User talk:Aschlafly

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Discussion: Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Trump administration saboteurs

Andy, I know you see an indirect link between Ted Cruz and some of the many saboteurs who infiltrated the Trump administration. But what about a direct link?

On multiple occasions, I’ve tried to edit articles related to this subject to emphasize the possible existence of such direct links, but those edits have been undone because some of the admins think this premise is outlandish. So, I want your opinion.

On a side note, what about Marco Rubio? Because neocon saboteurs Nikki Haley and Mike Pompeo both came from the Rubio camp, I have similar suspicions about him. What do you think?--Geopolitician (talk) 10:50, July 8, 2021 (EDT)

If I can insert my two cents here, it's pretty well covered in the SSCI article. We have an interesting test case now: let's see how Chairman Rubio reacts to the Tucker Carlson spy revelations. [1] RobSFree Kyle! 10:56, July 8, 2021 (EDT)
Geopolitician, you make an interesting point and I'd like to learn more about this. If have any examples or links handy that would be great to post. I started Trump's inept advisers, which m makes a similar point, though perhaps not as strong.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 17:12, July 8, 2021 (EDT)
I’ve got a ton of examples, but it will take me a few days to compile them all, given my current schedule.--Geopolitician (talk) 17:32, July 8, 2021 (EDT)

Examples

I'll start with the biggest saboteur of all, Steve Bannon. You read that right. Steve Bannon.

Bannon originally came from the Cruz camp. The connections are established here. Once Cruz's campaign collapsed, Bannon joined the Trump campaign. He was then rewarded with the unusual position of "Chief Strategist" following Trump's victory.

Once Bannon arrived in Washington, he proceeded to do as much damage as possible. He orchestrated a series of elaborate smear campaigns designed to sideline other Trump administration officials. Among those targeted were Jared Kushner, H.R. McMaster, Rex Tillerson, and Ivanka Trump.[2][3] He would leak inside information to various sources, most notably Breitbart, and coordinate with them to create twist the facts in order to incite the base into demanding that they be fired, and thus force Trump's hand. Trump eventually caught onto Bannon's antics and fired him. But that wasn't the end.

Even after his firing, Bannon continued to use his influence to pressure Trump into replacing Bannon's enemies in the White House. After several months of such pressure, Trump fired both McMaster and Tillerson, replacing them with arch-neocons John Bolton and Mike Pompeo. And we all know what happened from there. This New York Times article highlights Bannon's role in Bolton's hiring. The claims in that article are corraborated here, here, and here by former Breitbart writer Lee Stranahan.

In other words, Bannon bears a significant degree of responsibility for the subsequent sabotage inflicted by Bolton and Pompeo.

Bannon also played a role in supressing the DNC-Ukraine collusion story, repeatedly ignoring requests by people like Stranahan to forward relevant information to Trump.[4][5][6][7] Bannon's motive for suppressing this information is unconfirmed, but Stranahan strongly suspects that Bannon wanted Russiagate to inflict as much damage as possible without causing Trump's removal from office, so more of Bannon's enemies within MAGA would be taken out. I'm talking about people like Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, and perhaps even Michael Flynn.[8][9] In Stone's case, Bannon may have resorted to perjury as part of his efforts to incriminate him. And in Flynn's case, there's no hard evidence of Bannon's involvement but I do believe that Bannon had something to gain from Flynn's ouster, namely the removal of a pro-Turkish voice in the White House. Remember that Bannon considers Turkey to be part of the new "Axis of Evil," and our second-worst enemy only behind China.[10][11]

Bannon also intentionally misled Trump about the nature of the Saudi regime, prompting Trump to pursue a policy of cooperation as opposed to confrontation.[12] Out of that policy came the escalation of neocon policies in the Middle East. Note that I strongly disagree with Stranahan's take on Bannon's motivation for this specific act; I believe it had far more to do with the petrodollar than with Israel.

In sum, from the Cruz camp came Bannon, who sought to and perhaps succeeded in perverting the Trump agenda into an immoral, ideologically dishonest mess where both neocon and MAGA ideas buzzed around and regularly crashed into each other, causing much of the rest of the world to view America with contempt. If there's one thing we should learn from this, it's that there is to be no compromise between neoconservatism and MAGA. Any attempts to combine the two would only lead to disaster. Thus, we must do what we can to ensure neocon-MAGA hybrid candidates like Cruz, Cotton, and Pompeo do not get the nomination in 2024. MAGA will be destroyed from within if that happens. --Geopolitician (talk) 13:52, July 12, 2021 (EDT)

Side note: Stranahan also claims that Bannon has spent time going around and stirring the pot on both sides, meeting with and trying to enlist the help of white supremacist groups and even Jeffrey Epstein.[13][14][15] But what else would you expect from a guy who is self-proclaimed to be and acts like a Leninist?[16] Or a guy who all but believes that WWIII is inevitable and thus America must behave according to such a fatalistic worldview?[17]
By the way, Stranahan undoubtedly has a wealth of additional information about Bannon's conduct and I suggest that you try to get more information from him directly, Andy.--Geopolitician (talk) 14:07, July 12, 2021 (EDT)
Didn't Stranahan used to work for Bannon? Isn't there some sort of personal issue there? RobSFree Kyle! 14:30, July 12, 2021 (EDT)`
Honestly, I watch more of Stranahan's youtube channel than Bannon's WarRoom Pandemic, and the first thing that jumps out is the quality of Stranahan's guests, which is virtually zero, compared to Bannon's. But honestly, both shows are very interesting. The one thing Geopolitician leave's out in all the cases he cites here (McMaster, Flynn, Manafort, Jared, Tillerson, Bolton, etc etc etc) are the truly guilty parties - Strzok, Comey, McCabe, Rosenstein, Mueller, et al having all Trump appointees under surveillance. Andy, pay Geo's blathering here no mind. 15:18, July 12, 2021 (EDT)
Daryl Cooper just wrote in Why Trump supporters don't trust anything, "Worse, collusion was used to scare people away from working in the administration. They knew their entire lives would be investigated. Many quit because they were being bankrupted by legal fees. The DoJ, press, & gov't destroyed lives and actively subverted an elected administration."
Geoplitican pretends he doesn't know that a FISA warrant grants the same authority for invasive surveillance against all of a targets email and phone contacts. This is, and was, to be expected - a focus on infighting while giving cover to the real subverters of the Trump administration. We've been hearing this line of attack now for 5 years already. RobSFree Kyle! 15:35, July 12, 2021 (EDT)
Yes, Stranahan did work for Bannon. He also worked with Andrew Breitbart. And Stranahan continued to contact Bannon directly even after Bannon began working in Washington. I don't know about you, RobS, but I think Stranahan of all people would know what went down behind the scenes on this matter and what didn't.
And of course Stranahan's show has lower quality guests. That's what happens when you get sidelined for calling out corruption within the MAGA movement and have to resort to literally working for the Russians in order to speak your mind on your own show. Because Stranahan is now working for the Russians, almost nobody within the MAGA wants to touch him with a ten-foot barge pole. Which is too bad, because they would actually benefit from doing so when the dust clears.
Meanwhile, Bannon, Bolton, and Pompeo all shared a common goal with Comey, McCabe, Mueller, Rosenstein, and Strzok. And that was to stop Trump from making the changes he wanted to make to American foreign policy. Sure, they adopted different tactics. But their missions were fundamentally the same. So why go after just some of them? Go after all of them.
Furthermore, the premise of Cooper's article is false. I wish it were true, but it isn't. The lies go much deeper than that. The biggest lie of all being the one where Saudi Arabia isn't just as big, if not an even bigger enemy than the CCP.[18]--Geopolitician (talk) 17:12, July 12, 2021 (EDT)
Oh, I get it. Pompeo is a CCP operative, too, huh? Or maybe Pompeo had no influence at all in shifting U.S. policy away from the PRC. Or maybe Pompeo corrupted Trump's pro-CCP views and shifted Trump into an anti-CCP stooge, is that your point? RobSFree Kyle! 17:57, July 12, 2021 (EDT)
Just imagine, Westpoint teaching things like patriotism and America first to a guy who finishes first in his class. Outrageous, huh? RobSFree Kyle! 18:36, July 12, 2021 (EDT)
"bu bu but Zbigniew....". C'mon now. You have to do better than that to make an argument. RobSFree Kyle! 18:39, July 12, 2021 (EDT)
Look, Stranahan obviously has been under some emotional stress with his recent divorce and moving out of D.C. to be closer to his kids in South Dakota. But I was somewhat disappointed to realize he knew much more about Alexandra Chalupa in 2018, and could have done much more to highlight what he knew two years earlier. Also, Stranahan was duped by Natalia Veselnitskaya, who ultimately meant the Trump team no goodwill, and he passed her off in his extended interview with her as some sort of whistleblower on team Mueller and team Clinton. RobSFree Kyle! 18:10, July 12, 2021 (EDT)

Mark Meadows would be ranked far higher in terms of anti-Trump infiltrators, in my opinion. Trump's political troubles in 2020 track closely with Meadows' rise to power among the inner Trump circle. See Trump's inept advisers.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 19:03, July 12, 2021 (EDT)

Andy, what Daryl Cooper wrote, "collusion was used to scare people away from working in the administration" limited the pool of people willing to work in the Trump administration. Trump could not persuade the best and the brightest to come work for him. It all comes back to FISA abuse. RobSFree Kyle! 19:15, July 12, 2021 (EDT)
Andy, it's pretty obvious what Geo is doing here. He's dangling bait with words like "neocon" hoping you'll take the bait to trash people like Pompeo, rather than lay the blame where it belongs - the Trump-Russia hoaxers. RobSFree Kyle! 19:30, July 12, 2021 (EDT)
Trump was forced to take on people like Meadows or Bolton - cause they were the only one's who could pass the security clearances. He never was free to choose his own appointees. We knew this before Flynn quit, when the CIA began denying clearances for Flynn's own appointments to staff. If you can't get the people to do the job, you yourself can't do your own job. All these Trump appointees were railroaded out, Schindler the police captain who delivered Comey's firing, Hope Hicks, Omarosa, etc etc etc because of FISA abuse. Strzok, and later Mueller & Andrew Weissmann, had complete control over Trump's hiring. After a few got fired, that is enough to scare away anyone else from even being asked to serve. Hence Trump was left with insiders who already had clearances, Grenell, Bolton, Meadows, Ratcliffe, etc. RobSFree Kyle! 19:44, July 12, 2021 (EDT)
(ec) Here's the full uncut interview: *Lee Stranahan interview with Natalia Veselnitskaya (uncut). of course, after unwittingly helping the coup against Trump, she sought to ingratiate herself back with the powers-that-be. But I don't see Stranahan following up on any of that, admitting he was duped. As much as I love the guy, it does seem that he's struggling to remain relevant since Andrew Briebart of Steve Bannon or whoever fired him.
And what stymies me is, since he works for Alexandra Chulupa's avowed enemy, Vladimir Putin, and he knew just what coffee shop Chalupa hung out in in 2016 when she was initiating the Russia hoax against Manafort & Trump, why did he wait two years until the Trump impeachment to joke about it and not inform us Trump-Russia hoax junkies earlier? RobSFree Kyle! 19:11, July 12, 2021 (EDT)
Stranahan knew about Chalupa in 2017, and contacted Bannon regarding the matter multiple times during his tenure at the White House. Bannon intentionally ignored him.
Meanwhile, Stranahan has mentioned Chalupa many, many, many times on social media since 2017, and nearly everybody who saw his tweets ignored him until it was too late.--Geopolitician (talk) 12:05, July 13, 2021 (EDT)
Pompeo is a neocon, and he was a saboteur. I laid this out in great detail in his article.
And here's a fact I left out in that article: he too was involved in supressing Ukrainegate. Just two months before the 2020 election, his State Department revoked the visa of Andrii Telizhenko, on the grounds of "election interference."[19]--Geopolitician (talk) 12:05, July 13, 2021 (EDT)
Oh, ok. So in addition to Pompeo being in bed with Hillary, the DNC, Christopher Steele, Strzok and the corrupt FBI, and the CCP, he's also in bed with Joe and Hunter Biden. And he deliberately sabotaged Ukrainegate so he could get himself fired by the Biden administration in January 2021. Makes perfect sense.
As noted, it looks like critical race theory and subversion of American politics and the military was being taught at Westpoint back in the 1980s when Pompeo graduated. RobSFree Kyle! 12:36, July 13, 2021 (EDT)
None of the above people you listed work for the CCP. They want war with China just as much as they want war with Russia and Iran.
And Pompeo wanted to sabotage Ukrainegate because he wanted to stop Trump from making peace with Russia. Because again, he’s a neocon who wants war with Russia.--Geopolitician (talk) 13:32, July 13, 2021 (EDT)
Your anti-neocon conspiracy theories are about a decade and a half out of date. RobSFree Kyle! 13:52, July 13, 2021 (EDT)

Counterexamples

There's a lot of comedy here, but there's also a zillion other diffs in CP to support Geopolitician's pro-Iranian and pro-CCP sentiments.

