal status. PeterKa 02:05, 29 July 2015 (EDT)

Third term

As Hillary's campaign for president becomes a joke, Obama talks about running for a third term the same way he once talked about rewriting U.S. immigration law.[47] This isn't the first time either. He hinted at a desire to run again back in April at the White House Correspondents Dinner.[48] As far as I know, no one is encouraging him to run. With all the obsessing over his legacy, I assume he doesn't want to be remembered as "guy who ran for a third term and failed." So if does run, we're likely to see all out attack by an unleashed IRS as well as other federal agencies. Parallels with the Morsi episode in Egypt, as well as Allende in Chile, come to mind. PeterKa 19:47, 30 July 2015 (EDT)

Barack Obama cannot run for a third Presidential term. That would be unconstitutional. The Twenty-Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution declares: "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice...." VargasMilan (talk) 22:55, 2 August 2015 (EDT)
You're right about the Constitution.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:05, 2 August 2015 (EDT)
  • Hillary's toast. Biden's not running. Now this 22nd Amendment thingee. Democrats trying to put a happy face on the party's future are reduced to cheerleading for Martin O'Malley. Meanwhile, Obama is having the time of his life. He had eight years to groom a successor. To the extent that things collapse after he leaves, the ingrates will be reminded of just how indispensable he really was. PeterKa (talk) 20:29, 3 August 2015 (EDT)

Megyn Kelly

The rightwing is out of luck with debate hosts. We get the same treatment from liberals Stephanopoulos and Crowley as Kelly. Getting rid of her will not have any effect. The angst is real [49], "All that said, the backlash against Kelly has been considerable. There has been so much invective directed at her on the Internet that it's created security concerns for Fox." --Jpatt (talk) 23:10, 9 August 2015 (EDT)

Maybe Conservapedia should host a future debate!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:16, 9 August 2015 (EDT)
That would be great! Plus we could make it that "Conservative candidates" get 6 minute replies, the rest get 3 minutes. --Jpatt (talk) 23:22, 9 August 2015 (EDT)
Great idea. And we would not limit the candidates to fleeting 30-second conclusions, while the moderators talk and talk all they like.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:43, 9 August 2015 (EDT)
That would be interesting! There could even be a live chat page where people could ask questions of the candidates themselves. How does one arrange it? You could contact some of the candidates directly I suppose? JohnSelway (talk) 23:56, 9 August 2015 (EDT)
It is the job of journalists to ask the tough questions and that is going to upset supporters of the various candidates. A better tough question Kelly could have asked is that Trump has been purposefully vague about what to do with the illegal immigrants that are already in the USA. She did her job by asking tough questions, but she could have done better as far as her toughest question. Trump's occasional rudeness is dwarfed in size as a problem by the illegal immigration issue. His high poll numbers should have been an indication to her that the immigration issue is what many Republicans are concerned about. Conservative (talk) 10:46, 10 August 2015 (EDT)
This is a FANTASTIC idea. It would be great for us foreigners to get an MSM-free take on the various candidates.
I say let's sic the tenacious collective known as User:Conservative on 'em! Rafael (talk) 12:31, 10 August 2015 (EDT)


Just... wow. Are you joking? Do you seriously think that any of the Republican candidates, even the lowest-polling, desperate for any attention candidates, would give this insignificant little blog the time of day?

Are you still laboring under the delusion that this site is somehow significant? That the Conservative Bible Project still might catch on? That you get any anyone viewing you at all to do anything other than laugh, or stare in horror like rubberneckers passing an auto accident?

And yes, User:Conservative I know, the wonderful Freedom from Atheism Foundation has cited CP. I'm also pretty sure you are Freedom from Atheism Foundation, and are paying for a lot of the comments they get on Facebook. MontgomeryP (talk) 18:27, 13 August 2015 (EDT)

