Talk:Main Page/Archive index/174

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

AOC on babies

It wasn't so long ago that leaders across the political spectrum advised us to behave responsibly so that our children could have a better future. Today's left is more of a death cult and doesn't see it that way at all: "Ocasio-Cortez asks if climate change means we should stop having kids." As the jihadists say, we love death as you love life. But if AOC thinks that saving the planet is a lost cause, why should we trade in our cars and our lovely cows for worthless wind turbines and solar cells? See "Bill Gates Slams Unreliable Wind and Solar Energy." PeterKa (talk) 22:28, 26 February 2019 (EST)

More and more, 2020 is beginning to resemble 1972. There was even a movie made about Zero Population Growth to deal with Third World poverty, environmental justice, etc etc etc. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 11:59, 27 February 2019 (EST)
Even AOC's chief of staff knows this stuff is nonsense. Here he is enjoying a burger at a lunch with the boss. PeterKa (talk) 18:52, 27 February 2019 (EST)

More MAGA hat madness

Another incident, this time an 81 year-old man was (allegedly) attacked in a grocery store over his hat. [1] --David B (TALK) 18:58, 27 February 2019 (EST)

Messages to the secular leftist desperate to get my attention

Two things:

1. Your reading comprehension is poor. Gay bowel syndrome, which was recently addressed in the medical literature in 2014 in terms of its ill effects on public health, is not a syndrome which addresses bowel movements. The list of maladies associated with the syndrome are clearly addressed in the article you certainly did not understand and/or read. Perhaps, you have difficulty understanding medical science.

Video of Conservapedia on The Hour (Interview with Andy Schlafly and his homeschool students): "We bring in all the health harm that is caused by homosexuality... You get that at Conservapedia. You are not going to get that sort of fair treatment at Wikipedia."

2. I make no apologies for creating content related to Atheism and animal abuse or any other misdeeds of atheists. I realize such content makes you upset because it further reveals the moral depravity of many in irreligious regions. "For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed." - John 3:20. Conservative (talk) 10:28, 28 February 2019 (EST)

Mr. Chambers, you seem bitter and trying to rain on the parade I am marching in. Perhaps, you should write to Richard Dawkins and tell him he wasted his time. After all, his side lost. The atheist movement is essentially dead (see: Decline of the atheist movement).
Rabbi Jonathan Sacks declared: "...the 17th century was the beginning of an age of secularization which has lasted four centuries until now; the 21st century is exactly the opposite, it's the beginning of an age of desecularization. Religion is seizing power; they're not yielding power." See: Desecularization
300-400 years of Western atheism down the drain! Among other things, a horde of religious immigrants and religious families having more children is beginning to crush the work of atheist activists under their feet (see: Causes of desecularization)Conservative (talk) 02:00, 1 March 2019 (EST)

Cohen clears Trump on Russia collusion

Although the MSM is nearly delirious over the testimony Michael Cohen gave to Congress Wednesday, their tone doesn't square with what Cohen actually said: "Questions have been raised about whether I know of direct evidence that Mr. Trump or his campaign colluded with Russia. I do not. I want to be clear."[2] In the Steele Dossier, Cohen is portrayed as a key colluder. If in fact he didn't know about any collusion, it is hard to see how there could be anything to the theory. PeterKa (talk) 04:09, 1 March 2019 (EST)

I found this WaPo headline amusing: "The GOP performance at the Cohen hearing was a study in moral corruption." Ah, the good old days of the Kavanaugh hearings when committee members could just accuse the witness of gang rape and not have to worry about moral corruption. PeterKa (talk) 04:47, 1 March 2019 (EST)
So let me get this straight: The star witness in sworn Congressional testimony is a felon who was convicted of lying under oath to Congress. Sounds as airtight as a flatulent cow. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 10:23, 1 March 2019 (EST)

You're not showing a lot of compassion. Didn't you hear Cohen drop the bombshell revelation that Trump ran a campaign of "hate and division"? Who could defend that? Besides, the Republicans are swimming upstream—the cameras loved Cohen's youthful glow [as he seemed to perjure himself yet again], and Ocasio-Cortez's totally self-provided questioning evoked comparisons with Henry Clay's grasp of ethical interplay as it withered Trump's façade of congeniality, nearly proving her a second Justice Sotomayor—a preternaturally young wise Latina for the internet age. VargasMilan (talk) 12:49, 1 March 2019 (EST)

Poor Peter. "Hard to see"? Did you squint? You know if the TV's on, and two football teams get together (Democrats and the illiberal media) and huddle, call plays, tackle each other, make throwing motions and cheer touchdowns, depending on how good they are, for some amount of time you're going to assume that there's a ball on the field. But...nope! VargasMilan (talk) 13:07, 1 March 2019 (EST)
To be fair, the cameras also loved Hillary Clinton's "first woman president" status and declared her to be the inevitable winner in 2016. We never got her in office (thank goodness). And I wouldn't underestimate the youth. They're making a lot of YouTube videos condemning the left, AOC included, as well as several other stuff defending the right wing. Pokeria1 (talk) 13:11, 1 March 2019 (EST)
It was explosive. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 13:12, 1 March 2019 (EST)
The bombshell revelation exploded? I didn't even get to watch his "testimony" and must have felt the percussion. The revelation must have been explosive, because Cohen looked like a "shell" of his former self.
Pokeria, did you know that Cohen's attorney for that debacle was a friend of the Clintons, Lanny Davis? So there was a little bit (okay, maybe a lot) of the Clintons there? VargasMilan (talk) 13:47, 1 March 2019 (EST)
Deputy prosecutor Andrew D. Goldstein, the fixer's fixer.
Wouldn't have surprised me. I was just saying we shouldn't be too concerned about AOC and Henry Clay's "rise" since they'll inevitably fall, as would Cohen, no matter wat "youthful glow" he might have. Unless that post you made regarding that was meant to be sarcastic. Pokeria1 (talk) 14:43, 1 March 2019 (EST)
I think everyone was a little afraid of what Cohen was going to reveal about Trump. But when he delivered that line about "hate and division", it was pretty clear he had nothing. I guess I was trying to breathe some life into a description of his hang-dog expresssion. VargasMilan (talk) 19:29, 1 March 2019 (EST)
Whatever happened to attorney client privilege? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 04:11, 2 March 2019 (EST)
Whenever the "rules" get in the way, Robert Mueller sends in this guy. You of all people should know as you profiled him for Conservapedia. VargasMilan (talk) 07:16, 2 March 2019 (EST)
Trump should tell Michael Cohen, "I knew Roy Cohn. Roy Cohn was a friend of mine. You sir, are no Roy Cohn." RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 11:19, 2 March 2019 (EST)

Is Biden the frontrunner?