  • "after his firing, Bannon continued to use his influence" HAHAHA! FISA abuse, per Geo, had nothing to do with Bannon being railroaded out of the WH.
  • "in Flynn's case, there's no hard evidence of Bannon's involvement but I do believe that Bannon had something to gain" A HA! Bannon must've been part of the Hillary/FBI/Christopher Steele cabal, per Geo.
  • "the nature of the Saudi regime" - yah yah yah, we know. A disguised pro-Iranian reference. I have a thousand other diffs in CP from Geo that make the point more clearly.
  • "our second-worst enemy only behind China" and "a guy who all but believes that WWIII is inevitable" *Gasp!* It's hard to decipher if Geo is with Obama, who thought al Qaede was our biggest enemy while at the same time funding ISIS, or Romney who thought that Russia was. But the CCP certainly now is not the US's biggest threat, per Geo. RobSFree Kyle! 16:31, July 12, 2021 (EDT)
FISA didn't have anything to do with Bannon's ouster. Trump himself made that clear way back in January of 2018.
Bannon wasn't directly involved in Russiagate, but he did take advantage of it to ensue that his rivals went to prison.
I'm not pro-Iran, and I'm definitely not pro-CCP. I just believe that Iran is a (much) lesser evil than Saudi Arabia, and I believe the foreign policy establishment is deliberately exaggerating the scale of the CCP threat in order to create a justification for another regime change war. I mean, the establishment wants war with China just as much as any Trump supporter who is blazing mad over the CCP's alleged role in the creation of COVID-19. Why? Because China, like Iran and Russia, are standing in the way of the US controlling what Zbigniew Brzezinski called "the Eurasian Balkans." Take into account Halford MacKinder's "Heartland Theory," and its post-Cold War endorsement by both Brzezinski and Henry Kissinger (in their books The Grand Chessboard and Diplomacy, respectively) and it will all make much more sense.--Geopolitician (talk) 17:12, July 12, 2021 (EDT)
Thanks for the admission on your pro-Ayatollah views.
Basically, you do not understand what FISA is. RobSFree Kyle! 17:59, July 12, 2021 (EDT)
I know exactly what FISA is. And I also know that it had nothing to do with Bannon's ouster. Trump himself attested to that.--Geopolitician (talk) 12:05, July 13, 2021 (EDT)
Are you saying Bannon was not under FISA surveillance? Wow. He must be squeaky clean if they couldn't come up with anything (never mind his later indictment, we can cross that ridiculous bridge later when we get to it....).
And since Bannon's squeaky clean, why do you feel the need to trash him? RobSFree Kyle! 12:45, July 13, 2021 (EDT)
Sorry, but you really give yourself away as a commie subversive with this ridiculous statement: "the establishment wants war with China just as much as any Trump supporter who is blazing mad over the CCP's alleged role in the creation of COVID-19".
Yah, the establishment wants war with the CCP so bad over "the alleged role in the creation of COVID-19", they banned the President of the United States and anyone else from social media from talking about it. RobSFree Kyle! 12:57, July 13, 2021 (EDT)
What makes you think it's only Trump supporters who are "blazing mad over the CCP's alleged role in the creation of COVID-19"? Jon Stewart's not a Trump supporter. RobSFree Kyle! 13:00, July 13, 2021 (EDT)
I never said Bannon wasn’t under FISA surveillance. I just said that FISA or no FISA, his firing had nothing to do with it. And no, Bannon is not squeaky clean. Far from it.--Geopolitician (talk) 13:32, July 13, 2021 (EDT)
I stand by what I said about the establishment wanting war with China. It’s about, and always has been about, control of the Eurasian heartland. Both Brzezinski and Kissinger made it clear many years ago that our China policy ought to be centered around that premise. Do you seriously believe the establishment isn’t listening to them?--Geopolitician (talk) 13:32, July 13, 2021 (EDT)
The media only initially censored the Wuhan lab theory because Trump was promoting it. The plan was to get Biden in first, and only then make the theory more “mainstream.” And either way, the media is probably lying about the lab, even now. I’m personally convinced that the virus didn’t come from Wuhan, or even China. The real origin? Fort Detrick, Maryland.--Geopolitician (talk) 13:32, July 13, 2021 (EDT)
Ok, let's stop spinning our wheels. The Ft. Detrick QAnon/CCP conspiracy theory doesn't have much traction or currency. You have been consistent now over many months, if not years, on your belief that Saudi Arabia, not Russia, not Iran, not the Peoples Republic of China, not Antifa or BLM is the single biggest threat to American national security. Just make that clear to Andy, and let him decide. RobSFree Kyle! 13:58, July 13, 2021 (EDT)
And because Saudi Arabia is such a threat to the peace of the world, we need to mercilessly trash Republican Presidential advisors. RobSFree Kyle! 14:00, July 13, 2021 (EDT)
Saudi Arabia took control of our currency system through the 1974 petrodollar agreement, and it has been using its clout to blackmail our politicians into starting wars on its behalf ever since. Saudi Arabia was also behind 9/11, and the Bush neocons deliberately allowed Saudi Arabia to get away with it while also turning Afghanistan and Iraq into scapegoats ripe for invasion. They and their successors in the Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations have since been targeting other countries as potential scapegoats such as Libya, Syria, Iran, Turkey, and Qatar. The entire "War on Terror" is a fraud meant to perpetuate the "Big Lie" concerning who is responsible for all the Islamist terror in the world. "Saudi Arabia is blameless, and everybody else is to blame," they say.
So yes, I do believe that Saudi Arabia and its appeasers in our government are the biggest threat to our national security. Because it's true. But hey, let's ignore that because it happens to be convenient for the GOP, right? Even though doing so would be just as convenient for the DNC.--Geopolitician (talk) 14:23, July 13, 2021 (EDT)
Ok Andy, there you have it. Saudi Arabia today has a bigger military budget than Russia cause it's recycled its petrodollars in the military-industrial complex. The US has never had a trade deficit with Saudi Arabia. Pompeo, who wants to destroy Russia, isn't smart enough to let Saudi Arabia do it after Biden has enriched both Saudi Arabia and Russia by killing the Keystone pipeline. Covid came out of the military-industrial complex and not the Wuhan lab. Bannon, Pompeo, and Bolton have been working with Peter Strzok, Rod Rosenstein, and Hillary Clinton to undermine Trump. And the CCP is an innocent victim of smears in all this. RobSFree Kyle! 15:00, July 13, 2021 (EDT)
Now, if Geo had said the Muslim Brotherhood and Iran, I think he may have a leg to stand on. But personally, I don't think he understands the Saudi ruling party any more than he understands the FISA Act. RobSFree Kyle! 15:07, July 13, 2021 (EDT)
The "Muslim Brotherhood and/or Iran did it" narrative is a total lie invented by the Deep State(s) to justify more wars. Stranahan talks about that in great detail here.--Geopolitician (talk) 16:01, July 13, 2021 (EDT)
I'll let you have the last word. I've taken it about as far as it can go, for now. RobSFree Kyle! 16:08, July 13, 2021 (EDT)
Alright, then. Here's my last word. Andy and RobSmith, please watch the video I linked to in my previous comment. It's about an hour long, and it puts a great alternative perspective on this issue. Also, keep in mind that at some point you'll hear Stranahan suddenly going off on a profanity-laced tangent about Assange. Don't mind that. He's just responding to a troll who had posted on his livestream feed an outrageous comment about how Assange supposedly faked his own arrest, "because Q."
And RobSmith, I just noticed you edited the Mike Pompeo article to remove the reference I made to his false claims regarding Iran's relationship with al-Qaeda. After watching the video, hopefully you'll see where I'm coming from here, and why I believe the district court's ruling assigning blame for 9/11 to Iran is absurd.--Geopolitician (talk) 17:25, July 13, 2021 (EDT)

Background on clearances

At the time of Alger Hiss, each department did its own hiring and security background checks. After Hiss, security background checks were centralized in the FBI. One of the most famous cases is Clarence Thomas, whose FBI background check was leaked to force the Anita Hill hearings.

Since the Patriot Act Amendments of 2006, which expanded the IC and authority for surveillance, and the Obama administration, which filled those new spots in the IC, the left has taken over the function of background checks for govt employment. Now it is payback time, to deny security clearances and govt employment based on ideology, as the hard left had been screened out since the McCarthy era. That's what happened to Mike Flynn when he tried to hire a deputy, and that's what happened to President Trump from the day he took office. He could only hire people the FBI (Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Wray) said he could hire. RobSFree Kyle! 20:04, July 12, 2021 (EDT)

President Trump wanted Sheriff Darrell Clarke for DHS Secretary. In America, the people are free to elect their own sheriff or president, but a low-level bureaucrat like Peter Strzok has veto power over presidential appointments. If Trump is to be criticized for anything, it would be not realizing what was happening when he took office.

We recorded here in CP, in February 2017:

  • 11 February. National Security aide to National Security Advisor Michael Flynn is denied a security clearance, in effect, the CIA exercising veto power over the President's management of national security affairs. The action was unprecedented and without cause. Reports say the CIA did not like the aide's attitude toward the agency.[146] “They believe this is a hit job from inside the CIA on Flynn and the people close to him," because the aide "believes that the CIA doesn’t run the world.”[147][148]

Read the footnote included: "The artcle continues: "Since no one can take part in the formulation or execution of foreign or defense policy without a high-level security clearance, vetoing the president’s people by denying them clearances trumps the president....the persons who thus took for themselves the prerogative that the American people had entrusted to [President Trump] at the ballot box, chances are 100 percent that they will use that prerogative ever more frequently with regard to anyone else whom they regard as standing in the way of their preferred policies, as a threat to their reputation, or simply as partisan opponents... undermin[ing] nothing less than the self-evident heart of the Constitution’s Article II: The president is the executive branch. All of its employees draw their powers from him and answer to him, not the other way around."

Flynn was, unsurprisingly, ousted two days later (not for anything he did, but because he couldn't do his job and get his people in. "Six ways from Sunday"). Nothing that occurred after that Feb. 11, 2017 Washington Times article was surprising, at all. RobSFree Kyle! 23:29, July 12, 2021 (EDT)

To wit: Alexander Vindman's "interagency consensus" which trumped presidential prerogatives. By the time Impeachment 1.0 rolled around, Trump knew the rules the Deep State laid out for him, that he could only make appointments off a pre-approved list made out by the Deep State. Sure, Rick Grenell got the job of Acting DNI, but only cause he had the security clearances in a temporary position, but wouldn't pass Senate approval. Mark Meadows fit the bill cause (a) had the security clearance to read classified info, and (b) knew all the contacts on Capitol Hill that is the chief-of-staff's job to negotiate with. And (c) most importantly, was willing to take the job knowing he had the Deep State CIA, FBI, etc., and a hostile press, breathing down his back. Forget policy considerations. Trump had to work with what he could get.

And with the election cases now currently on the docket, there's no movement in Congress to improve oversight abilities of the IC. Think about this carefully. A second Trump term will face the same problems as the first. And a DeSantis presidency will face the same problems, unless DeSantis makes moves to negotiate and compromise with the Deep State. RobSFree Kyle! 02:20, July 13, 2021 (EDT)

You want to take on the Deep State? You need F-15s and nuclear bombs. RobSFree Kyle! 02:28, July 13, 2021 (EDT)

Add Bill Barr to that pre-approved list. His qualifications consisted of (a) holding the requisite clearances; (b) most importantly, willing to take the job; (c) thought it was rather undignified of the Deep State to treat the president like a hamster on a wheel or leaving him wondering about a carnival funhouse of mirrors. Agreeing with Trump or the Trump agenda, or policy considerations, had absolutely nothing to do with his appointment. Like Meadows or Bolton, he was the best Trump could find who was willing to take the job. RobSFree Kyle! 09:06, July 13, 2021 (EDT)

  • Update: here's two paragraphs from a recent conservativetreehouse posting on a series about the Fourth Branch of government, the intelligence community: [20]
"The second larger Obama/Holder objective was control over the FBI. Why was that important? Because the FBI does the domestic investigative work on anyone who needs or holds a security clearance. The removal of security clearances could be used as a filter to further build the internal ideological army they were assembling. Additionally, with new power in the ODNI created as a downstream consequence of the Patriot Act, new protocols for U.S. security clearances were easy to justify. Carefully selecting fellow ideological travelers was facilitated by this filtration within the security clearance process. How does that issue later manifest?… just look around at how politicized every intelligence agency has become, specifically including the FBI.

It corroborates what's been said here.

Let me add my own observation: When Democrats seek to take over a federal agency, it is often not done by firing personnel. A Democrat congress simply doubles size of the payroll and a Democrat executive makes all the new appoints. In short order, retirements and other attrition gets the vacancies filled with their stooges. This is what happened, both with the IC post-2006 (about 8,000 people under Bush), and the White National Security Staff, from about 200 under Bush to 400 under Obama. RobSFree Kyle! 19:42, August 8, 2021 (EDT)

Does pi contain "every other number"?

... for remembering me! I had difficulties logging in for quite a time, but I never lost CP out of sight. Therefore, I'm back to nitpicking: In the article on <math>\pi</math>, you wrote:

'"The infinite length of ostensibly random decimal points in means that it contains the equivalent of every book ever written, every birthday, and every other number."'