A supporter of Hillary Clinton, by chance??--Andy Schlafly (talk) 18:47, 13 August 2015 (EDT)
Nope, too conservative for me. I like Sanders, but I'm concerned about electability. Unless you give us Trump.
Of course, the fact you think that takes a liberal to criticize you just shows you've forgotten the conservatives that condemned the CBP.
If you're a Sanders supporter, then you may like some of what Rand Paul says. And from there, it's not that that far from other conservative positions. Bernie Sanders-Rand Paul, a dream ticket perhaps?--Andy Schlafly (talk) 19:21, 13 August 2015 (EDT)
Paul is a small-l libertarian, and i'm guessing would be a big-L Libertarian if he didn't care about electability. My pet theory is that the Libertarians big problem is most people will look at their views, and see some things they like, and keep reading until they get to something that makes them say, "you people are nuts!" I've also got an almost instinctual negative reaction to candidates whose base seems to have an inordinate number of zealots supporting them, and that's true of Paul. (And I'm starting to see it with Sanders, too.)
I'm in a new position for me -- before now, I lived in a state was considered an almost sure win for the Democrats in the general election, and held a late enough primary that the nomination was effectively settled. I'd usually cast my primary vote for someone other than the presumed nominee that had some ideas I liked. I'm in a state with an earlier primary now, and it's very much a battleground state for the general election. If the primary is reduced to Sanders vs. Clinton, I'll have to choose between "like better" and "likely to win".
I'll be blunt, though: American conservatism will not see my support as long as "anti-gay" is an almost required stance. You get people like Barry Goldwater back, whose attitude about gays in the military was "I don't care if you are straight as long as you can shoot straight", then I'll give you a look. (And I know Goldwater expressed that attitude after leaving office, and learning he had a gay grandson (I think.)) MontgomeryP (talk) 21:39, 13 August 2015 (EDT)
Oh, Sanders-Paul? It might be an intriguing idea if our system made a European parliamentary democracy coalition government a possibility, but as long as the Vice-Presidency "ain't worth a bucket of warm spit", why would anyone take the number two spot? A President from the other side would certainly marginalize the VP, pretty much ruining it as even a stepping stone for the Presidency. The only way it would have any real meaning would be with a very close Senate where breaking ties was done regularly. MontgomeryP (talk) 21:51, 13 August 2015 (EDT)
Nearly 80% of Americans respect the Bible. That's where conservative values align, plus some logic as well. Many people walk away from them, but many of those later return. In the 1970s, after Roe v. Wade, many millions thought that was the way of the future. But it wasn't.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:13, 14 August 2015 (EDT)
"Bernie Sanders-Rand Paul, a dream ticket perhaps?--Andy Schlafly (talk) 19:21, 13 August 2015 (EDT)" -- YES!!! Getting both Bernie and Rand, Pres and VP, THAT would be the... stuff!! Humanperson (talk) 15:13, 30 August 2015 (EDT)

What if....

I've been following the presidential race for 2016 with much interest, especially Donald Trump and his admittance that he would run as an independent if he didn't win the republican nomination.

That could mean a likely possible scenario for the presidential election might be BUSH v CLINTON v TRUMP.

What would happen if Clinton won the most electoral votes but not the majority needed to secure a victory? EJamesW (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2015 (EDT)

Then the House of Representatives would pick the next president, as occurred in 1824. That doesn't sound too bad, but in the past third party candidates have almost never won entire states, and thus win very few Electoral College votes.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 19:06, 10 August 2015 (EDT)
John Anderson in 1980 and Ross Perot in 1992 were both expected to "throw it into the house" at one point, but they faded in the home stretch. PeterKa (talk) 19:26, 10 August 2015 (EDT)
Trump has stated on multiple occasions that 3rd party nod is a strategy to keep the GOP honest. He is aware that 3rd party will split the GOP vote. Even without a 3rd party run, a divided GOP is still a real concern as we saw with Romney. If Trump is the GOP nominee, will the establishment abandon him as they did Goldwater? --Jpatt (talk) 19:35, 10 August 2015 (EDT)
I would guess not. He may loose support from more conservative voters but they would at the most abstain, certainly not vote for Clinton. He would gain more from the center than he would loose from the right and that, I'm afraid, is where the battle is.--ColeP (talk) 19:54, 10 August 2015 (EDT)
  • Everyone would abandon Trump. It would be even worse than 1964. The matchups show Hillary 15 points ahead of Trump.[50] (Goldwater lost by 22 points.) Yes, it is way too early to be looking at matchups. But in this case, we talking about two candidates who already extremely well known. These polls don't show the impact of the Trump/Kelly spat, which I'm sure didn't go over well with moderates. PeterKa (talk) 21:24, 10 August 2015 (EDT)
Trump has shown that he is willing to say things that others are not. Recall that Trump single-handedly dropped Obama's approval ratings below 40% just by harping on the birth certificate issue. Almost no one else would even touch the issue, and yet Trump forced the President of the United States to defend against Trump's criticisms. Like him or not, Trump is a political powerhouse.
What does that mean for conservatives? This might result in a conservative, not necessarily Trump, winning the nomination. Trump can defeat Bush in New Hampshire, leaving Bush without a victory in the first two states. (Surely Bush will lose in Iowa.) Trump may pull more votes away from Bush than a conservative alternative.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 21:37, 10 August 2015 (EDT)
So it's prediction time, McLaughlin Group style? In that case, I predict Trump will fade as quickly as Gingrich did in 2012. Liberals occasionally fall in love with an unelectable candidate like McGovern, Nader, and now Sanders. It's a tradition goes back to their populist roots with Bryan and so forth. For conservatives, the idea of presidential politics is to elect someone who can do the job and lead the country, not to fall in love with anyone. An independent Trump campaign won't go anywhere or pull votes from anyone. Once Trump fades, it will be Walker vs. Bush. Bush's big advantage is name recognition, which will mean less and less as the campaign progresses. Walker will take Iowa, Bush New Hampshire, and South Carolina will be make or break. PeterKa (talk) 11:56, 11 August 2015 (EDT)
Your prediction is fascinating. I predict that Huckabee will take Iowa, Trump will take New Hampshire, and then South Carolina will be the key primary, as you say.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 13:00, 11 August 2015 (EDT)
From a pragmatic point of view I think it is important to get a Republican in the White House, even if he is a so called RINO. At least the foundations of Rome will be in place.--ColeP (talk) 15:47, 11 August 2015 (EDT)
  • The latest poll shows Trump coming on strong with 22 percent of Iowa caucus-goers, compared to 14 percent for Carson, and 9 percent for Walker.[51] The wild man debate and post-debate act is certainly entertaining and apparently hits the spot at this point in the election cycle. Howard Dean was the Democrats' "summer fling" in 2003. In the fall, they decided to get serious and shifted their support to Kerry, who was supposedly more electable on account of his "war hero" status. (Democrats have strange ideas about military service.) PeterKa (talk) 19:32, 12 August 2015 (EDT)
Trump's strong polling probably reflects his post-debate performance in standing up against the media. But how long will Trump refuse to cave into liberals? I hope Trumps keeps campaigning until the New Hampshire primary, which he could win, but I don't think he has any chance of winning the Iowa caucuses.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:01, 13 August 2015 (EDT)