Can an old-fashioned labor-oriented Dem hold sway in the age of wokeness and intersectionality? It would certainly be a counterintuitive outcome. But there Biden is, sitting atop every recent poll of Democratic presidential preference.[3] The media yearns for Harris or Warren. The progressives want Bernie. If you dismiss Biden's dominance as mere name recognition, Bernie certainly has plenty of that as well. Bernie also has his own "People's Party" now. So he could be in the general election regardless of what happens with the Democratic nomination. If Biden is the nominee, a lot of Dems will be looking for a left-wing alternative. If the nominee is Bernie, Harris, or Warren, moderates may shift their support to Howard Schultz. PeterKa (talk) 09:43, 4 March 2019 (EST)

Which reminds me, we need to spruce up the Konstantin Chernenko page with more progressive politics, free healthcare, worker's rights, machine politics, etc. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 12:15, 4 March 2019 (EST)
Bob Dole was 73 when his 1996 campaign was sunk by a torrent of "He's so old" jokes. Biden will be 77 when the DNC meets next year. PeterKa (talk) 21:50, 4 March 2019 (EST)
Looks like we dodged another bullet. Hillary dropped out. The scary thought is, How long can our luck keep up? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 23:01, 4 March 2019 (EST)
Posted. Appreciate your wit, too!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:09, 4 March 2019 (EST)
And some people say ther's no God: Eric Holder says he will not run for president in 2020. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 03:10, 5 March 2019 (EST)
The idea that the Dem nomination is Biden versus Sanders is fast becoming conventional wisdom. The pundits were sure that Biden's black support would migrate to Harris as soon as she declared. But Harris came, did her thing, and has now faded. The guy who once called Obama "articulate and clean" and embraced segregation back in 1975 is now master of the black vote. PeterKa (talk) 06:41, 6 March 2019 (EST)
I wouldn't count out Klobuchar, Gillibrand, Kamala in that order, or some other unknown (Inslee? Beto?). Dems nominating a 70+ year old white man is totally out of character. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 10:43, 6 March 2019 (EST)
A few days ago Sen. Clinton denied she meant to say that she dropped out, so the news was probably part of a stunt. I know we don't want her to run, but we need to accept the fact that she might. VargasMilan (talk) 14:08, 10 March 2019 (EDT)

Take note about "white privilege"

The phrase "white privilege" didn't have any currency until the 10-year countdown began on the end of diversity quotas—or what could be called "non-white privilege"—at universities, when it's possible that other related legislation will follow. It's not a reserved constitutional power, but "diversity" is too valuable a tool for dissolving white communities for liberal leaders to give up willingly, so they are quickly originating brand new kinds of diversity from under which to form groups, the more private and opaque the better.

The phrase "white nationalism" didn't have any currency until leftists needed to prevent non-whites from joining Trump after seeing his promised and consistently successful re-building of the American economy. I mean most whites believe in melting-pot America and E pluribus unum, yet the more non-whites that white people have accommodated to offer them economic and political opportunity in the country their families first settled, somehow the greater their supposed desire is to erect an ethno-nation-state of white people.

When this contradiction occupies the mind of the beneficiaries of these accommodations, if, into their mind, they even bother to allow it, the only rationales inducible seem markedly infantile and forced.

In the United States, there are good whites and bad whites, and the good whites are struggling against the bad ones, even though you never actually see or hear the bad ones—they're like Big Foot or the Loch Ness monster—the legends all say they are there, and if you watch television, you assume that fictional appearances of them have to be modeled from the real thing, but you never see them in person—but, then why is E Pluribus Unum still on the coins? My neighbor called the country a "melting pot". These must be struggles that the good ones won [over the bad ones]. Are the white nationalists really trying to build an ethno-state? But doesn't it seem strange that every country in the world has people who live here? And the Statue of Liberty has been up 130 years, but nobody wants to pull it down! Maybe the good whites are so busy struggling that they have no time to explain themselves? It doesn't make sense.
You've been in the United States illegally for years, so we can't help you if these bad whites erupt—you can be swept back over the border and lose everything! We the Democrats won't be as tough. So if you illegally vote, you're really just voting in your basic self-interest. No time to talk! I think they may be about to erupt!
The United States is a crumbling empire and needs immigrants to fill the void in employment, cultural authenticity and current political ideas. [Projection, anyone?] The melting pot analogy to American immigration doesn't suit our unique political culture—immigrants have "melted" in way too much! Everybody knows white person political culture is like a blank sheet of paper, where everyone writes and colors in their own loyalties and laws—white blank paper just like their skin color! But even white people get a turn, though more like a servant referee to reconcile our wildly diverse expectations—a bribable one of course—we know how governments work from living in our native land. The constitution? What's that? Balkanization? On an unrelated subject, have you ever noticed how wonderful it is how political chaos diverts attention away from one's own moral shortcomings?

Someone said identity groups within known American minority groups have slowly turned toward opposing white people. There's been no push-back on saying so, so it's safe to assume that at least liberal racial or ethno-state nationalism groups are primarily anti-white identity groups and are currently allied with, if not directly anti-white, closely-matched other identity groups and exchange political favors with them along that racial aspect. We can only hope carrying out a plan based on this won't work but will instead become a circular firing squad. VargasMilan (talk) 04:55, 6 March 2019 (EST)

Great speech, sincerely. That seems to lay out the basic themes Democrats approach 2020 with. IMO, most Trump backers will ignore it. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 11:01, 6 March 2019 (EST)