"Every other number" sounds like "every number like <math>\pi</math>", and that's obviously nonsense. Could you elaborate on the normality of <math>\pi</math>? --AugustO (talk) 17:29, July 18, 2021 (EDT)

Check the "Keep me logged in" box, and that should help with your log in problems. RobSFree Kyle! 17:33, July 18, 2021 (EDT)
Thanks! --AugustO (talk) 17:47, July 18, 2021 (EDT)
The statement is startling, but true: pi as a random sequence of never-ending digits contains every other number somewhere in its sequence.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 17:58, July 18, 2021 (EDT)

You will not find <math>\sqrt{2}</math> in <math>\pi</math>! --AugustO (talk) 18:14, July 18, 2021 (EDT)

Are you sure about that? As an infinite sequence of non-ordered digits, I think <math>\pi</math> would have it somewhere if you look long enough!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 18:27, July 18, 2021simulta (EDT)
Yep, I'm sure. Normalcy is about finite sequences, <math>\sqrt{2}</math> is famously an infinite non-repeating number.... --AugustO (talk) 18:30, July 18, 2021 (EDT)
I did some looking on the internet and found some discussion without a definitive answer to this. Intuitively it seems that you may be right only as to infinite non-repeating numbers, but infinity has different types and I'm not sure this is resolved. "Obviously nonsense"??? No, I don't think so.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 21:51, July 18, 2021 (EDT)
"Obviously", because if a section of π resembled, √2 than all but a finite string of digits would be identical to √2 - and there would be no place for √3 left.
--AugustO (talk) 02:15, July 19, 2021 (EDT)
I have (just) placed nowiki tags around the math tags in this section because the invocations of '\pi' and '\sqrt(2)' seem to have been causing rendering errors like:-

[Ed: deleted error message from non-translated math syntax]

I wish I knew how to debug this, but if there was a software upgrade in the last few days that's where I'd start looking. Best of luck, -J Psircleback (talk) 03:31, July 19, 2021 (EDT)

I haven't seen those errors on my browser (Chrome). Perhaps it is an update issue with a browser?
As to the substantive issue of mathematics, AugustO, you haven't withdrawn your putdown of "obviously nonsense," yet cite nothing in support of your position. You write "and there would be no place ... left," but that's usually not a problem for an infinite sequence.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 12:21, July 19, 2021 (EDT)
Let's try this: one ninth (1/9) as a decimal is 0.111111... An infinitely long, never-ending string of ones and only ones after the decimal point. Whatever else pi contains numbers-wise, it clearly can't contain an infinite string of only ones after the decimal point, as is blindingly obvious from the first few digits. ConwayIII (talk) 13:30, July 19, 2021 (EDT)
What he said. --AugustO (talk) 13:36, July 19, 2021 (EDT)
Can you find any citation in support of your position? An infinite series can contain as a subset an infinite series, I think.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 14:18, July 19, 2021 (EDT)
Who needs a citation? The first three digits of pi and 1/9 suffice as irrefutable proof of my position. Nobody is saying you can't make some cool claims about pi. Your (and everyone else's) phone number and birth date are almost certainly in there somewhere, and that is indeed pretty cool, and should enthuse plenty of students. There's no need to try and dress it up as something more remarkable than that by claiming (incorrectly) it contains "every other" number. ConwayIII (talk) 14:40, July 19, 2021 (EDT)
You don't address my point: an infinite series can contain as a subset another infinite series. Your position is not obviously correct and the lack of any citation to support it raises some healthy skepticism. It's possible the answer is not known.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 14:56, July 19, 2021 (EDT)
  • I applaud our newfound interest in citations! I will get back on this in the future
  • But here, you do not need one: Yes, an infinite series can contain another one as a subset. You could take the number 1234567890/9999999999, and say: "see, if I take only every tenth digit, then 1/9 is contained in it". That does not make 123457890/9999999999 anyhow interesting.
  • That is different from finding your birthday in π: here, you expect consecutive digits, e.g., 042761 occurs at position 214768 of the decimal representation of π

--AugustO (talk) 15:17, July 19, 2021 (EDT)

Great catch about finding my birthday in pi! Note that multiple mathematicians agree with me, and disagree with you (and certainly with your exclamation of "obviously nonsense"), on the StackExchange discussion about this. I've added denial of the breadth and power of infinity (here, the scope of the infinite sequence in pi to include pi itself) to liberal denial.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 15:48, July 19, 2021 (EDT)
With respect, you don't have a point to address. The bare fact that pi contains digits other than one necessarily precludes pi from ever containing an infinite string of nothing but ones. Thanks for the SkipCaptcha, though. ConwayIII (talk) 15:56, July 19, 2021 (EDT)

@Aschlafly: close, but no cigar: The discussions are about whether π could be replicate itself as a consecutive string of numbers from some point in the digital expansion, i.e., whether one special number is contained in π. Your claim states that "every other number" is contained in π Obviously 1/9 and 2/9 cannot be contained as a consecutive string of digits in π at the same time. --AugustO (talk) 17:02, July 19, 2021 (EDT)

Aaargh! Boy, do I ever owe y'all an apology: I clean forgot that I'd switched the math rendering from PNG to MathML (ie SVG, which ought to be more efficient) in my preferences. So it IS a server-side issue, but the dialogue does indeed warn that the feature is 'experimental' - duh! Obviously it's slightly embarrassing that so simple a construction as '\pi' is sufficient to crash the blasted thing, but it's nobody's fault and nobody's problem, at least not here; is it worth my raising it over at MediaWiki, do you think? Oh, and on the subject of 'obviously', for my two-penn'orth I do think a mild apology is due: remember J.R. Partington's anecdote about the very famous mathematician G. H. Hardy, who in a lecture said about some detail in a proof: “This is obvious.” After a pause, he went on: “Hmm, is it really obvious?” After another pause he left the room to consider the point, returning twenty minutes later with the verdict: “Yes, I was right, it is obvious.” The claim about pi wasn't obvious to me: it's only obvious if you immediately think about it in the right way. Which means AugustO is very clever, but civil, too? Not so much. I got there, eventually, by reasoning as follows: the claim implies that for all transcendental numbers P,Q there would exist natural powers of ten N,M such that the fractional parts of PxN and QxM are equal, which cannot be true unless P and Q were equal in the first place. (A specific counter-example would be pi and e.) I say 'eventually' because I tried and failed to make a diagonalization disproof work for as long as it took me to trim my hedge yesterday. The hedge looks great, which proves either that I'm a helluva ditz, or that little is 'obvious' when one is reasoning about infinite sequences. (Although, of course, both can be true.) -J Psircleback (talk) 10:46, July 20, 2021 (EDT)
Sorry, some of my civility may get lost in translation. But:
  • Isn't it obvious that the decimal representation of π contains (at best) a countable number of consecutive infinite subsections, each represented by its starting point? We can give those numbers a fancy name - like piable numbers!
  • As there are more than countable infinite "numbers like π", some (i.e., almost all) of these numbers cannot be piable - which answers the original question.
  • For an example: While it is not obvious whether e,√2, or even π itself are piable, it is obvious that 0.11111.... and 0.22222.... cannot be simultaneously piable.
--AugustO (talk) 12:03, July 20, 2021 (EDT)
Indeed. To put it another way, let's imagine that - at some point, trillions of digits down the line - pi suddenly starts chucking out an infinite series of ones. Memories of basic pen & paper arthimetic should remind us that, in order to do this, the underlying ratio / division would have to start generating identical remainders (and thus identical recurring digits). Those memories should further remind us that it is now impossible for the calculation to generate a different digit. This is immediately and intuitively obvious to all but the very youngest or dimmest of pupils. Once locked in that pattern, you're stuck, and no amount of hand-waving about infinity could possibly justify imagining otherwise. ConwayIII (talk) 14:46, July 20, 2021 (EDT)
I'm unsorry to persever in my impious stubbornness that "not so much" is 'obvious' when reasoning about infinite sequences, because one always has to be cautious, careful, in these realms, these regions, no? Hence my "it's only obvious if you immediately think about it in the right way," which I entirely stand by. Here's why: From that, ex post your very well-chosen examples - for which I entirely commend your mathematical intelligence and insight, good Sirrah - it is (perhaps) "immediately and intuitively obvious to all but the very youngest or dimmest of pupils" that the claim made is true, it does not follow that ex ante such examples, all but the youngest, dimmest pupils will instantly intuit its veracity. But perhaps we can agree to differ on that point? Fine by me; see you around, -J Psircleback (talk) 15:38, July 20, 2021 (EDT)
I suppose we can agree that obvious and trivial can be the most obnoxious terms in mathematics. How did all this start? I had (and have) a problem with the following statement at pi:
"The infinite length of ostensibly random decimal points in π means that it contains the equivalent of every book ever written, every birthday, and every other number."
There is difference between the finite sequences of every book ever written and every birthday on the one hand side, and every other number on the other. Whether this is obviously problematic is in the eye of the beholder.
--AugustO (talk) 17:22, July 20, 2021 (EDT)
Infinity denial prevents many of us from reaching our full potential! Can't an infinite sequence of numbers include both an infinite sequence of 1s and an infinite sequence of 9s?--Andy Schlafly (talk) 20:19, July 20, 2021 (EDT)
No. No, it can't. Please stop. My most charitable interpretation at this point is that you're getting horribly mixed up between the idea of an infinite set and an infinite sequence. It's perfectly possible to imagine a set with an infinite amount of ones and nines, or even an infinite recurring sequence like 0.19191919..., but you can not have a mathematical sequence generating an infinitely recurring string of ones which then suddenly switches to generating infinite nines, for reasons clearly explained above. Indeed, even allowing such a thing was possible, in the transition from ones to nines, your recurring string of ones would have ceased to be infinite!
If you still don't believe me, then dig out a pen and a lot of paper, and start manually dividing one by nine. Please feel free to keep going for as long as it takes to come to your senses. ConwayIII (talk) 21:40, July 20, 2021 (EDT)
Do you agree that this can be done in the limit? If it can be done in the limit for arbitrarily small epsilons, then it is true. I wonder if your denial might be a type of infinity denial. Do you think that infinite food is impossible?--Andy Schlafly (talk) 22:04, July 20, 2021 (EDT)
You can knock it off with the infinity hand-waving, thanks. And no amount of higher maths theory is coming to your rescue here. Pen. Paper. One divided by nine. A whole lotta 0.1111111... Get back to me once you discover a plausible mechanism for those identical remainders to start spontaneously generating other digits. ConwayIII (talk) 22:20, July 20, 2021 (EDT)
There is almost no substance to your arguments, and you don't rebut or even answer mine. You cite no references in support of your position. That's fine, but you haven't persuaded.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 22:24, July 20, 2021 (EDT)

<----I'm citing no references because they are completely unnecessary here, and I'm deliberately ignoring your attempts to derail this discussion. This isn't a courtroom and there is no jury to befuddle with silly talk of well-what-about-working-under-a-limit?!! It is impossible for one divided by nine to ever return a recurring digit other than one. It's impossible because at no point can the underlying ratio ever change. You're always dividing by nine, and you always generate a remainder (and recurring digit) of one:

  • 1 / 9 = 0 r1 (0._____)
  • 10 / 9 = 1 r1 (0.1_____)
  • 10 / 9 = 1 r1 (0.11____)
  • 10 / 9 = 1 r1 (0.111___)

I honestly don't know how to state this more plainly. ConwayIII (talk) 09:49, July 21, 2021 (EDT)

This thread is getting to be like a sore tooth: I can't stop touching it. Whether or not Andy's "you [ConwayIII] don't rebut or even answer mine" is entirely fair, I'm going to have a crack at answering his "Can't an infinite sequence of numbers include both an infinite sequence of 1s and an infinite sequence of 9s?" I'm sure we all agree that an infinite sequence of decimal digits can potentially include both an arbitrarily long sequence of 1s and an arbitrarily long sequence of 9s. Probably we all agree that Pi does, in fact, contain arbitrarily long sequences of all ten decimal digits (although I'd hate to have to prove it). Sticking with the example, this means that for all natural N there exists a natural power of ten M such that the first N digits of the fractional part of MxPi are all 1s. To repeat: that's true for all N. Now, I'd take a breath here because that's already a pretty amazing fact. OK. But Andy's question seems to want to go further, accommodating not just arbitrarily long sequences but infinite sequences. All I have to offer here is an intuition that no single infinite sequence can in the general case contain two (distinct) arbitrarily defined infinite subsequences. If Andy doesn't share that intuition, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Pax, -J Psircleback (talk) 11:08, July 21, 2021 (EDT) PS: If our definition of inclusion/containment was expanded to encompsss taking every Nth digit, say, then that would - to put it mildly - complicate the question somewhat. But I think it's safe to assume that by 'include' Andy had consecutive digit sequences in mind; my 'contain' back there, on the other hand, could perhaps be interpreted more loosely (thereby making the claim stronger).
Take a very long series of "1"s and append them to a very long series of "9"s. Then add infinitely long 1s and 9s to each substring, and you have an infinitely long decimal that contains both. Pi includes that.
The flaw in reasoning otherwise is in limiting what infinity is, and incorrectly denying that an infinite string of numbers somehow cannot include infinite substrings.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 14:43, July 21, 2021 (EDT)
No. That's not a mathematical sequence. It's just an arbitrary string of numbers you've defined into existence. I can do the same by writing "19" and adding ones and nines to the left and right, respectively:
  • 19
  • 1199
  • 111999
  • 11119999
Let this process continue forever, and hey presto, I've got an infinite string of ones and nines. There's nothing mathematically useful or interesting about it, though. And, no, such a string could not be found in pi for obvious reasons I'm tired of repeating. ConwayIII (talk) 15:25, July 21, 2021 (EDT)
A long string of 1s is 1/9th, and yes the above string is found in pi. If your position were so obviously correct then you should be able to explain why you think some patterns cannot be found anywhere in pi. I don't see anyone agreeing with you about this.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 17:23, July 21, 2021 (EDT)

<----Once more unto the breach...

  1. Pi is a ratio.
  2. Its decimal form is obtained by repeated division.
  3. For the sake of argument, it's logically possible that - at some point - those repeated divisions will stop generating random digits and start generating an infinitely recurring single digit.
  4. In order for 3) to happen, the repeated divisions must start generating identical remainders.
  5. Once that happens, it is impossible for either the remainder or recurring digit to change in any subsequent iteration. (The amount you're dividing by was always the same, and now the remainder has become fixed as well.)
  6. This means pi might ultimately terminate in, say, infinite ones, but then all other infinitely recurring single digit strings are necessarily excluded as possibilities.
  7. The truth of 4) and 5) are simple matters of basic arithmetic, and should be self-evident to anyone who is vaguely numerate and has ever performed a pen & paper division generating an infinitely recurring single digit. 6) follows naturally from 4) and 5).