My kingdom for a thumb drive

With the FBI confiscating her email server,[52] the news just keeps getting worse and worse for Hillary. A mere three weeks ago, she was our "inevitable" president. Now we can gloat at her imminent downfall. I have to wonder if Obama is orchestrating these hits. Does he prefer Biden? The moment becomes even more beautiful when you think of all the unpunished Clinton crimes that have accumulated over the years: predatory mortgages at Whitewater, unexplained cattle futures swag, missing Rose Law firm records, and industrial-scale bribe taking and influence peddling at the Clinton Family Foundation. PeterKa (talk) 08:57, 12 August 2015 (EDT)

Your headline is extraordinarily witty and perceptive!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 12:28, 12 August 2015 (EDT)
Call me a cynic, but I doubt the Obama administration will do anything as far as convicting Hillary. And the Democrats who support abortion/homosexuality/etc. probably don't care if she is corrupt. Conservative (talk) 09:23, 13 August 2015 (EDT)
It's unlikely she's headed to jail. But Obama can now put this issue in the news anytime he likes. Each time he does, she takes a hit. And Dems do care about this stuff. Her polls have slid quite a bit in the last three weeks. I interpreted that as a delayed reaction to the Clinton Cash revelations. I notice Obama has unleashed his Black Lives Matter goons on Sanders.[53] While it fills my heart with joy to see one Democratic contender after another being cut down to size, one has to wonder where the president is taking his party. I am waiting for a reporter to ask, “The convention has found that all the candidates are unworthy. Will you finally consider a third term, Mr. President!” PeterKa (talk) 10:42, 13 August 2015 (EDT)

As far as the email and the Clinton's crooked foundation scandals, was Hillary's loss of support largely due to independents or due largely to Democrats loss of support or both in about equal measures? Conservative (talk) 18:12, 13 August 2015 (EDT)

US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) has surged to a lead over Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton in the first-in-the-nation primary state of New Hampshire.[54] However, I am guessing Sanders put a lot of effort into his New Hampshire campaign. He doesn't have enough campaign money to go a lot wider I am guessing. Conservative (talk) 18:40, 13 August 2015 (EDT)
  • There is a full analysis of Hillary's poll numbers here. According to the chart at the top ofthis article, her numbers begin to slide seriously in the last quarter of 2014. The last few months look like the start of a death spiral. They are lower now than they were at any time in 2007-2008. PeterKa (talk) 08:25, 15 August 2015 (EDT)

mainpage story?

Saw this on my facebook feed. Evidence of Wikipedia's slow demise? Perhaps a good mainpage story. JohnSelway (talk) 23:50, 13 August 2015 (EDT)

Good story. Thanks for mentioning it. I've posted it.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2015 (EDT)

Missing Data

One week of data missing, nearly 500 revisions lost (including some 50 of mine). Instead of some unabashed "bad things happen", given only as an answer to a query, I'd expect a short explanation at the main page and the usual "sorry for your inconvenience"! --AugustO (talk) 07:44, 26 August 2015 (EDT)

You make a valid point. I considered doing that but was preempted by the comment on my Talk Page, which shows up on the Revisions page which editors would see. The problem with doing a posting on the Main Page is that it might be confusing to the more than 99% of the visitors who did not edit during the affected period. Also, relatively few substantive edits were affected; the period was less than a week, and many of the edits lost were housecleaning deletions by myself and some talk-page edits.
Also, I thought you might be able to restore some of the lost edits, and you did! You're a whiz at that!!! Have any more?--Andy Schlafly (talk) 10:44, 26 August 2015 (EDT)
One or more of the editors of the User: Conservative editing group largely writes Conservapedia content in a MS Word document before posting it to Conservapedia. After it is posted to Conservapedia, then various revisions are done.
By creating content in this manner, an external backup is created. Conservative (talk) 12:02, 26 August 2015 (EDT)
Browsers contain old information in their cache, also, and individual users can retrieve that and repost.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 12:44, 26 August 2015 (EDT)
The search engines Google, Bing and Yahoo and other leading search engines have caches of articles too. For example, HERE is the Google cache of Conservapedia's atheism article from August 23, 2015. Conservative (talk) 15:27, 26 August 2015 (EDT)