Ilhan Omar and anti-Semitism

The Democrats can no longer pass a resolution condemning anti-Semitism for fear of offending freshman U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar. Instead they will condemn "all hate."[4] To Omar's supporters the real issue is Trump, who they accuse of calling neo-Nazis "very fine people." No 1, this is a lie. Trump was referring to people who wanted to keep the Robert E. Lee statue in Charlottesville. He specifically stated that he did not include neo-Nazis in this description. No. 2, whatever Trump said is irrelevant to the Omar issue. Omar matters because the Democrat Party's proudest boast is that it is the party of racial tolerance and equality. Her anti-Semitism lets the air right out of that tire.[5] PeterKa (talk) 22:36, 6 March 2019 (EST)

Fresh from victory over Pelosi and the corrupt Old Guard, Omar may now be the important member of Congress, as David Duke puts it. Will mainstream America vote for its own destruction? "Forget about Israel: Ilhan Omar’s not a big fan of America, either." PeterKa (talk) 00:59, 9 March 2019 (EST)

GOP special election victories

So far this year, the GOP has won four special elections in state legislatures, flipping the seats from Dems: [6] Each of those victories were either in historically Democrat areas or areas that voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016. The 2020 election is still a long while away, but this is a good sign. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:25, 7 March 2019 (EST)

Americans prefer center-right governments. If Biden loses his primary and a whacky leftist wins the Democrat primary, Donald Trump will probably be re-elected. If Bernie Sanders wins the nomination, I predict Trump surrogates (and possibly Trump himself) will point out that the evidence would seem to indicate that Sanders is an atheist (see: Bernie Sanders' reluctance to call himself an atheist). Atheism is often a kiss of death in American politics (see: Sociology of "atheism is un-American" view).Conservative (talk) 02:52, 12 March 2019 (EDT)
Let's hope you're right. Especially considering that nearly half of voting-age Americans right now are now under the belief that Socialism is good, and Capitalism is bad, and probably also adhere to atheist thought (and you can blame colleges and schools for this as well). Pokeria1 (talk) 02:55, 12 March 2019 (EDT)
Left leaning McGovern was slaughtered in a general election. Left leaning Obama won due to the train wreck of a presidency of G.W. Bush and the weakness of Mitt Romney as a candidate (Mormon, RINO and an elitist). In addition, it was foolishly hoped that Obama would be a unifier as far as racial politics which he clearly wasn't.Conservative (talk) 03:02, 12 March 2019 (EDT)
Well, to be fair regarding Romney, there was also sufficient evidence of voter fraud on Obama's end due to his use of Chicago politics, wasn't even the first time as ACORN and the Black Panther scandal revealed.
Besides, according to InfoWars as well as a recent Harris poll, 49.6 percent of the entire adult voting block prefers socialism over capitalism (a combination of both Millennials and Generation Z). Pokeria1 (talk) 03:09, 12 March 2019 (EDT)

America might have a fling with socialism, but the trend in Western World politics is clearly right-wing nationalism/populism. The flaws of socialism/communism/leftism will be further revealed when Europe/China experience economic problems and it seems like both of them will. Perhaps Americans will be less enamored of socialism then.

Both secular Europe and communist China face economic challenges in terms of common problems associated with aging populations (see: Global atheism and aging populations). And unless China reforms itself and creates a more dynamic/capitalistic system, it will be much harder for China to compete in the future because many nations appear to be tiring of China's unfair trade practices and intellectual property theft (see: Atheism and stealing). The rise of right-wing nationalism/populism in much of the world virtually insures China will not be able to sustain its unfair trade practices.

In addition, many students are defaulting on their college student debt and so the higher education bubble may finally burst. Furthermore, secular left leaning colleges are losing market share while conservative/Christian colleges are gaining market share.[7]Conservative (talk) 03:31, 12 March 2019 (EDT)

Well, that gives me some hope, at least. Pokeria1 (talk) 03:24, 12 March 2019 (EDT)
I updated my previous post above (see the college data).Conservative (talk) 03:29, 12 March 2019 (EDT)
But take my theory: young people will always tend to like government workers more than their bosses. It's much easier to be nice to people when you're giving them stuff bought by other people's money rather than your own money together with behavior corrections on toil they used to get it. Unless, of course, they are in a position to be aware of my theory and prevent it from happening to themselves. VargasMilan (talk) 06:07, 12 March 2019 (EDT)

Trump's tax returns

It wasn't so long ago that there was nothing more important to the Dems than getting ahold of Trump's tax returns. Nowadays, not so much. After all, if the Dems did demand Trump's tax documents, the Republican Senate could retaliate by releasing the returns of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal.[8] Pelosi's net worth soared from $31.38 million to $101.12 million the last time she was Speaker. I'd say there might be something there worth investigating.[9] PeterKa (talk) 23:50, 8 March 2019 (EST)

All too true. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 06:38, 10 March 2019 (EDT)
That was an amusing video.
A month ago, Pelosi was a paladin of the resistance. Now she has been reduced to a shell of her former botoxed self: "Pelosi’s Reason For Not Impeaching Trump: ‘He’s Just Not Worth It’." Something tells me Barr is going to be a great attorney general. PeterKa (talk) 07:26, 12 March 2019 (EDT)

None dare call it pseudoscience

Pseudoscience doth never prosper? What's the reliance?
If it be awarded the Nobel Prize, none dare call it pseudoscience.

VargasMilan (talk) 10:07, 12 March 2019 (EDT)

I noticed the notorious pseudoscientist Deepak Chopra is now doing fundraising for PBS. So our tax dollars are being used to promote pseudoscience by PBS, while PBS continues to demonize Creationism and global warming deniers as psuedoscience. What are we going to do about this? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 16:10, 14 March 2019 (EDT)

Environmentalists on a concern troll learning curve

You know to keep the economy going, Trump needs to eliminate his competitors. What better way to protect the economic growth based on polluting fossil fuels he hides behind than to jockey to oust Maduro in Venezuela by setting up his socialist regime to fail just when it was about to work this time and then seize all the oil he wants? Because someone said it was totally going to happen in Iraq and....we were surprised because after a while it...It was Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein who set fire to all of the Kuwaiti oilfields? I never heard that. They sort of stopped talking about it.