If you're actually trying to argue in good faith, then I'd appreciate it if you'd stop hand-waving, and make some (any!) serious attempt to address 4) and 5). Thanks. ConwayIII (talk) 19:11, July 21, 2021 (EDT)

I thought everyone here (and elsewhere) agreed that pi includes every possible series of finite numeric sequences. But any limit on such a sequence would be arbitrary. Surely you're not saying, for example, that a string of 2500 "1"s can be found in pi, but not a string of 2501 consecutive "1"s.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 19:26, July 21, 2021 (EDT)
This discussion is quite clearly about infinitely recurring single digits within pi. Stay on topic, please, and address 4) and 5). ConwayIII (talk) 19:36, July 21, 2021 (EDT)
You don't address my points, but I'll address yours: pi is not a rational number, so it's unhelpful to assume that it is a "ratio" (your premise).--Andy Schlafly (talk) 20:22, July 21, 2021 (EDT)
That's quite the gambit, but it doesn't help you any. I'm happy to substitute any wording you like for 1) that accurately captures pi as expressing the relationship between a circle's circumference and diameter. If you don't want to call that a "ratio", then you can call it "Mary Shelley" for all I care.
Assuming, then, that you're OK with pi still having something to do with circles, are you going to attempt to deny 2) as well? If so, I'd be very keen to hear how you think we derive its decimal form. Thank you, at least, though, for starting to engage with the argument. I genuinely appreciate that. ConwayIII (talk) 21:15, July 21, 2021 (EDT)
I don't think your second assumption (2) is correct either, and I don't know what the basis for it as a premise is.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 21:21, July 21, 2021 (EDT)
Great stuff. How do you propose we derive its decimal form, then? Do you further deny that it can be obtained by dividing a circle's circumference by its diameter? ConwayIII (talk) 21:40, July 21, 2021 (EDT)
Let's not make the mistake of circular reasoning, pun intended. Pi is not calculated by dividing a physical circle by its diameter.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:17, July 21, 2021 (EDT)
Since we hardly need an efficient series, how about we go with that Pi is half the sum for all natural N of the reciprocals of N(N+1)+0.1875? -J Psircleback (talk) 11:05, July 22, 2021 (EDT) PS: 0.1875 is three sixteenths, btw.
Leaving such a lousy series for Pi unaccompanied - even on a talk page - sticks in my craw, so by way of apology I'll assert that the fractional part of Pi is precisely six times the sum for all positive (ie nonzero) even squares V of the reciprocals of V(4V-5)+1. Ain't she beautiful? (Who said God only made the natural numbers, huh?) By way of explanation, or if you'd prefer to contemplate a properly-normalised, natural series (and if you don't object to lambda abstraction - but what aesthete could?), Pi is three more than six times the sum for all natural N of the reciprocals of (\FY.F(YxY)) (\Y.Yx(4xY - 5) + 1) (2x(N+1)). (This is Nilakantha's series with the terms paired-up by cross-multiplication, btw. Took me all morning haha - but I did overindulge slightly at a barbeque last night. So someone else had better test it, I guess.) Best wishes to all, -J Psircleback (talk) 14:50, July 23, 2021 (EDT)

<----Once again, full marks for tactical chutzpah (seriously), but 0/10 for strategic thought. It doesn't matter if there are other methods of calculating pi, or even if those other methods are more commonly used, especially by those crunching pi to extreme numbers of digits. For the purposes of argument, it suffices that pi could be calculated by C / d, and given optimal measurements as input, produces an accurate result for pi to any number of digits. Seeing as 3) is merely restating your very own speculation, would you finally care to get to the heart of the matter, and start addressing 4) and 5)? ConwayIII (talk) 11:25, July 22, 2021 (EDT)

Pi is an irrational number, so it would not help to view it as a division when considering whether pi contains pi.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 22:31, July 23, 2021 (EDT)
Indeed. Pi is, by definition, the ratio of two geometric objects, but this dispute is about numeric objects - geometric ratios don't have digits in the first place. Furthermore, because Pi is transcendental you can't evade a series of some kind. If no-one thinks much of the two I've offered so far, then as close as you're likely to get to the conceptual (ie geometric) definition is that Pi is the least positive real x for which [Ed: commented out what failed to parse] is zero, based on the power series for cosines (and that the cosine of is zero of course). -J Psircleback (talk) 10:53, July 24, 2021 (EDT)
@Andy: What's your point? The irrationality of certain numbers is literally the failure of maths to fully capture and describe all the real numbers. Any expression of an irrational number is necessarily imperfect, whichever way it's derived. Whether that imperfection is obtained by division, or some other method, is neither here nor there.
We do know, however, that some rational numbers like 1/9 produce infinitely recurring single digit strings. We also know those strings are the result of divisions generating identical remainders, and that once locked in this pattern, it's impossible to escape. We further know, by definition, that such strings are not a feature of irrational numbers.
In short, you lose either way. You can agree with the established proofs of pi's irrationality, in which case ending with an infinite periodic string is forbidden, or you can go to Crazytown and claim pi is rational, in which case we know that, even if it suddenly started churning out, say, infinite ones, those ones could never switch to a different digit. ConwayIII (talk) 18:12, July 24, 2021 (EDT)

That is all very interesting. When I write here at CP, I have a (bright?) high-school pupil or (interested?) layman in mind. I updated the article on pi and created an article on normal numbers with this readership in mind. Perhaps all the clever minds above would like to improve these articles?

I'm often accused of nit-picking, but I think that there are a lot of interesting nits to pick (see 's-Hertogenbosch). So, the concept of normal numbers may have no real-world application, but it is an approachable concept. It could even be interesting.... --AugustO (talk) 17:18, July 24, 2021 (EDT)

Yes, I for one would certainly be very happy to contribute. But, in order to do that, it would surely help if I first understand why the markup <math>\frac{\pi}{2}</math> yields , but the frighteningly similar <math>\frac{2}{\pi}</math>, which works just fine in the MediaWiki sandbox, viz: [Ed: deleted error message from non-translated math syntax]
which was driving me mad until I read the bit of the documentation (eg at [[21]]) that says the PNG renderer caches bits of math markup that have already been generated. So I think it's not my fault. For once. -J Psircleback (talk) 13:14, July 25, 2021 (EDT)

Infobox Image for Sasha Obama

Are there any fair use images on the internet? --Yeschayi (talk) 18:08, July 18, 2021 (EDT)

I dunno; unlike Malia, she didn't show up on Hunter Biden's laptop. Try Wikicommons.
BTW, I did find misinformation about Malia on Hunter's Biden's laptop. Malia was born in 1998, so according to the metadata on the laptop, she was 19 and 11 months, not one-month underage, as alleged. So Hunter is exonerated of pedophilia, in that regard. Not so much in the case of his 14-year-old niece, and others. RobSFree Kyle! 18:27, July 18, 2021 (EDT)
Is this fair use https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sasha_Obama_in_the_Rose_Garden_of_the_White_House_(cropped).jpg --Yeschayi (talk) 19:18, July 18, 2021 (EDT)
I think so. Can't we find anything more recent, rather than this Obama-era propaganda pic? RobSFree Kyle! 19:45, July 18, 2021 (EDT)
In my personal opinion, the Obama era was a nightmare for our readers, and our readers may get offended by recycling Obama-era propaganda, passing off the Obama klan a normal American family. RobSFree Kyle! 19:48, July 18, 2021 (EDT)

Well well well...

Warning: DFTT

Hi Andy, RobSmith has told me that he isn't even going to bother deleting the log details on Special:RecentChanges that contain racial slurs. Seeing that I have nearly 20,000 edits to Conservapedia, I ask for sysop powers to maintain these responsibilities RobSmith is abdicating. —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Monday, 21:57, July 18, 2021 (EDT)

Larry Sanger (Tucker Carlson Tonight, Thursday July 22nd)

Hi Andy, did you see Larry Sanger interviewed on Fox last night? What did you think? Would you like to see Conservapedia included in the kind of 'omnipedia' Sanger seems to be envisaging? Best wishes, -J Psircleback (talk) 02:04, July 23, 2021 (EDT)

Woman chess champion

You seen this yet? [22] RobSFree Kyle! 22:20, July 26, 2021 (EDT)

Interesting, but competitive chess is only one small (and nerdy) part of the game. Women are leading in chess entertainment and style.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 22:43, July 26, 2021 (EDT)

The Soul of a New Machine

Loved your add of this. I first read an excerpt in Reader's Digest, then went and bought the full copy. It is among my favorite non-fiction books. Quidam65 (talk) 23:07, August 1, 2021 (EDT)

Fantastic edit by you. Feel free to add more! It should be on one of our greatest books lists, but it wasn't a "novel" so it wouldn't go on that list.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:17, August 1, 2021 (EDT)

Will you please check your email and respond to my message from last night?

Thanks. —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Tuesday, 18:15, August 3, 2021 (EDT)

MPL entries must have achieved a strong popularity to be included. Thanks in advance for any future suggestions you might make here.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 20:45, August 4, 2021 (EDT)
By strong popularity, are you only referring to page views, or would high rankings on search results in DuckDuckGo, Yahoo, Bing, etc. also count? Given that our current page view growth isn't nearly what it was last year, trying to get high page view counts especially for new page creations will be exceedingly difficult. My hope is that featuring a well-researched, high quality article on MPL (something similar to this and this) and not merely including it among the bullet points can help increase the view counts. —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Thursday, 00:38, August 5, 2021 (EDT)
Great news! I got an article on the Reece Committee going, which I'm doing extensive research on and am hoping to expand heavily. It was led by Tennessee congressman B. Carroll Reece, investigated tax-exempt foundations and uncovered communist subversion plots. —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Sunday, 22:59, August 7, 2021 (EDT)
That's fascinating history!!! Well done!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 12:54, August 8, 2021 (EDT)
Thank you! What I find chilling about the overall theme of the report is how its forewarning was way ahead of its time, seeing the active complicity major organizations in the present day have in the ideological subversion of society towards destructive left-wing ideologies. —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Sunday, 13:03, August 8, 2021 (EDT)
I would highly appreciate it if you can feature any of the following articles on MPL:
I'm hoping that you can post on the top of MPL a headline like "Featured article," along with some introductory sentences under it about the political figure and a nice image thumbnail at the side. Just out of curiosity, have you read any of those articles? My article on Reece contains some interesting and extensive details not found on WP, mainly regarding his competition with Oscar B. Lovette. —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Tuesday, 23:23, August 23, 2021 (EDT)

Conservapedia Insights

Is there a certain process how one of your personal insights becomes a Conservapedia insight - especially something so profoundly wrong like "π contains π, despite liberal denial of the breadth and power of infinity"? --AugustO (talk) 05:21, August 4, 2021 (EDT)

Infinity denial can be a stubborn thing. Do you also deny that π is a normal number, despite the analysis of its first trillion digits indicating that it is?--Andy Schlafly (talk) 12:57, August 8, 2021 (EDT)
  1. That's more like finiteness denial. I expect π to be normal, I expect P!=NP, I expect Riemann's conjecture to be true. All three statements are unproven (yet).
  2. π being normal is a necessary condition for your so-called proof, not a sufficient one.
  3. But you did not answer my question: Is there a certain process how one of your personal insights becomes a Conservapedia insight - especially something so profoundly wrong like "π contains π"?
--AugustO (talk) 14:35, August 8, 2021 (EDT)
So you still deny pi contains pi? For what n (where n is the number of digits of pi) do you think that pi no longer contains pi? As to Conservapedia insights, when something becomes true beyond reasonable doubt (which is not necessarily absolutely certainly true), then it qualifies, just like the strictest burden of proof in a court of law.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 15:13, August 8, 2021 (EDT)

Not much denial on my part, just an awareness of the mathematical reality. - perhaps you could answer my questions below?

The repetition likely won't happen until after an infinite number of digits, so this is not a problem. I've updated the essay on this point.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 11:01, August 6, 2021 (EDT)
Pray, what is the index of the first occurrence of this repetition? Is it x∞ + 12 ? Or x∞ + 4125 ? Or even x2∞? How is the weather on the day after the infinite reign of God?

For someone criticizing everybody else for their understanding of infinity, you write some weird stuff! --AugustO (talk) 11:32, August 6, 2021 (EDT)

(This is from Talk:Essay:pi_contains_pi#Andy, you are nearly there!, replicated for your convenience.... )

--AugustO (talk) 15:33, August 8, 2021 (EDT)

I'm not going to respond further if you continue to resort to childish putdowns while failing to answer my straightforward questions. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 15:38, August 8, 2021 (EDT)

I apologize for my "childish putdowns" - here are the answers to your "straightforward questions":

  • "So you still deny pi contains pi?" Absolutely. Wholeheartedly. π does not contain π
  • "For what n (where n is the number of digits of pi) do you think that pi no longer contains pi?" I expect π to contain an approximation of π of length k in an evaluation of π to the 10kth digit. I know that π does not contain π as an infinite and unbroken sequence of digits.
  • "As to Conservapedia insights, when something becomes true beyond reasonable doubt (which is not necessarily absolutely certainly true), then it qualifies, just like the strictest burden of proof in a court of law." Whose reasonable doubt? BTW: The strictest burden of proof in a court of law is not good enough a proof in mathematics.

Andy, you invoked the similarities to the concept of eternity in Heaven and Hell. So, I think me question is justified:

"Pray, what is the index of the first occurrence of this repetition? Is it x∞ + 12 ? Or x∞ + 4125 ? Or even x2∞? How is the weather on the day after the infinite reign of God?"

--AugustO (talk) 16:04, August 8, 2021 (EDT)

You wrote, "I expect π to contain an approximation of π of length k in an evaluation of π to the 10kth digit." OK, so in the limit as k -> ∞ then π contains π, right?
In response to your question, the index of the first repetition of an approximation of π occurs before ∞, while finding the full π requires going to index of ∞. Your index terminology is not helpful in the context of infinity, which is beyond enumeration.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 18:09, August 8, 2021 (EDT)
You can count to 100, you can count to 1000, you can count to n for every natural number. But you cannot count to ∞ even in n -> ∞: ∞ itself is not a natural number! - Can we agree here?
It is sufficient for "the index of the first repetition of an approximation of π occurs before ∞" to trigger the contradiction which implies periodicity of π!
The very point of "countable infinity" is that it can be enumerated! And that is what we are talking about here: the easiest, best understood concept of infinity!
--AugustO (talk) 18:43, August 8, 2021 (EDT)
As far as the first occurrence of pi in pi, I am going to leave with August a quote from Yogi Bera: "It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future." Conservative (talk) 19:14, August 8, 2021 (EDT)
Appreciate the humor! Yogi Berra has many funny quotes.
"It is sufficient for "the index of the first repetition of an approximation of π occurs before ∞" to trigger the contradiction which implies periodicity of π!" RESPONSE: no contradiction because there is no periodicity for a mere approximation of π.
You don't address my point about the limit, using your reasoning, as k -> ∞ --Andy Schlafly (talk) 19:22, August 8, 2021 (EDT)

Andy, in the following I address your point about the limit in some detail: Let's consider the following sequence: a0 = 0, an+1 =1/n!+an for all natural numbers n. So we have a1=1, a2=3/2, a3=5/3, a4=41/24 and so on. Every element of this sequence is a rational number (as the sum of two rational numbers). What about limn ->∞an? That's e - and therefore not a rational number. This is an example that the limit of a sequence may have properties different from every element of the sequence.