You know to leave a legacy, Trump needs to eliminate his competitors among American leaders. What better way to protect his proposed infrastructure bill, based on the obvious deforestation he'll create by ordering lumber, he hides behind than to discredit California leaders by setting them up to fail by secretly setting fires to the forests whose management by them was just about to start happening, so he can oust the Democrats, elect Republicans and then seize all the lumber he wants?.... VargasMilan (talk) 10:07, 12 March 2019 (EDT) Revised: VargasMilan (talk) 07:26, 15 March 2019 (EDT)

Good analysis. Which reminds me: We need a plausible deniability article. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 12:08, 12 March 2019 (EDT)

15-year-old "climate change" expert nominated for Nobel Peace Prize

Greta Thunberg, the Swedish school girl climate campaigner who has inspired worldwide protests, should be awarded this year's Nobel Peace prize, Norwegian lawmakers said Thursday.

"We have proposed Greta Thunberg because if we do nothing to halt climate change it will be the cause of wars, conflict and refugees," Norwegian Socialist MP Freddy André Øvstegård told AFP.

The nomination took an untoward end, however, for the young celebrity, as it alerted her conservative science teacher to her activities, who paddled her after arriving in class that afternoon for deceiving her classmates and other science readers in Sweden and elsewhere who heard her careless political pronouncements, by account even emboldening some unscrupulous liberal adults "who really ought to know better" to a sad betrayal of scientific integrity into the slavery of political propaganda utility for the proverbial thirty pieces of political grist.[1] VargasMilan (talk) 06:51, 15 March 2019 (EDT)

  1. ↑ Section contributor's embellishment.
Primacia facia, it looks like the communists are loosing the propaganda war if they feel the necessity of reaching down to 15 year olds to encourage hate and division among our children. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 11:26, 15 March 2019 (EDT)

New Zealand shooter

Apparently, the guy believed communist China's values were closest to his own, stated that "conservatism is dead, thank god," said that conservatives "don’t have the gall to say race exists" (he's right that Bible-believing Christians believe in only one human race), and wrote positively of socialism and environmentalism: 1,2,3,4 Also, a WaPo/KFF poll affirmed Trump's statement that white nationalists are a very tiny group: [10] This shooter was another messed-up individual -- and the West has a heart problem, not a gun problem nor a white nationalism problem. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:46, 16 March 2019 (EDT)

I'm reading his Manifesto right now [11]. We should probably begin a New Zealand mosque shooting page immediately. I can see there are many issues which will sprout up over several pages for some time to come. We should begin immediately collecting facts. I already started a long delayed Direct action page with some info. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 23:54, 16 March 2019 (EDT)
It's a rough start. But here's an active, ongoing conversation on the shooting to give some perspective. It seems Ebba Akerland has been hidden from American audiences, but well known in several other languages. Let's not fool ourselves, the European migrant crisis has a global reach. It's not Trump or Candice Owen's being blamed for the New Zealand shooting, it's Merkel and the government of Sweden. Only in America will the trump-hating media try to blame Trump, gun owners, and the right wing. And AP is already claiming anyone who mentions Ebba Akerland is a neo-nazi. Check out how many songs on Youtube have been written about her. I had no idea neo-nazis were so musical. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 02:15, 17 March 2019 (EDT)
"Answering whether Brenton Tarrant is a Christian is, in his words, “complicated. When I know, I will tell you.” The complication may be a semantic distinction derived from Breivik’s notion that it is possible to be a cultural Christian without believing in God. Breivik wrote that his followers “don’t need to have a personal relationship with God or Jesus to fight for our Christian cultural heritage. It is enough that you are a Christian-agnostic or a Christian atheist.”[12]
Brenton Tarrant may have been an atheist/agnostic.Conservative (talk) 02:20, 17 March 2019 (EDT)
Read his manifesto. It's loaded with Marxist terminology and dialectics. I'm not ready to say he's a Marxist or socialist yet, but will let you know soon or later. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 03:02, 17 March 2019 (EDT)
It's easier for many to ask this than ask for prayers like on Main Page Right, but what is induced by a comparison of this story to this one?
Warren, Steve (March 17, 2019). "Nigerian Christians under siege: attacks claim 120 lives since February". CBNnews.com website.
VargasMilan (talk) 08:03, 18 March 2019 (EDT)
I have to agree. It will take morethan whataboutism to fight this latest commie plot. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 12:49, 18 March 2019 (EDT)
This should surprise no-one. Tarrant is a self-declared Fascist.[13]
Fascism has had an on-off love affair with Communism for its entire existence. Benito Mussolini (the founder of Fascism) was originally a Marxist, and developed Fascism as an "updated" version of Socialism which emphasized nation-state revolution instead of class revolution. Even after developing Fascism, Mussolini openly claimed Italian Fascism and Soviet Communism to be sister ideologies, and earned the admiration of prominent Communists such as Nicola Bombacci (one of the founders of the Communist Party of Italy, who later became a Fascist himself and was executed alongside Mussolini in 1945), Nikolai Bukhari, and Leon Trotsky. Fascism and Communism only became ideological enemies after Hitler came to power in Germany (note that Hitler's anti-Sovietism had much more to due with his personal racism against Jews and Slavs than anything else) and brought Mussolini into his camp (Hitler and Mussolini were enemies from 1933-35, and didn't become allies until after Italy had a falling out with Britain and France over the invasion of Ethiopia).[14] And then of course there was the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, which formed a temporary pseudo-alliance between Nazi Germany and the USSR and lasted from 1939-41.
After the Second World War, Fascism and Communism resumed their love affair, even though Fascist thought was now dominated by Hitler's philosophies as opposed to Mussolini's. Francis Parker Yockey, one of the godfathers of the post-war neo-Fascist movement, considered the USSR, not the USA, to be the lesser evil in the Cold War. Why? Because in his opinion, the USSR had "freed itself from Jewish control" through Stalin's post-war purges, and that alone made Soviet Communism superior to American capitalism. Yockey went as far as promoting a global anti-American alliance between Fascists, Communists, and the Third World, and dedicated much of the last decade of his life trying to make that alliance happen.[15][16] Within Fascist circles, Yockey's ideas weren't universally accepted at first, but in recent years they have gained much currency. Prominent alt-right/National Globalist activists such as Alain de Benoist, Aleksandr Dugin, and Richard Spencer have all advocated similar positions. [17][18]--Geopolitician (talk) 13:27, 18 March 2019 (EDT)
Fascism per se has nothing to do with racism. Only in the American-Hollywood idiom is fascism/racism interconnected. Fascism is a militaristic form of chauvinism and statism. Social democracy is fascism-lite. These are fascist symbols hanging in the US Congress beside the American flag. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 13:35, 18 March 2019 (EDT)
That's exactly why I referred to "nation-state revolution" and not "racial revolution" when describing Italian Fascism. Yes, Fascist Italy did employ openly racist policies, but many of those policies weren't developed until after Italy allied with Nazi Germany. That's one of the reasons why some people consider Fascism and Nazism to be separate ideologies.[19]--Geopolitician (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2019 (EDT)
Hollywood probably had more to do with it than journalists or scholars, who were johnnie-come-lately to phenomena, using Hollywood anti-Nazi propaganda as their source. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 15:31, 18 March 2019 (EDT)