Now, let's look at the set of all sub-sequences of π: each element of this set can be characterized by a pair of numbers: a starting point and a length. (1; 3) ~ "141", (214768;1) ~ "042761", (1;∞) ~ "1415....."

While the starting point has to be finite (it does not make sense to talk of the digit at place ∞+42), the length may be infinite!

If π is a normal number (and I'm quite confident that it is), then everyone agrees that any finite approximation is an element of our set: (9; 1) ~ "3", (137; 2) ~ "31", (2,120; 3) ~ "314", (3,496; 4) ~ "3141", (88,008; 5) ~ "31415", (146,451; 6) ~ "314159" and so on.

We know that our set contains strings of digits of infinite length. And our sequence "3", "31", "314", "3141" converges in a certain sense to "314152.....". The question is: does this limit itself is an element of our set? As we have seen with the example of e, that has not necessarily to be the case.

Here, our proof by contradiction comes into play: if the limit is element of our set, then it is represented by a pair (n, ∞) - where n is a natural number. As stated above: n cannot be ∞ +45 or 2 x ∞ - because (∞ +45; ∞) or even (2 x ∞; 42) do not represent elements of our set.

So, we have a starting point n from which π repeats itself - which leads to the false result that π is periodical and therefore a rational number.

Ergo, our assumption has to be wrong: "314152....." cannot be in our set - though other infinite sequences are. π does not contain π

This was somewhat of an overkill - and I'm not sure that it will convince you. Perhaps you should talk about this subject with your fellow administrators User:RSchlafly or User:PhyllisS.

For my part, I assume that this is my last foray into this special Conservapedia insight: as with " "Son of Man" is a liberal mistranslation" and "the theory of relativity cannot possibly be true", I'm quite convinced that it is utterly wrong. But I suppose you (and by extension "Conservapedia") won't think of my misgivings as "reasonable doubt"....

--AugustO (talk) 10:40, August 9, 2021 (EDT)

There is no proof that pi is a normal number. Could you give me a mathematical proof? Astaka (talk) 20:30, August 30, 2021 (EDT)
Massive computer expansions of pi to nearly endless decimal points have shown it to be normal. That's proof beyond reasonable doubt. It's liberal denial to ignore it.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 21:27, August 30, 2021 (EDT)
That is not how mathematical proofs work. It could be possible that pi is not a normal number just that we haven't computed enough digits of pi yet to show it. For example math experts thought that Pólya conjecture was true but someone found a counterexample around 1.845 × 10^361. Saying "a trillion digits good enough" is poor reasoning. Astaka (talk) 21:34, August 30, 2021 (EDT)

nighttime editing

is there a way to be approved for night time editing privileges? some days i stay up late (like how i slept two hours this afternoon), so that's why i ask Patriotic Gamer (talk) 23:35, August 9, 2021 (EDT)

Done as requested!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:35, August 10, 2021 (EDT)
Appreciated, thank you. Patriotic Gamer (talk) 02:19, August 10, 2021 (EDT)

Fair use image uploads

I know I can't upload images, but are there rules for fair use images on Conservapedia? For example, there's this fair use image at File:TP Wii.jpg (I can't edit it because it's admin-protected), but I was wondering if it's allowed. There's also a fair use template that can be applied to fairuse files. Patriotic Gamer (talk) 12:42, August 10, 2021 (EDT)

That's fair use and I unlocked it for you to edit.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 13:43, August 10, 2021 (EDT)

Bible prediction

Dear Mr sir,

In science, one must make a prediction and then do a experiment based on the prediction. If the experiment happened in a way that was exactly predicted beforehand, your prediction becomes scientific theory.

Could you please make a prediction that hasn't been proven yet that's based from the Bible and then I will do an experiment. Thanks Gyenda (talk) 22:50, August 18, 2021 (EDT)

Such a prediction has been posted for a long time on Conservapedia, and continues to be proven and reproven: a grand unified theory is impossible. See Biblical_scientific_foreknowledge#Impossibility_of_a_Grand_Unified_Theory--Andy Schlafly (talk) 19:45, August 21, 2021 (EDT)

America held hostage

Andy, what do you think of running a banner headline above MPL, "America Held Hostage: Day 7"? I'll keep it updated daily. RobSFree Kyle! 15:37, August 21, 2021 (EDT)

Creative, but I think a daily refrain like that could be unhelpful in winning converts. We're not just preaching to the choir here. But I really like the bold advocacy!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 16:38, August 21, 2021 (EDT)
Biden's underwater now for the first time, and I figured giving him a little shove might help. The polling looks so grim, Realclearpolitics hasn't updated it in two days. RobSFree Kyle! 17:03, August 21, 2021 (EDT)
Would you like to post it as a news headline on MPR (not MPL), citing the polling data?--Andy Schlafly (talk) 19:45, August 21, 2021 (EDT)
You mean keep it there for however long we can create some downhill momentum, or as a onetime story? RobSFree Kyle! 19:53, August 21, 2021 (EDT)
I think start as a one-time story, and then let's see how the news unfolds. Thanks for the idea!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 20:27, August 21, 2021 (EDT)

Conservapedia has no account for basic science

  • The universe is more than 6000 years old.
  • Evolution has been observed.
  • Abortion does not cause breast cancer
  • The earth is more than 6000 years old.
  • Climate change is real.

Astaka (talk) 20:27, August 30, 2021 (EDT)

Yeah, sorry, but most if not all of those statements you made are in fact true. Namely, Evolution has never been observed. Microevolution might have, but certainly not macro. And even Planned Parenthood doctors admitted they cause cancer. As far as Climate Change, give me data that wasn't simply weather data posted right near an asphalt road, something that can't be contaminated by other factors. Otherwise, it's false. Besides, even the guy who made Climate Change admitted it was a con. I can't speak for whether the Earth/Universe is more or less than 6000 years old, however. Even Jesus said that God's time is NOT our time, meaning 6000 years for God may in fact be several billions of years in our time. Pokeria1 (talk) 23:34, August 30, 2021 (EDT)
When the earth came into existence, were you there?
Do you have godlike powers in order to know with certainty the future of the earth's climate in the 21st century? Last time I checked, my local weatherman found it challenging to give with certainty whether it is going to rain next Wednesday. See also: Limitations of science and Scientism
Question: Generally speaking, when scientists make statements about the distant past or the future are they more accurate or less accurate? I eagerly await your response! Conservative (talk) 20:36, August 30, 2021 (EDT)
Atheistic science:
  • falsely denies that all recorded history suddenly disappears prior to about 3,000 B.C., see here
  • falsely denies that abortion causes substantial physical and psychological harm to the mother
  • falsely denies that climate change inevitably occurs regardless of human activity
  • falsely pretends that intelligent life exists in outer space
  • falsely pretends that atheistic societies (such as the former East Germany) are desirable
  • falsely pretends the existence of never-directly-observed gravity waves, black holes, and a unified field theory
  • falsely pretends that electric cars are so much better overall for the environment that traditional cars must be banned

--Andy Schlafly (talk) 20:52, August 30, 2021 (EDT)

Do you know that many Christians believe what is written above as well. Astaka (talk) 20:58, August 30, 2021 (EDT)
Some Christians are misled by atheists who control public school curriculum. There were probably some Christian communists, too. All that proves is that atheism misleads some people and influences culture.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 21:06, August 30, 2021 (EDT)
Have you been to every single planet in the entire Universe? How can you be so certain that we are the only place in the Universe that has no life? Astaka (talk) 21:19, August 30, 2021 (EDT)
What do you mean no recorded life before 3000BC? Stonehenge was been built before 3000BC. And the start of the Naqada culture in Egypt was around the 40th century BCE. Astaka (talk) 21:19, August 30, 2021 (EDT)
And why do you expect science to "directly observe" gravity waves and black holes? You can't "directly observe" these phenomena. Do you deny the existence of X-rays, infrared and ultraviolet radiation? You can't observe these phenomena either. Astaka (talk) 21:19, August 30, 2021 (EDT)
Stonehenge is a pile of rocks which cannot be reliably dated. Ditto for similar claims. Direct observation doesn't mean see it, but to observe it in a reasonably direct way, which can be done for X-rays but has not ever been done for the hokey gravity waves and black holes. The belief in extraterrestrial life is a common fictional belief among atheists, disproven with every new expensive experiment (such as the giant antenna in Puerto Rico).--Andy Schlafly (talk) 21:37, August 30, 2021 (EDT)
Again, have you been to every single planet in the entire Universe? Have you? How are you so, so certain considered than they are many many planets in the Universe? Again, why do you dismiss Stonehenge so quickly? Do you believe that radiocarbon dating is unreliable? And there is a literal picture of a black hole! I mean that is the most direct evidence then you can get!!! And what about atomic clocks and time dilation? That shows Einstein ToR! Astaka (talk) 21:45, August 30, 2021 (EDT)
You're repeating unscientific talking points of atheistic science. We've listened for decades for life in outer space. The Book of Genesis says it's not there, and the evidence confirms it. Believe in extraterrestrial life if you like, but it's not science. Ditto for dating Stonehenge rocks, believing in black holes, believing in a unification of mass and energy, and exaggerating time dilation.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 21:54, August 30, 2021 (EDT)
Okay, if you don't wish to believe in aliens, fine by me. But don't claim the Book of Genesis proved it didn't exist. It never commented one way or another on the status of life on planets (and quite frankly, all I have to say on the matter, speaking as someone who IS in fact a believing Christian and not an atheist, and in fact utterly hates atheists for their trying to exterminate us, is that it's extremely unlikely that God would create a galaxy and only leave ONE planet teeming with life. Actually, to be honest, someone like God would be obsessed with galaxies teeming with life to ensure constant worship of him, not just one planet). Besides, by your logic, us Americans cannot exist either, because we're not mentioned in the Bible either, in any of the books, New or Old. Let's not forget that at the time the bible was written, none of the world, whether it be the Israelites or any of the various nations would have even been aware of the American continents at all. The most they'd know about were Asia, particularly China, Europe, the Middle East, and maybe the northern portion of Africa. America as a continent was never even discovered, North or South, until either Leaf Erikson or Christopher Columbus (depending on which historical account you deem first), and in fact, both discovered the Americas completely by accident (Columbus was trying to find a shortcut to India). I know if I were to use your argument of the bible proving aliens didn't exist, I'd go so far as to deny America itself as ever existing and we're in a fantasy just because it's never mentioned in the bible, nor would there have been any way to even THINK anyone at the time would have been aware of America's existence either. The only thing I'm going to say on the matter is we can't say for certain whether or not aliens don't exist. Pokeria1 (talk) 23:29, August 30, 2021 (EDT)

File:Black hole - Messier 87 crop max res.jpg Please tell me what I see is fake. Astaka (talk) 21:56, August 30, 2021 (EDT)

(ec) Excuse me, let me ask, Do you have faith that there is life on other planets? Do you have any evidence other than what some may call 'deductive reasoning"? And lastly, if you can't decipher between "recorded history," i.e a written record and a pile of rocks, you may be in over your head already. Sorry for the intrusion. RobSFree Kyle! 21:59, August 30, 2021 (EDT)
No, its basic logic. I'm quite openminded. And why do you place a difference between written record and non-written record of human existence? Its seems quite arbitrary. Astaka (talk) 22:09, August 30, 2021 (EDT)
In common parlaance "recorded history" refers to a written account, as differs from just history which can include anthoplogical studies, archeology, or maybe even oral traditions.
Let's apply some simple logic:
What has God given us?
  • life
What has science given us?
  • nuclear bomb
  • coronavirus
I'll venture a draft conclusion: God can create, man's best brains can only destroy. RobSFree Kyle! 22:15, August 30, 2021 (EDT)

God has created

  • Disease (Black Death, measles)
  • Natural disasters
  • Box Jellyfish
  • Death (we don't live forever do we?)
  • Cancer

Humans have created:

  • Vaccines
  • Spacecraft
  • Water sanitation
  • Entertainment
  • Toilets

Draft conclusion: Humans and God are neither good nor evil. Its a question of perspective. Astaka (talk) 22:21, August 30, 2021 (EDT)

Oh, I see. Humans have outwitted God. Good luck with that. RobSFree Kyle! 22:23, August 30, 2021 (EDT)
Yep. :) Astaka (talk) 22:26, August 30, 2021 (EDT)
So, let's continue this logical argument. God, or some random processes, created life. Then God, or some random acts of nature threw obstacles in the human's path with diseases. Humans retaliated with vaccines. You still haven't answered why human's venerate the inventors of the nuclear bomb and coronavirus? Is this what our best scientific minds are to be used for? creating weapons to kill each other? RobSFree Kyle! 22:30, August 30, 2021 (EDT)
As I said before science is neither good nor bad. Its a matter of perspective. Astaka (talk) 22:36, August 30, 2021 (EDT)
Okay, when a nuke goes off, I'll remember that. It's just a matter of perspective. RobSFree Kyle! 22:37, August 30, 2021 (EDT)
Same with global warming; it's neither good or bad. It's just a matter of perspective. RobSFree Kyle! 22:38, August 30, 2021 (EDT)

And when you go to the toilet and not die of water-borne diseases, remember it's just a matter of perspective. Astaka (talk) 22:41, August 30, 2021 (EDT)

And when you enjoy your computer remember it's just a matter of perspective. Astaka (talk) 22:41, August 30, 2021 (EDT)

Well, my computer wasn't invented for my enjoyment - that's called spinoff technology. It was invented as a Cold War weapon against communism. And maybe in your godless world nobody ever taught you how to wipe your butt properly, as the people in ancient Egypt were visited by plagues, until God led his people into the wilderness to teach them how to live properly: witness Duet 23:12-14. Don't get too puffed up in your pride, the written record teaches us that man didn't know how to take a crap properly until God instructed him. RobSFree Kyle! 22:49, August 30, 2021 (EDT)
God invented urban sanitation, man never figured it out on his own. The Egyptians would just relieve themselves outside the front door or in the street, leading to plagues of flies and lice, and frogs to eat the flies. And the rivers turning to blood. RobSFree Kyle! 23:02, August 30, 2021 (EDT)
One more comment: Had Moses said at the time, "To attack me is to attack science and truth," what do you think the compliance rate would have been on all the sanitation and hygiene rules? RobSFree Kyle! 00:58, August 31, 2021 (EDT)

See, the fact that computers are a spin off of Cold War weapon against communism shows that science is neither good nor bad. Astaka (talk) 23:15, August 30, 2021 (EDT)

It's bad when all the tax dollars I paid for decades to develop technology to fight communism has now been hijacked by communists to preach godlessness and communism. RobSFree Kyle! 23:19, August 30, 2021 (EDT)

Hey remember when Ken dropped you from his Christmas list in 2017? You said you were "butthurt". Astaka (talk) 23:22, August 30, 2021 (EDT) And what technology, Rob? What technology is been developed that turning people into godlessness and communism? Astaka (talk) 23:22, August 30, 2021 (EDT)

I can see desecularization happening. An explosive growth of Christianity in China. Sky-high birth rates of religious Africans and those Africans emigrating to Europe. Half of the population growth in the world in the next two decades is expected to happen in Africa.
I have yet to see macroevolution or proof and evidence for atheism being true. Conservative (talk) 23:26, August 30, 2021 (EDT)
How would you feel if you worked 12 hours a day in a defense plant during WWII only to wake up one morning and see Hitler had all those weapons and occupied the White House? That's how many of us felt in 2008 when the communists occupied the White House. We didn't fight the Cold War for nothing. RobSFree Kyle! 23:28, August 30, 2021 (EDT)
By the way, due to their below replacement birth rates, the populations of atheistic China and secular Europe are expected to decline in the 21st century. The writing is on the wall. I suggest you read it! Secular leftism is dying. Conservative (talk) 23:31, August 30, 2021 (EDT)

Speciation has happen so many times it not even a debate anymore, Ken. Here is some info from NatGeo: https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/speciation/ Astaka (talk) 23:36, August 30, 2021 (EDT)

Hey, change is the order of things, from birth to death. You guys are about 2 lightyears behind the times with this debate. RobSFree Kyle! 23:44, August 30, 2021 (EDT)
@Astaka: All that proves is that life is capable of adapting to situations and environments. The most that indicates is microevolution, where lifeforms tend to adapt to new places. You can call it Moving Day or having a good immune system as well. Macro-Evolution, which is the complete wholesale radical alteration of current life into entirely new species, has NEVER been proven at all. Let me put it another way: We can prove regional versions of a blue bird, but we CANNOT prove that, say, a whale was originally a dog. Pokeria1 (talk) 23:46, August 30, 2021 (EDT)
Aw shucks. Why would you be interested in that anyways? RobSFree Kyle! 23:49, August 30, 2021 (EDT)
When I think of a lunatic asylum, that's exactly what I think of: two guys sitting at a table in a day room, one arguing that a dog had once been a whale, and the other arguing it's impossible. RobSFree Kyle! 23:54, August 30, 2021 (EDT)
Hey, do you want to supply anything actually proving macro-evolution is possible or impossible? No? Then stop using the lunatic asylum example. Either contribute or don't. At least I'm trying to explain how the science despite a couple of centuries since Darwin posited the theory hasn't shown any definitive, beyond any doubt proof that macro evolution (ie, something like man evolving from monkeys) ever existed. Pokeria1 (talk) 23:59, August 30, 2021 (EDT)
(ec) Look, it's a matter of recorded history that the human race went off the rails in 1848 with the publication of Origin of Species and Das Kapital (as if the world didn't have enough problems beforehand). You'd think with all that's happened in the interim, with Hitler and all, we'd be able to move past all this nonsense. RobSFree Kyle! 00:26, August 31, 2021 (EDT)

Atheistic science is a never-ending stack of lies. Which atheistic scientists admit that there is no written record before 3,000 BC? None. Why do they all deny it? What is their explanation for it? Nothing.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:25, August 31, 2021 (EDT)

Astaka, please tell Ace that unlike so-called dark matter, there is plenty of evidence that Jesus existed! Checkmate atheists! Conservative (talk) 02:31, August 31, 2021 (EDT
What happened to Astaka? we were having a civil discussion. RobSFree Kyle! 15:37, August 31, 2021 (EDT)
Northwest did an appropriate 1-day block based on a removal of sourced material.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 16:16, August 31, 2021 (EDT)
No, I mean his user page was deleted. That's more than a one-day block. RobSFree Kyle! 17:02, August 31, 2021 (EDT)
Andy, this is unacceptable, to interfere in a civil discussion between CP Admins and editors by deleting an editors user account. RobSFree Kyle! 17:46, August 31, 2021 (EDT)
If indeed the conduct warranted a 24 hour block, the user account should be restored so that other Admins can view contribs. The user account was deleted with no regard given to you and myself who were engaged in a civil and constructive discussion. RobSFree Kyle! 17:51, August 31, 2021 (EDT)
User:Conservative should reply to your good question. He did the deletions.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 18:18, August 31, 2021 (EDT)
Now that the 24 hr block has expired, and User:Conservative has been absent, I took the initiative to undelete the account. RobSFree Kyle! 02:55, September 1, 2021 (EDT)
Yeah, thanks RobS Astaka (talk) 20:39, September 1, 2021 (EDT)
I know of no scientific papers that think that whales are the evolutionary ancestors of dogs, Pokeria1. Could you please give me some peer-reviewed papers that state your claim? Astaka (talk) 20:48, September 1, 2021 (EDT)
And Andy, the earliest piece of writing is around 3200BC at Mesopotamia. Yeah, I accept that writing was invented around 3000BC. Why do you think "atheistic science" disagree with this? Astaka (talk) 20:52, September 1, 2021 (EDT)
Can you link to any follower of atheistic science who admits that no writings exist prior to about 3,000 B.C. (or 3,200 B.C.), and without the "invention" fiction? Writing is not an invention any more than language is. Atheistic scientists will often deny basic facts. Here's another denial by them: that the precession of Mercury's perihelion no longer confirms the Theory of Relativity. Atheistic scientists once bragged that it did, until the data began to show otherwise and then nothing but radio silence from them ever since. See 2011 scientific article, silence since--Andy Schlafly (talk) 21:52, September 1, 2021 (EDT)
I literally got it from Wikipedia. Its not some open conspiracy, the only people who think there is a conspiracy is you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_writing Astaka (talk) 22:02, September 1, 2021 (EDT)
The arXive paper talks about the Moon, not Mercury. Astaka (talk) 22:04, September 1, 2021 (EDT)
Could you please show me where the paper was published outside arXiv? Astaka (talk) 22:07, September 1, 2021 (EDT)
Wikipedia is not a credible source because of its "anyone can edit" policy and its adherence to liberal dogma to the exclusion of all else (they even, at the drop of a hat, censor and silence anyone who tries to set records straight). Plus, you didn't provide any sources to back up your claims (and "sources" from liberal sites, which will lie, deceive and twist facts for political and ideological purposes to suit their narratives, are also not credible and thus don't count). Northwest (talk) 22:24, September 1, 2021 (EDT)
Andy was saying that liberals were denying that writing only appeared around 3000BC and I was showing that Wikipedia (a liberal source) does in fact show that writing was created (invented, discovered whatever) around 3000BC. So there is no liberal denial. I wasn't trying to show that Wikipedia was a source I was just showing a point. Astaka (talk) 22:30, September 1, 2021 (EDT)
Not an excuse, and Wikipedia still doesn't count (it even admits that it should not be used as a source). Northwest (talk) 22:34, September 1, 2021 (EDT)

I said I WASN'T using it as a source. My argument.

  • Andy states that liberals deny that writing was created around 3000BC
  • You yourself state that Wikipedia is "liberal dogma".
  • Wikipedia states that writing was created around 3000 BC.
  • Therefore there is no liberal denial. Astaka (talk) 22:38, September 1, 2021 (EDT)
And yet, you're engaging in both now (using Wikipedia as a source and resorting to denial) while simultaneously denying doing so. Northwest (talk) 22:42, September 1, 2021 (EDT)
British Library :https://www.bl.uk/history-of-writing/articles/where-did-writing-begin
World History: https://www.worldhistory.org/writing/
Cambridge University https://books.google.com.au/books?id=8TyOC9nqEokC&pg=PA59&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
Astaka (talk) 22:47, September 1, 2021 (EDT)
Actually, the first two sources you provided prove Wikipedia wrong about its claim (of writing being created around 3000 BC) because the sources go further back than that, to at least 3500 BC; the third source is redundant as there is a Cambridge University Press source already indicated at the hieroglyphs article bibliography section, without needing to use Google (which is likewise not a credible or reliable source because it censors and manipulates searches for political and ideological reasons). Northwest (talk) 22:59, September 1, 2021 (EDT)

So a LIBERAL source Wikipedia (that you state refuse to show conservative opinions in its articles) SHOWS, ABSOLUTLY, UTTERLY that writing was created around 3000BC. So does British Library, World History.org and Cambridge University Press. There is no LIBERAL denial whatsoever. Question how does a Liberal source Wikipedia state that writing was created around 3000BC not proof that there is liberal denial? Astaka (talk) 23:07, September 1, 2021 (EDT)

Actually, you brought that on yourself when you posted the two sources that actually proved Wikipedia wrong (that they show that writing was developed at least 500 years before Wikipedia's claim), and when you got that pointed out to you, you continued going into denial mode regarding Wikipedia (which, contrary to your claims, is still not a credible source due to its liberal bias). Andy provided proof to back what he posted, and in posting two of the sources you gave, you actually discredited Wikipedia, not Andy. Northwest (talk) 23:16, September 1, 2021 (EDT)
Ah no the two sources does not disagree with Wikipedia: Wikipedia states: Sumer, an ancient civilization of southern Mesopotamia, is believed to be the place where written language was first invented around 3200 BCE
The British Library: first in Mesopotamia (present-day Iraq) where cuneiform was used between 3400 and 3300 BC
WorldHistory.org: Written language, however, does not emerge until its invention in Sumer, southern Mesopotamia, c. 3500 -3000 BCE.
They are all based around 3200BC plus-minus a few hundred years (due to the uncertainty around ancient history)
Also you have never answered my question: how does a Liberal source Wikipedia state that writing was created around 3000BC not proof that there is liberal denial?? Astaka (talk) 23:25, September 1, 2021 (EDT)
Are you going out of your way to tie yourself in knots in denial over not only getting proven wrong (and trying to save face after the fact), but also your provision of two sources that actually proved Wikipedia wrong (which you're trying to save face over as well)? Northwest (talk) 23:34, September 1, 2021 (EDT)
I ask the question again: You say Wikipedia is a liberal website that refuses to show evidence that contradict its liberal viewpoints. One example of a liberal viewpoint is its refusal to accept that writing didn't exist beyond around 3000BC. Yet Wikipedia states that writing was created around 3000BC. How is that writing didn't exist beyond around 3000BC an example of liberal denial if one of the largest liberal sites in the world, Wikipedia, accepts this fact as true? Astaka (talk) 23:42, September 1, 2021 (EDT)
Sorry, but you're still actually proving Andy's point as well as the very sources you provided which disprove what Wikipedia claims. You're not getting anywhere here with your argument. Northwest (talk) 23:47, September 1, 2021 (EDT)
They are all based their estimates around 3200BC. Read above about their different claims: Wikipedia(3200 BCE), British Library(3400 and 3300 BC), WorldHistory.org(c. 3500 -3000 BCE.) Your just comparing aqua and turquoise here. Astaka (talk) 23:53, September 1, 2021 (EDT)
Are you going to answer the question in bold above? Its pretty simple question to ask. Astaka (talk) 23:53, September 1, 2021 (EDT)
Meanwhile, you're ignoring what you posted prior to your most recent post (Wikiepdia's claim of writing only being invented c. 3000 BC) as well as the very sources you provided that disprove Wikipedia while arguing yourself in circles, which still doesn't help your argument. Northwest (talk) 00:04, September 2, 2021 (EDT)

Can you answer my question?You say Wikipedia is a liberal website that refuses to show evidence that contradict its liberal viewpoints. One example of a liberal viewpoint is its refusal to accept that writing didn't exist beyond around 3000BC. Yet Wikipedia states that writing was created around 3000BC. How is that writing didn't exist beyond around 3000BC an example of liberal denial if one of the largest liberal sites in the world, Wikipedia, accepts this fact as true? If you can't answer my question, then I bet you've refusing to answer my question because you know I've got you trapped. Astaka (talk) 00:07, September 2, 2021 (EDT)

Again, I have answered your objections. They are all based around 3200BC. You are comparing aqua and turquoise here. What do you want, "Writing was created at 4th of June, 3200BCE at 6:00 in the afternoon?" Astaka (talk) 00:10, September 2, 2021 (EDT)
Sorry, but the only one you have "trapped" is yourself (via your own Wikipedia-contradicting sources) and you can't even bring yourself to admit it. Time to cut your loss and move on. Northwest (talk) 00:11, September 2, 2021 (EDT)
There exists all sorts of written notation back as far as 10,000 B.C. in several cultures. Most of it howevere are accounting logs. As for story telling, epic poetry, and what we call narrative, stems from about 3,000 B.C. Just because earlier texts are indecipherable to modern readers doesn't mean written notation didn't exist, and/or those earlier peoples undestanding of the notation. For example, many readers of financial publications even today discern much about the management of a company by reading a financial report consisting mostly of numbers. RobSFree Kyle! 17:34, September 2, 2021 (EDT)
50,000 years hence, historians trying to wade through the written language that our contemporary advanced intenet culture leaves behind, will have to wade through reams and reams of digital bianary code just to get to the meat and substance of written text and its meaning. No one person could reconstruct that in a lifetime. RobSFree Kyle! 17:41, September 2, 2021 (EDT)

Yeah, because you can't answer the question. You know you lose if you are answer the question so you are going on about the dates. Again, they all state that writing was created around the same time in the same place. You stated that one of the source stated that Wikipedia is 500 years off but you have not given any evidence of that. I think as Conservative would as said you are in a "intellectual bunny hole". Astaka (talk) 00:15, September 2, 2021 (EDT)

No dice. You actually lost the argument yourself and you can't bring yourself to admit it or to admit the truth (which was actually two sources you provided, not one, and the evidence is right in those sources as well as in your own words). Northwest (talk) 00:20, September 2, 2021 (EDT)

Northwest do you know what degrees of precision means. When it comes to ancient history there is a degree of uncertainty about dates. Its impossible to get the date shorter than around several centuries. Unfortunately you don't understand that. Astaka (talk) 00:19, September 2, 2021 (EDT)

I understand it better than you realize or care to admit. Now as I was saying, cut your losses and move on. Northwest (talk) 00:23, September 2, 2021 (EDT)
NORTHWEST READ ABOVE. READ IT NICE AND SLOWLY. UNDERSTAND EVERY WORD. COME BACK WHEN UNDERSTOOD Astaka (talk) 00:22, September 2, 2021 (EDT)
You might also want to tread carefully regarding how you're acting right now, Astaka. Northwest (talk) 00:25, September 2, 2021 (EDT)

Northwest you have stated that one of my sources stated that Wikipedia is 500 years off. Can you show me where it is written in my sources? If you can't even give me a sentence, I know that I have won. Astaka (talk) 00:26, September 2, 2021 (EDT)

No, you haven't, because all you're doing is ignoring your own evidence as well as your own postings because you got called on it and it's not convenient for you. End of story. Northwest (talk) 00:30, September 2, 2021 (EDT)

None? Just one sentence, just one. Come on man, its not difficult. Astaka (talk) 00:32, September 2, 2021 (EDT)

You're only making things worse for yourself by continuing to pursue this after your arguments got shot down (and in part by your own doing). Northwest (talk) 00:34, September 2, 2021 (EDT)

Ataska, Wikipedia does not directly state the fact that no written record exists before about 3,000 B.C., but instead assumes in circular manner that writing did not develop until 3,200 B.C. This is typical atheistic science: constantly reasoning in a circular manner, assuming what an atheist then purports to prove. The evidence is that no written record exists before then, and it is not scientific to assume why. If someone wants to make an assumption, then state it as an assumption.