Question Evolution book for middle school students

One of the editors of the User: Conservative editing team had heard in the past that a Question Evolution book for middle school students was coming out by someone who liked Creation Ministry International's (CMI) Question evolution! campaign.

The wiki editors of a atheist/agnostic website will never accomplish the Herculean task of resurrecting the dead/dying atheist movement (see: Decline of the atheist movement). Should Jesus tarry, the 21st century and beyond will be a time of desecularization.

If anyone wants to know about the past, present or future of that project, it is incumbent upon them to determine this. The editors of the User: Conservative editing team are no longer following CMI's grassroots campaign the Question Evolution Campaign, although it did enjoy the content that CMI and its fans produced. As far as CMI's fans, we especially liked the YouTube content that CMI's fans produced (see: Question evolution! campaign and YouTube).

Like most organizations, CMI has short term/medium/long term campaigns/projects. After CMI gave ample opportunity for evolutionists to come up with satisfactory answers to its 15 questions for evolutionists and they failed, it appears that CMI has gone onto other projects.

The editors of a agnostic/atheist website that https://mediabiasfactcheck.com says has a "liberal bias" seem to have the most interest in the aforementioned project. And unfortunately for them (some of them crave the User: Conservative editor team's attention), the User: Conservative team does not respect/trust them nor care about their various obsessions (The Los Angeles Times said there are members of that website who engage in cyber vandalism, etc.). For the most part, they have been bypassed by the User: Conservative editing team (see: Essay: The internet island of atheism that has been bypassed).

By the way, the wiki editors of that atheist/agnostic website will never accomplish the Herculean task of resurrecting the dead/dying atheist movement (see: Decline of the atheist movement). Should Jesus tarry, the 21st century and beyond will be a time of desecularization.Conservative (talk) 11:20, 18 March 2019 (EDT)

That atheist/agnostic site has a new generation of gender psychotic moderators more concerned about imposing their fascist ideals on editors within the website than trolling outside sites, although among senior editors and old hands that may still occur. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 13:51, 18 March 2019 (EDT)
Yeah, can you guys give the name of this atheist wiki? Is it Wikipedia? Rational Wiki? Pokeria1 (talk) 14:07, 18 March 2019 (EDT)
RobS, I know it took about 7 years for the New Atheism movement to start declining. With the steady rise of right-wing nationalism, the Western atheist population engaging in endless infighting and the long term trend of desecularization, there is not much of a future for that website. If you are correct, it sounds like significant infighting may descend on that website/madhouse in the near to mid future.Conservative (talk) 14:10, 18 March 2019 (EDT)
Pokeria1: Yes.
Conservative: To call it "political correctness" is old school. It's naked fascism now, nolonger even a "mobocracy." They demand more than just ideological compliance. Thought crime is being enforced. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 14:14, 18 March 2019 (EDT)
And it goes beyond thought crime. They invent or imagine you engaged in thought crime, then vote on bogus evidence to convict to make it look democratic. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 14:19, 18 March 2019 (EDT)
Pokeria, we are referring to THIS website.Conservative (talk) 14:21, 18 March 2019 (EDT)

RobS, your recent posts on this matter remind me of this article: Atheism and groupthink.Conservative (talk) 14:23, 18 March 2019 (EDT)

RobS, You wrote: "And it goes beyond thought crime. They invent or imagine you engaged in thought crime, then vote on bogus evidence to convict to make it look democratic."
I recently saw a video by a historian who specializes in Joseph Stalin. Your recent post reminds me of the Stalin show trials and Stalin's thirst for power.
And if you are correct about the "a new generation of gender psychotic moderators", they are just helping to hasten the demographic decline of the atheist population in the 21st century (see: Atheism and fertility rates).Conservative (talk) 14:45, 18 March 2019 (EDT)
Someone just commented on THIS Question Evolution! Campaign video that was created by a 13 year-old. :)Conservative (talk) 15:20, 18 March 2019 (EDT)
You spelt "I" wrong. JohnZ (talk) 18:28, 19 March 2019 (EDT)
It's not rocket science to figure out abortion, homosexuality, and Shariah law will exterminate the gay rights movement and alleged "rational thinkers' in the long term. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 15:24, 18 March 2019 (EDT)
Homosexuality/atheism have both been around since biblical times. Barring the Book of Revelations seals being broken, atheists will likely not disappear, but the percentage of atheists in world is expected to drop in the 21st century and beyond.Conservative (talk) 17:43, 18 March 2019 (EDT)
Well, Homosexuality most certainly has been around since biblical times (Sodom and Gomorrah and God's handling of that event more than made that clear). Can't really say atheism has, though. Other than maybe the times of Greece, Atheism doesn't seem to exist much before the time of, I don't know, the 16th century? Certainly 18th century via Paul-Henri Thiry, baron D'Holbach. Pokeria1 (talk) 20:09, 18 March 2019 (EDT)
There were many private atheists during the early Roman Empire too, despite the practice of emperor worship, according to Edward Gibbon at the beginning of his famous work The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Also, as a side note, pagans at that time unfamiliar with Christians called them atheists on account of their imperfect knowledge of them that they only had one God, and He was united to a man, according to Christian historian Jaroslav Pelikan. VargasMilan (talk) 20:39, 18 March 2019 (EDT)
Atheism probably evolved as a default position in theological arguments when someone got beat and didn't want to admit their antagonist was right. It's only since the French Revolution it's been elevated to cult status where they provide support groups to one another. God basically says atheism is insanity, and it's foolish to have a rational discussion with an insane person. What a person believes is moot once they declare that their on the fast track to hell. But you still have to take in consideration the mental health and state of mind of an atheist when dealing with them. It's hard to say what they're capable of. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 20:53, 18 March 2019 (EDT)
St. Thomas Aquinas wrote: "No one can think the opposite of what is self-evident, as the Philosopher states concerning the first principles of demonstration. But the opposite of the proposition "God is" can be thought, for, 'The fool said in his heart, There is no God.' (Psalms 52:1)." And "Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit" (Proverbs 26:5). He also noted that sinners won't generally be found to believe that God can't judge man [with regard to disobeying his law], but rather that He won't be powerful enough to punish them for it! VargasMilan (talk) 09:13, 19 March 2019 (EDT)