As to the precession of Mercury's perihelion, why the radio silence about that for many years now? Because it is a Counterexample to Relativity with greater precision in the data.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 15:04, September 2, 2021 (EDT)

Papyrus, animal skins, etc. are biodegradable. Written language that was preserved prior 3,000 B.C. pretty much was all chiseled into stone. RobSFree Kyle! 17:50, September 2, 2021 (EDT)
Interesting point. The ancients like the Pharaohs knew how to preserve things. And even stone writings don't exist much older than 3,000 B.C. Anyway, the science is that the written record does not exist before then. It's not scientific for Wikipedia to say that writing wasn't developed until then. That's hokey atheistic science, often circular in reason and often assuming what is at issue.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 20:30, September 2, 2021 (EDT)
Uh on Wikipedia they state that "Sumer, an ancient civilization of southern Mesopotamia, is believed to be the place where written language was first invented around 3200 BCE" Could you please explain this "circular reasoning" as I don't quite understand your point. Also the precession of Mercury's perihelion has been used to PROVE Einstein theory of GR and was one of the first test used that proved that Einstein's GR was correct. Astaka (talk) 19:15, September 5, 2021 (EDT)
Stone carvings (and image carvings or markings) date back to 10,000-12,000 B.C. and are pretty much all landmarks, kinda like street signs. Petroglyphs, for example, weren't just a bunch of bored cave-dwellers passing the time with graffiti. Their images and markings tell a story.
"Cut into several boulders located within the Pyramid Lake Indian Reservation, in western Nevada, the petroglyphs date to at least 10,500 years ago and perhaps even as far back as 14,800 years ago." [23] RobSFree Kyle! 20:18, September 5, 2021 (EDT)
(replying to Astaka) Wikipedia is talking about discovering a written record from 3200 B.C., and simply assumes (incorrectly) that it was "invented" then. There is no evidence of any invention, such as a description of why, how, and why it was invented. Wikipedia simply assumes and asserts the point that it pretends to prove, as atheistic science often does.
Ditto for the precession of the perihelion of Mercury. Early, imprecise data suggested it might confirm the Theory of Relativity. Later, more precise data show the opposite, and so this is no longer discussed by the relativist promoters. They don't even pretend today that the more precise data support relativity, while withholding the data that show otherwise.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 20:37, September 5, 2021 (EDT)
Let's take image carvings, for example. Many of the images represent common words, such as man, bird, fire, etc. In this sense, it is a written language. The carvings aren't just random. I venture to guess some of them were like perpetual chalkboards for children in a classroom to teach them basic survival skills handed down from generation to generation. Like how to fashion a bow and arrow, to hunt, and build a fire. RobSFree Kyle! 20:36, September 5, 2021 (EDT)

Andy what makes you believe that writing wasn't invented in Sumer in 3200BC. They haven't found anything earlier or in a different place. Thus, it makes sense this area could be the birthplace for writing. Astaka (talk) 20:46, September 5, 2021 (EDT)

Atheistic science is never-ending circular reasoning. There are multiple more plausible explanations, other than "invention", for why there is no written record dating before 3,200 B.C. The better question is not why I reject the assumption of an invention then, but why you believe in one (without even admitting it is an assumption). Likewise, why the belief that the precession of the Mercury perihelion confirms the Theory of Relativity, rather than looking at recent, more precise data with an open mind about it? You can believe whatever you like, but the implausible assumptions are not science and shouldn't be promoted as science.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 21:02, September 5, 2021 (EDT)
Astaka is building a theory on nothing. All the scientific evidence shows is the earliest example of preserved, phonetic writing, by guesswork, stem from about 3200 B.C. Conjecture, which is part of the "scientific method", is not a substitute for factual evidence. Herein is how modern atheist science perverts science, scientific fact, and scientific evidence. RobSFree Kyle! 21:07, September 5, 2021 (EDT)
The earliest time period for the history of writing is in Sumer in 3200 BC. Therefore, this is the current scientific understanding is this is where writing is started. Of course in the future new evidence could show us and another region of the world or a different time period then my opinion will change.
I am also wondering Andy what you think of the 2019 image of the black hole from Messier 87? That some pretty direct evidence of the existence of black holes. Astaka (talk) 21:45, September 5, 2021 (EDT)
Astaka, the fanciful notion of black holes is demonic humor. At most some data are consistent with a black hole. There far fewer black holes (zero, actually) than predicted by the Theory of Relativity. It's political correctness and magazine sales that prop up the science fiction of black holes. Stephen Hawking showed that the notion of black holes is illogical and leads to contradictions.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:19, September 5, 2021 (EDT)
I want to be clear that I don't intend to believe anything Astaka said since he's clearly adhering to scientism at this point. That said, however, I do think we need a firm rebuttal regarding that Messier 87 photograph, evidence proving it's fake. It won't be enough to claim it's demonic humor or political correctness. We need actual evidence it's fake before we can firmly dismiss it. Heck, I'm even willing to acknowledge as evidence or proof something like, I don't know, the telescope that discovered the black hole missing a key screw and causing the display to be messed up, like how Buster's telescope falsely discovered a meteor approaching Earth because one of the screws fell into the grass in one Arthur episode. Just SOMETHING besides demonic humor or political correctness if we are to be taken at all seriously and destroy his argument once and for all. Pokeria1 (talk) 18:12, September 6, 2021 (EDT)
(ec) Okay, let's use some logical analysis here. We know that papyrus aand animal skins are biodegradable, and that the earliest known preserved documents using a phonetic alphabet stem from Sumer. We also further hypothesize that intelligent life may also exist on other planets. We also further hypothesize that life may be more advanced and knowledgeable than the human species. Let's toss in a third: let's further hypothesize that advanced extraterrestrial life may have in its possession hard scientific evidence and proof that written language for the human species on planet earth occurred much earlier than 3,000 B.C. Now, my question: Is it a universal truth that a small clique of atheists on planet earth can make judgments about what is and what is not scientic facts and truth to all living beings in the known universe? RobSFree Kyle! 23:21, September 5, 2021 (EDT)

No, it is peer-reviewed papers in respectable journals. Science is not done by blog posts nor the words of scientist (may it be atheist, Christians, Muslims or Satanist). By the way, I am a Satanist. Astaka (talk) 19:11, September 6, 2021 (EDT)

Oh, you mean like the peer-reviewed papers in respectable journals Fauci engineered after being informed that all the money he funneled to the Wuhan lab created an artificial virus, denying scientific facts and research. Okay, I understand. RobSFree Kyle! 19:49, September 6, 2021 (EDT)
GET. OUT. Conservapedia will NOT allow Satanists to take over the site, period. God's dominion matters above ALL else, God ultimately wants Satan to starve to death. Pokeria1 (talk) 19:23, September 6, 2021 (EDT)
What happened to religious liberty? Right to practice your own faith? You hate both atheist and Satanist? Astaka (talk) 19:25, September 6, 2021 (EDT)
You REALLY think I'd like atheists after they tried to genocide us Christians out of existence, or any religion for that matter simply because we even held to a religion at all since 1789 thanks to the likes of Voltaire, D'Alembert, and their ilk? As far as Satanists, God made it clear that Satanists are an enemy that needs to be removed, so I go by that. Besides, God himself is no adherent of religious liberty at all (or maybe you've forgotten that Israel underwent the Babylonian Exile due to practicing religious liberty against God's wishes). And for the record, the Founding Fathers would NEVER have accepted Satanism under religious liberty. Pokeria1 (talk) 19:30, September 6, 2021 (EDT)
"Genocide of us Christians?" That's an interesting claim. Could you provide evidence to back this up please? Also that the Founding fathers would have never accept Satanism? That also need evidence to back this up. Astaka (talk) 19:36, September 6, 2021 (EDT)
Okay, for the Founding Fathers and how their concept of Religious Liberty was not intended by them to include Satanism, listen to this: https://lawandreligionforum.org/2019/07/29/legal-spirits-episode-012-is-satanism-a-religion/
As far as Genocide of us Christians, I suggest you read up on the French Revolution as well as various Communist revolutions and governments dating back to Vladimir Lenin in fact. In fact, how about I just give you the short list:
http://www.traditionalcatholicpriest.com/2014/10/22/the-french-revolution-persecuted-exiled-executed-traditional-catholic-priests-and-nuns/
https://catholicexchange.com/a-new-look-at-the-french-revolution
https://web.archive.org/web/20050309031846/https://culturewars.com/CultureWars/Archives/Fidelity_archives/parricide.html
https://archive.org/details/BarruelMemoirsIllustratingTheHistoryOfJacobinism/
http://myemail.constantcontact.com/JAN--11---Plot-to-destroy-Christianity-revealed-by-Yale-President-Timothy-Dwight.html?soid=1108762609255&aid=CbibQMZY5JY
https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/Encyclopedists
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05418a.htm
https://classroom.synonym.com/the-communist-persecution-of-christianity-religion-12085855.html
https://www.religiousfreedominstitute.org/cornerstone/2016/7/14/patterns-of-anti-christian-persecution
https://thebridgehead.ca/2018/05/01/in-historys-bloodiest-persecution-of-christians-the-russian-communists-murder-millions/
https://www.christianpost.com/voices/why-communist-and-leftist-governments-hate-christianity.html
Pokeria1 (talk) 19:47, September 6, 2021 (EDT)

These people were Communist, not non-Communist atheist. Atheism is just the lack of belief in God or gods. Equating atheism and communism is like equalling Christians with creationism. They are tons of atheist out there who destest Communism just like there is tons of Christians who accept the theory of evolution. Also, your source is just plain wrong. America is meant to be a secular state with no thought on religion and is not meant to give preference to one particular religion. Astaka (talk) 20:09, September 6, 2021 (EDT)

That's why I made SURE to cite sources directly tied to the French Revolution in there (and in fact, the vast majority of them were on the French Revolution, NOT Communism), because it predated communism by at least a few decades and if anything was purely about atheism, so you can't use the whole "that's just Communism" as an excuse. And for the record, there are plenty of people who detest communism who otherwise were enamored with the French Revolution. I'd know because some of my teachers were like that. As far as your claim, if America were truly meant to be a secular state, it would have turned out EXACTLY like France did, where they in the name of pure secularism proceeded to commit mass genocide against Christians, including at the Vendee most especially. Pokeria1 (talk) 20:24, September 6, 2021 (EDT)
You guys are getting off-topic. God and science are two different things. God invented science. Science does not, and cannot disprove the existence of God. RobSFree Kyle! 19:57, September 6, 2021 (EDT)
Isaiah 29:16. Now since the time of Isaiah and the Babylonian captivity, you guys can continue this idiotic debate, and ignore the historical written record. But that's up to each of us individual human's to decide. RobSFree Kyle! 20:04, September 6, 2021 (EDT)
Yes, except the fact that King Solomon stupidly allowed for religions OTHER than the one God himself decreed they follow into Israel is precisely what Isaiah was referring to. In other words, their complete and utter failure to remove idolatry from Israel, Judah more specifically. But I definitely agree that God created science first and foremost, and that having science disprove God's existence is a folly. Pokeria1 (talk) 20:24, September 6, 2021 (EDT)
Science doesn't deal with the supernatural because Science deals with observable, testable phenomena. Plus, you've got the burden of proof the wrong way around. It's up to you to prove God's existence not up to atheists to disprove the existence of God. "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." Astaka (talk) 20:39, September 6, 2021 (EDT)
Oh, and about the French Revolution, it happened because the poorer classes (the Third Estate) had enough of the 1% of society (the nobles and the Church) from having all the wealth and prosperity. Today the slogan of the French Revolution (Liberty, Equality and Fraternity) is the motto of the French Republic. Astaka (talk) 20:41, September 6, 2021 (EDT)
That's a lie and you know it. The poor and downtrodden not tolerating the 1%'s wealth and prosperity had absolutely NOTHING to do with it other than PR. As a matter of fact, even before Vendee, the French Revolutionaries ended up killing over 30% of the entire peasant class via the guillotine (only 8% of the guillotine victims were in fact of the aristocracy), and the Vendee exposes the lie to the idea that they it was all about "haves and have nots", because they tried to exterminate the Vendee despite their being completely composed of "have nots" like themselves, with the only real difference between them is that unlike the Jacobins and the rest of the revolutionaries, the Vendee still supported God. I can also suggest you read Demonic by Ann Coulter as well. And BTW, it's comments like yours where they try to "justify" atheism not being murderous against Christians by claiming the ones who did so are Communists that's the reason I made sure I tried to gain as much knowledge of the French Revolution as possible, specifically to prove that, no, actually, it was in fact atheism itself that drove to murders against Christianity and, heck, pretty much ANY religion. Pokeria1 (talk) 05:14, September 7, 2021 (EDT)
Pokeria's right, but it still falls on each one of individually to look at the evidence and decide ("shall the thing that was made say to the maker, "he hath no understanding"). The blame does not fall exclusively on Solomon. And Astaka argues against this logic, unless he wants to argue that he was not made. RobSFree Kyle! 21:25, September 6, 2021 (EDT)

Hey, I would love to see evidence that the black hole photo was faked. Astaka (talk) 22:55, September 6, 2021 (EDT)

Duh, wha...? Are you trying to make an argument that a photograph disproves the existence of God? RobSFree Kyle! 23:04, September 6, 2021 (EDT)

No, it was to a previous assertion that the famous 2019 black hole photo is fake. Again, the burden of proof has to be the one making the claim not the one disproving it. Ever heard of Russel's teapot? Astaka (talk) 23:30, September 6, 2021 (EDT)

No, I haven't. Will it make me more intelligent or knowledgeable if I did? RobSFree Kyle! 04:12, September 7, 2021 (EDT)
OK, read enough of the WP article to make me want to rip my eyes out. Thanks for enlightening me on that. Now, are you ready for me to disembowel your god, Bertrand Russell, all over this talk page? (A) the "burden of proof lies upon a person making unfalsifiable claims". I'm not making the claim. God makes the claim that he exists. True, God is a person. So Russell's argument is with God, not others. Need I go on? RobSFree Kyle! 04:23, September 7, 2021 (EDT)
Bertrand Russell is not a god. He is a human being, from the species Homo sapiens who lived between 1872 to 1970. And it is you who is making the claim. Has God came from the heavens down to tell me that he exist? Has he shouted in a loud voice through the heavens "I EXIST"? No, it is his followers like you that state that he exists.
I could use the same logic with the celestial teapot. I'm not making the claim. The celestial teapot is making the claim. True, the celestial teapot is a person. So your argument is with the teapot, not others. Need I go on? Astaka (talk) 18:56, September 7, 2021 (EDT)
What evidence do you have that Bertrand Russell isn't a space alien? Oh, I know, the written record. RobSFree Kyle! 01:49, September 8, 2021 (EDT)
"Therefore my people shall know my name: therefore they shall know in that day that I am he that doth speak: behold, it is I." - Is 52:6
(A) I did not make the assertion, God did. (B) We can with a reasonable degree of certainty verify the origins of these words. (C) You're asking me to accept on faith that an advanced civilization did not forge Bertrand Russell's birth certificate as part of the written record to make him appear human. The burden of the unfalsifiable claim is on you, to prove Russell is human, using the same standards of evidence. IOWs, you cannot simply say one is a fiction or forgery, and the other is not. RobSFree Kyle! 12:24, September 8, 2021 (EDT)

This discussion is utterly boring. Mind-numbingly boring. I've been following it off and on for two weeks now, not knowing where to begin. Let me just say that "atheistic science" is a meaningless term. You are welcome to disagree with me on that, but you really shouldn't disagree on basic arithmetic.

"As to the precession of Mercury's perihelion, why the radio silence about that for many years now? Because it is a Counterexample to Relativity with greater precision in the data."

No, it is not a counterexample. The fact that something is listed on a page titled "Counterexamples_to_Relativity" doesn't make it a counterexample. It (number 14 by the way), like all the others, is wrong. And its wrongness has been in the article for many years. You, Andy, have had plenty of time to fix it. The rebuttal page lists some measurements with error bars, and says that they fit. For example, it says that the predicted precession is 42.98 ±0.04 arcseconds per century, and that one of the measured values is 42.94 ± 0.20, and that those measurements are within the error bars. To say that they are not would constitute denying, among other things, that 43.14 is greater than 42.94. Andy, you've had years to fix this, and your reference to the Sherlock Holmes Silver Blaze story shows that you've been aware of this error.

We have a page here at Conservapedia about Gravitational waves. It goes into a lot of detail about the various observations. The discovery was awarded the 2017 Nobel Prize in Physics, by the way.

And none of this has anything to do with extra-terrestrial life.

SamHB (talk) 00:40, September 13, 2021 (EDT)

So where's the recent data on the Mercury perihelion issue?? Relativists don't even claim anymore that it confirms the theory.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:54, September 13, 2021 (EDT)
Try checking the page "9000 results for physics textbook" on Amazon: [24]. Textbooks covering this get written all the time, and it is a standard part of the college-level physics curriculum.
If you are looking for recent orbital data, you are in luck. The [https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/messenger/main/index.html Messenger spacecraft tracked Mercury with exquisite precision. I've never contacted NASA requesting spacecraft data, but I'm sure it can be done. Now that mission ended in 2015. I hope you aren't claiming that Mercury changed its orbit as soon as people stopped watching. SamHB (talk) 11:06, September 13, 2021 (EDT)
In other words, there isn't a single current website supporting the outdated claim that the precession of the Mercury perihelion supports the Theory of Relativity. It doesn't. More precise data would show a disproof, not a proof, of the theory. But if you're going to rely on politically correct textbooks that are slow to correct liberal errors, then there would be no end to the discussion of ongoing fake news that continue to be in them, like their continued praise of racist 20th century Democrat presidents.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 17:52, September 16, 2021 (EDT)
Please do not put "in other words" words in my mouth, especially when they have absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote, and are completely false. That the precession supports GR is not outdated, is true, and is universally accepted (except possibly for a few people here at CP) by every scientifically literate person. I could not possibly have said that there are no websites supporting this; I haven't scanned the entire internet. I suspect that many of the 9000 textbooks I alluded to above do not address the issue, since it is no longer considered interesting or controversial. It's similar to the situation with Cassegrain telescopes--textbooks no longer write about them, but they still work and are still built by a few telescope makers.
I seriously doubt that a single one of the textbooks describes the precession explanation as outdated, or cites any data that would show a disproof, not a proof, of the theory. Feel free to cite an exception to this.
If you are saying that the precession explanation is outdated, do you mean that it was correct at one time but is longer? Has observational data changed? Has General Relativity changed? Have better explanations come along? Are the data in the Counterexamples page not correct? If so, why haven't you addressed that issue in the last several years?
If you believe that GR is not the explanation, please cite a textbook or article somewhere.
None of this has anything to do with Presidents, Democratic or Republican, racist or not. SamHB (talk) 16:23, September 17, 2021 (EDT)
It's been known for more than a decade that the precession of the Mercury perihelion is contrary to what the Theory of Relativity predicts, as has long been explained on this website at Counterexamples_to_Relativity#cite_note-21. You say that textbooks have not been changed on this point, but that surprises no one. Stephen Gould complained in Natural History about the perpetration of the Ernst Haeckel embryo hoax concerning the Theory of Evolution: "[W]e do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks!" (see Haeckel entry here). Today every textbook falsely portrays Woodrow Wilson and FDR as being racially enlightened, when in fact they were unrepentant bigots, far worse than anything racial that Trump is accused of by the same educators.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 16:43, September 17, 2021 (EDT)
First, I'm not going to get drawn into distractions about Gould, Haeckel, Wilson, or FDR.
The precession is not contrary to GR. The "explanation" on the Counterexamples page, like every item on that page, is wrong. That's why I made a "rebuttal" page. It may have been "long explained", but it was not adequately explained. The main counterexample says that the precession is observed to be greater than the prediction, beyond the margin of error. The precession is in fact within the margin, as pointed out in the rebuttal page, and you've had years to address that issue.
The note that you cite above says that "In a complicated or contrived series of calculations that most physics majors cannot duplicate even after learning them, the theory of general relativity's fundamental formula, , was conformed ..." Nothing was "conformed" or "tweaked". 8, \pi, and K (Newton's constant of gravitation, around for over 3oo years), are straightforward and elegant.
This is not to say that GR is simple. Everyone knows that it is very complex, and few people, especially lay people, understand it. Most physics majors can't reproduce the derivation in full from memory. But let me try. This is from memory. I was not a physics major, though I'm fairly knowledgeable.
Gravity arises, as a fictitious force, from the curvature of spacetime. The curvature comes, in the form of "connection coefficients" or "Christoffel symbols" or "gravity coefficients", often denoted by a capital Greek G, from the derivatives of the items in the metric tensor. (Yes, I could reproduce all that much from memory.) Those connection coefficients give rise to "Riemann's tensor" or the "curvature tensor" that lies at the heart of all this. The contraction of Riemann's tensor is Ricci's tensor. Conservation of mass-energy requires that Ricci's tensor be transformed in such a way that its trace, or 4-divergence, is zero. The result is Einstein's tensor . Gravity arises from the effect of on various things like planets. The proportionality constant is 8 pi K. K is the experimentally measured constant of Newtonian gravitation. So Einstein's equation is "tweaked" in that sense to match the tweaking of Newtonian gravity. Of the 8 pi, 4 pi is the same factor that appears in Maxwell's equations--the gravitational field has the same inverse square form as the electric field, though for a different reason. Ultimately the appearance of 4 pi is due to the surface area of a sphere being . The remaining factor of 2 is because of the change to derive Einstein's tensor from Ricci's tensor, to remove its trace.
So there you have it. It's complicated. Most physics majors can't rederive that from memory, but most chemistry majors don't have the periodic table memorized.
Sam, not even the ultimate cheerleader for the Theory of Relativity, which is Wikipedia, claims that precise data about the precession of Mercury's perihelion confirms the theory. I don't think Clifford Will, who has written extensively about the theory, claims this either.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 01:46, September 19, 2021 (EDT)
You've got to get out of the habit of claiming that various books, websites, reports, etc. say things that are utterly at odds with what they in fact say. You can stretch the truth when reporting someone's private or personal communication to you, but you can't get away with that when it comes to websites and such that are matters of clear public record. In the case of Wikipedia, I assume you are referring to the page Tests of general relativity. The page gives a precession of 42.9799, which seems to be fairly up-to-date and accurate. And it clearly says "Thus the effect can be fully explained by general relativity." This is around paragraph 10. I don't see how a statement in support of relativity can be more clear. And you "don't think Clifford Will, who has written extensively about the theory, claims this either."? It's chapter 5 of his book "Was Einstein Right?" If Mr. Will has since retracted his support of relativity, can you cite the place where he did so, so that we can all check? SamHB (talk) 00:44, September 20, 2021 (EDT)
Apparently there is an ongoing attempt to tweak the Theory of Relativity to fit the data about Mercury's perihelion. [25] As of now, it is not a tight fit between the theory and modern data, and due to political correctness it is difficult to find articles that fully explain the discrepancies.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 20:16, September 19, 2021 (EDT)
Not a tight fit? Can you cite actual published data about this, so that your readers can check? Have you read the article that you cite? Are you aware that it is about a more sophisticated "gravitomagnetic effect", correcting the main "gravitoelectric effect that has been the staple of all this for nearly 100 years? And that the correction is about 1 degree per 2 billion years? SamHB (talk) 00:44, September 20, 2021 (EDT)
Just take a look at the Wikipedia data on the link you cite: Predicted by Relativity: 575.31. Observed: 574.10±0.65. The observations disprove the theory. But atheistic science clings to its assumptions and does not view the data with an open mind.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 12:58, September 20, 2021 (EDT)

A refutation of your article.

There is a refutation of your article "Vaxxed Higher Risk of Covid than Unvaxxed" at here. Please read. SajdjaBambala (talk) 00:09, September 1, 2021 (EDT)

Thanks, I'll analyze what you wrote, and reply.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 01:31, September 1, 2021 (EDT)
Have you finished analysing what I wrote yet? SajdjaBambala (talk) 19:18, September 6, 2021 (EDT)
I really hope you are actually read what I wrote, or I bet you are in your intellectual bunny hole. SajdjaBambala (talk) 23:31, September 6, 2021 (EDT)

thank you

Just wanted to drop in again and thank you for being the founder of this great wiki, especially because it's not easy to do (given how it's been targeted by liberals and others for nearly 15 years). I'm in my early-mid 20s & I've just read a bit about Theodore Roosevelt and William Taft from the opening sections, and it's great to see a raw summary of these presidents without the uncertainty of what sources like Wikipedia might say. Did you feel that God called on you to create this wiki? Patriotic Gamer (talk) 10:39, September 2, 2021 (EDT)

I really appreciate the positive feedback! I don't have direct instructions from God about this but there are many passages in the Bible which encourage this effort, such as the Great Commission. Please edit more!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 13:25, September 2, 2021 (EDT)
I do edit here when I get the chance, and sometimes I don't show up for days or weeks if ever I'm preoccupied or focused on some other stuff. It makes me happy that you appreciate my efforts so much. :) One of the big things I did is point out the liberal bias within the Internet Archive, as I don't think it's been brought up that much. Also, can the Wikia page be moved to Fandom (its new name)? I asked on the talk page a while ago (the page was also really outdated and even listed "political-neutral" as a benefit, iirc, which isn't true, so I removed it). Patriotic Gamer (talk) 15:06, September 2, 2021 (EDT)
Moved as requested! Thank you.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 21:04, September 5, 2021 (EDT)


Suggestion: Downloadable Conservapedia For Offline Reading

Howdy. You and your mother are both absolutely incredible people and true gifts to this world. Thank you for what you do. I am a longtime Conservapedia fan. I am writing because I have a suggestion. Online censorship is now rampant, and it is becoming more and more important to keep backups and local copies of things. Wikipedia allows users to download its full database for offline reading. I strongly recommend that Conservapedia allow this as well. It could even be a paid feature to help support the site. (This would be very justified since allowing downloads can be expensive.) LoveExcel10 (talk) 22:16, September 11, 2021 (EDT)