Here is something to keep in mind regarding authors finishing the writing of books and then marketing them: Science Says Only 8 Percent of People Actually Achieve Their Goals.[20]

So to automatically assume a particular book was never started to be written is surely the height of folly.

By the way, one thing can be said for certain, creationists are going from victory to victory. 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."[21] 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."[22] Evangelical Christianity has seen rapid growth in the world at large and growth in the developed world (See: Growth of evangelical Christianity).

In 2012, the W. Edwards Deming Institute published a report by the World Future Society which indicated: "In 2100, however, the world will likely be only 9% unaffiliated — more religious than in 2012. The peak of the unaffiliated was in 1970 at around 20%, largely due to the influence of European communism. Since communism’s collapse, religion has been experiencing resurgence that will likely continue beyond 2100... Christians and Muslims together will encompass two-thirds of the global population—more than 7 billion individuals. In 2100, the majority of the world’s 11.6 billion residents will be adherents of religious traditions."[23]

I trust this further clarifies who is currently winning the creation vs. evolution war.Conservative (talk) 11:02, 20 March 2019 (EDT)

Dems can't wait to help Iran

The Dems have chopped down forests to bash Trump for cozying up to Putin. So they are now drawing up plans to put Putin back in his cage come 2021, right? Hey, not so fast: "2020 Democrats vow to re-enter Iran nuclear deal." If this deal is resurrected, Iran becomes eligible to buy weapons internationally in 2021. Because nobody needs a break more than Russian weaponeers. PeterKa (talk) 08:20, 20 March 2019 (EDT)

The point is almost moot at this point. Thee Iran Nuke Deal was intended to help Boeing compete with AirBus to refit the Iranian commercial passenger jet fleet. But the grounding of Boeing worldwide does not bode well for the US trade balance for the foreseeable future, and redounds to the benefit of AirBus. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 15:09, 20 March 2019 (EDT)
The left's relationship with Putin is bi-polar to the tenth degree. On one hand, he's the devil incarnate because he pursues some conservative domestic policies (he's actually pretty liberal compared to Tea Party conservatives and many European right-wing populists), and because "Trump." But on the other hand, he's a potential ally against the US on issues such as Iran, European federalism (Putin supports it because he thinks a US of Europe will be independent of American hegemony, even though the resulting union won't exactly be friendly to Russia either), and Venezuela. They can't have it both ways and need to come up with a coherent narrative if they want to avoid being embarrassed further. Ideological dishonesty never ends well. --Geopolitician (talk) 10:37, 25 March 2019 (EDT)

Justin Trudeau scandal

This is a excellent summary of the SNC-Lavalin scandal roiling Canada. The view presented in this video is quite different is from what you may have seen in the mainstream press. If someone else was prime minister, it is possible that they would handled the issue pretty much the same way Trudeau did. That's because SNC-Lavalin is a darling of French-speaking Quebec. Making Quebeckers feel welcome is a priority for politicians across the political spectrum. This is a particular point of pride for Trudeau himself, who represents a district in Montreal. The opposition has not objected to the treatment of SNC-Lavalin itself, but only to the procedural issue of a prime minister overriding a justice minister.
IMO, what's going on is not so much Canada's Watergate as a Canadian version of the Justice Democrats. This is the group associated with Cenk Uygur that promoted AOC, Ilhan Omar and other minority women to the U.S. House in 2018. In this interpretation, Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould is playing AOC to Trudeau's Pelosi. Generally speaking, Canadian politics is a one man show and the prime minister is the boss. A cabinet minister publicly standing up to the PM isn't a thing, or at least wasn't up to now.
Canada's next general election is scheduled for October. The Conservatives are currently three to six points ahead in the polls. If Trudeau loses, the scandal puts Wilson-Raybould in the running as the next Liberal leader. PeterKa (talk) 23:22, 24 March 2019 (EDT)

It seems that the leftist Canadian media has chosen the wrong horse to back. Wilson-Raybould is not a plausible candidate for Liberal Party leader in that she doesn't speak French. PeterKa (talk) 06:47, 25 March 2019 (EDT)
This is a big deal, but with so much going on I haven't been able to give any time to it. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 12:32, 26 March 2019 (EDT)

Mueller wraps it up

With Barr finally admitting that there was no collusion between Trump and Russia, Jimmy Dore gets to make an "I told you so" video. Check out Dore's stock footage of Mueller claiming that Saddam has WMDs. Let's see, Mueller has now set New York Governor Elliot Spitzer up with a hooker sting, chased the wrong anthrax suspect for six years, hounded suspect Bruce Ivins into committing suicide so that we'll never know what really happened, and now led the country on a two-year wild goose chase in quest of "Russia collusion." The most amazing part of Mueller's career is that after being involved in one train wreck he can smoothly move along to another. No one ever requires him to explain himself with respect to anything. PeterKa (talk) 06:47, 25 March 2019 (EDT)

Ben Shapiro is calling it "The Trumpiest day." This video recounts the history of media's worship of Mueller, now exposed as a slimy Washington swamp creature. If a hoax as big as Russia collusion can fail, can the global warming be far behind? PeterKa (talk) 22:50, 25 March 2019 (EDT)

Peshwa warrior Trump

"Let the drums beat, let the cymbals ring, let the songs of happiness be played. Look how badly we have defeated the enemy." Yes, the downfall of the corrupt Mueller investigation means that it's time for "Peshwa Warrior Trump," a truly inspired rendition of the song "Malhari" from the Bollywood classic Bajirao Mastani. PeterKa (talk) 00:11, 26 March 2019 (EDT)

I can't pretend I'm not doubtful of all this. Are we to believe there was a musical number in a Bollywood film? Come on. For your benefit's sake, if you want to convince us of something, you might want to start off with something a bit more credible. VargasMilan (talk) 21:54, 28 March 2019 (EDT)

Trump/Obama/Clinton judges

A left-wing federal judge admitted that "Trump judges" and "Obama judges" exist -- in ruling against Mark Janus, who won a major Supreme Court case last year, part of his reasoning for ruling against Janus was that last year's SCOTUS case would have gone differently if Clinton were elected: [24] --1990'sguy (talk) 19:45, 27 March 2019 (EDT)

Questions about a young earth

I am not a young earth creationist (it isn't very popular in Australasia) so I have questions about it. The question I most want an answer to is about meteor strikes. The earth is covered in meteor craters (nearly 200 in fact) and all of these must have happened after the flood is supposed to happen otherwise the craters would have been eroded away. Some of these craters are massive and would have wiped out or at least severely effected all life on earth. Is there any explanation for this? JohnSelway (talk) 22:04, 28 March 2019 (EDT)

I'm trying to get a bunch of other edits done, so this response is short, but I will say that the earth actually has few craters compared to other planets/moons. You might find these articles helpful: [25][26][27] This one is specifically about the moon, but you might also find it helpful: [28] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:13, 28 March 2019 (EDT)
This is very problematic for a couple of reasons. IT says the impacts either were during creation or the during the flood (or both). If it was before the flood most of the impacts would have been eroded and if it was during the flood then to cause an impact crater it would either vaporise the water and cause such huge tidal waves that I can't see how the ark would have handled such a huge amount of meteor impacts (190 confirmed craters) including the massive crater off the coast of Mexico. JohnSelway (talk) 22:27, 28 March 2019 (EDT)
I doubt they would erode away. Erosion takes long periods of time, and the bigger the crater the less significant the erosion would be. Also, there are debates about whether certain craters were really caused by meteors. Land craters caused by confirmed meteors are relatively few, and the cause of oceanic craters is highly debatable.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:14, 28 March 2019 (EDT)
Would the food not bury craters with sediment? It doesn’t make sense for craters to be before the flood but for arguments sake let’s say half were pre-flood. So we are still talking nearly 100 craters post food. How did 100 impacts produce no record given the Tunguska Blast was a small strike and was felt as far away as the UK. The impact which caused the Gulf of Mexico (which isn’t disputed as an impact crater would have been a huge disaster either pre, post or during the flood. JohnSelway (talk) 23:22, 28 March 2019 (EDT)
The Great Flood completely reshaped the earth. The earth's geography completely changed as a result, and the flood is probably the reason why the continental shelves, trenches, mid-Atlantic ridge, etc., exist. Most of the geography we see is a result of the flood and the associated tectonic activity.
The Ark's dimensions mean it was extremely seaworthy, and tsunamis in deep ocean are not a problem: [29][30][31] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:39, 28 March 2019 (EDT)
To be clear, I (and pretty much all scientists who believe the scientific evidence affirms the Bible's account of creation and the flood) believe that the flood and the tectonic activity with it completely changed the earth -- thus, any craters that fell before (if any at all) probably can't be seen today. But once again, extremely few craters are on earth today, and some alleged craters might not be. It really isn't a difficult question. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:44, 28 March 2019 (EDT)
The Gulf of Mexico is a huge and undisputed crater. If it landed during the flood it would have produced a huge wall of water which would completely swamped an ark. It’s not like a tsunami at all. If it happened after the flood there’s no way it would have gone unnoticed. This was a massive impact. I don’t how it could fit YEC narrative. It was a disaster on a truly mammoth scale. JohnSelway (talk) 00:32, 29 March 2019 (EDT)
@JohnSelway: Here are some good resources regarding questions about a young earth -- the best (IMO) is Answers in Genesis: https://answersingenesis.org/
There's also CMI, which is a very good source: https://creation.com/
ICR is more technical, but it's high-quality: https://www.icr.org/homepage/
GotQuestions discusses much more than YEC/OEC (it deals with any type of question that's related to anything at all regarding Christianity), but its YEC/OEC section is excellent, lie the rest of the website: https://www.gotquestions.org/ --1990'sguy (talk) 23:49, 28 March 2019 (EDT)
I recommend Evolution vs. God as an introductory film to the creation/evolution issue, and I also recommend Is Genesis History? for a more technical science-focused movie on the topic. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:52, 28 March 2019 (EDT)

John Selway: Specific young earth arguments as far as the Gulf of Mexico

"As suggested above, water in rivers moves a lot of dirt and ground-up rock (sediment) down to the sea. When the river water reaches the ocean, it slows down and drops its sediment to the ocean floor. If this happens for hundreds and thousands of years, a delta is built up where the river enters the ocean. This is a fan-shaped projection of land that builds out farther and farther into the ocean. What would happen if this process went on for millions of years? In the case of the Mississippi River (Figure 1), calculations indicate that its delta would have filled the Gulf of Mexico in ten million years. Other smaller rivers that also drain into the Gulf of Mexico would shorten that time. Since the Mississippi Delta now fills in only a small part of the Gulf of Mexico, it is obvious that the river has not been flowing into the gulf for many millions of years."[32]

I hope these are helpful.Conservative (talk) 09:47, 29 March 2019 (EDT)

One more: THE UNIFORMITARIAN STRATIGRAPHIC COLUMN— SHORTCUT OR PITFALL FOR CREATION GEOLOGY?. Conservative (talk) 09:59, 29 March 2019 (EDT)
I just found this very relevant and recent article: More Whopper Sand Evidence of Global Flood by BY TIM CLAREY, PH.D. * | TUESDAY, AUGUST 07, 2018Conservative (talk) 10:03, 29 March 2019 (EDT)
Here is what the evolutionists from National Geographic recently said about the Gulf of Mexico: "Scientists think the salt probably accumulated around the time when Africa was just starting to separate from the Americas around 200 million years ago." (Bolding added for emphasis)[33]
"Probably". The truth is that they have no idea because old earth geology is a mass of contradictions and fits the current data poorly.
If you want strong and compelling evidence for the biblical worldview, look at some of the articles on this webpage: Christian apologetics websites. I collected some of the best articles related to defending the biblical worldview.Conservative (talk) 10:12, 29 March 2019 (EDT)
There's also this extremely detailed article from Answers in Genesis, Do the Data Support a Large Meteorite Impact at Chicxulub?. They conclude that while there are some things at the site consistent with a meteor impact, there are others such as lack of substantial amounts of iridium that cast doubt there was an impact. FredericBernard (talk) 11:47, 29 March 2019 (EDT)

The Gulf of Mexico is roughly the shape of the Iberian Peninsula, and thus was likely formed by the Continental drift. See, from a secular source:

The 8 pieces of evidence are that 1) the land masses fit together like a puzzle; 2) the fossil evidence is similar; 3) the age and type of rocks are the same; 4) the mountain chains seem to continue from continent to continent; 5) climate changes; 6) coal deposits in the eastern U.S. and Siberia; 7) sea floor spreading; and 8) paleomagnetism.
pangea, all continents were once joined, there are fossil remains to prove it.
See Secular Answers
Multiple massive meteor collisions as proposed by atheistic scientists would have knocked Earth off its fragile orbit.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 12:32, 29 March 2019 (EDT)
There are 190 impact craters on earth. Let’s say, generously, 90 of them aren’t impact sites. That still leaves 100 craters. 100 impacts in the ~4000 years since the flood still means 1 strike every 40 years. That level of meteor strike would have utter calamity. JohnSelway (talk) 19:12, 29 March 2019 (EDT)
Your continental drift link says nothing about impact craters. The one in what is now South Africa is absolutely massive. Are you trying to suggest the earth hasn’t been hit by multiple craters? Because the moon and Mars most definitely have so why not earth? JohnSelway (talk) 19:26, 29 March 2019 (EDT)
Mars doesn't have a thick atmosphere like the earth, and the moon doesn't have an atmosphere at all AFAIK. Many meteors falling into the range of earth's gravitational field would have crumbled from the friction against earth's atmosphere before impacting the earth. VargasMilan (talk) 19:52, 29 March 2019 (EDT)

Yes many (hence meteor showers) but there are still 190 identified impact craters. JohnSelway (talk) 20:03, 29 March 2019 (EDT)

Maybe there was a big meteor that approached the earth at a relatively leisurely pace at an oblique angle. If it had cracked into pieces, it might have scattered those pieces into different locations on earth, because each one traveled at a different speed due to the pieces being differently-shaped and therefore with different frictional effects as they grazed the atmosphere. VargasMilan (talk) 20:39, 29 March 2019 (EDT)
so you are suggesting 190 impacts all at once? Going out on a limb here but they probably have wiped out all life on earth (given the enormous size of some of the craters. JohnSelway (talk) 20:53, 29 March 2019 (EDT)
I wouldn't dare to seeing as you keep moving the goalposts. VargasMilan (talk) Friday 21:03, 29 March 2019 (EDT)
Moved the goalposts? I have not done that all. JohnSelway (talk) 21:04, 29 March 2019 (EDT)
See? You just did it again. VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 21:13, 29 March 2019 (EDT)
No, I haven’t. If you want to carry on this conversation then actually address the issue (190 known impact craters). I have moved no goalposts. JohnSelway (talk) 21:18, 29 March 2019 (EDT)

If big meteors hit Earth every 40 years, then why have almost none been observed? The 190 estimate is perhaps 10 or twenty times too large, just based on recorded history.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 22:23, 29 March 2019 (EDT)

That’s exactly the point I’m making. If we take the 190 craters that have hit and generously say 90 are not impact craters then mathematically there should be one every 40 years. But we don’t see that meaning it doesn’t work on a YEC timescale. That’s the point I’m making. Do you have any references to state that the 190 known impact craters is out by the factor you suggest? JohnSelway (talk) 22:54, 29 March 2019 (EDT)
That logic assumes what it seeks to prove: an Old Earth. The claim of 190 craters is implausible for another reason: it would have knocked Earth off its fragile orbit.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:38, 29 March 2019 (EDT)
Mars has thousands of craters, as does the moon and both are still in orbit. The earth has multiple craters, 190, even if you disagree worth that figure are you really suggesting the earth hasn’t been hit by large asteroids? The evidence is all around us. Just look at meteor crater (in Arizona I think). There’s another in Australia. The one on South Africa is huge. JohnSelway (talk) 01:03, 30 March 2019 (EDT)
"The moon is the standard by which to estimate the number of craters on the earth. The number of craters greater than 30 km by evolutionary age categories is about 1,900. Scaling to the earth and considering the greater gravitational cross section results in 36,000 craters greater than 30 km. Based on very larger craters on the moon and Mars and the size frequency distribution on the moon extrapolated to the earth, about 100 craters greater than 1,000 km in diameter and a few up to 4,000 to 5,000 km in diameter should have occurred on Earth. This tremendous bombardment must have occurred very early in the Flood, tailing off during the rest of the Flood with a few post-Flood impacts. Such a bombardment would be adequate to initiate the Flood. The evidence for such an impact bombardment very likely can be found in the Precambrian igneous rocks and suggests that the Precambrian is early Flood."[34].Conservative (talk) 00:28, 30 March 2019 (EDT)
In addition, read: Impact craters and a young earth.Conservative (talk) 00:31, 30 March 2019 (EDT)

JohnSelway, did you read the last article I posted which is directly above? I don't believe you did. If you did, you would have seen material that makes reasonable points in opposition to your old earth view of craters.

I have come to the conclusion that you use the main page talk page to push agendas that you believe will get a rise out of people and at the same time, you are not open minded in terms of your views potentially being errant. If memory serves, and I think it does, you pushed anti-Trump posts on the main page talk page before. Given all of Trump's accomplishments and his conservative record in terms of public policy and the clear unsuitability of Hillary Clinton as a potential president, your Trump arguments were less than compelling before, and even more so now.Conservative (talk) 01:51, 30 March 2019 (EDT)

Asked and answered, dum-dum. And blocked for a week as well. VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 13:29, 5 April 2019 (EDT)
Make it a month, since that was your only edit. VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 13:37, 5 April 2019 (EDT)
Retrieved from "https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index/174&oldid=1515055"