Talk:Main Page/Archive index/180

This page is for discussion only of Main Page content and feature items. For discussion of other issues relating to the Conservapedia community please see: Conservapedia:Community Portal

Question about YEC

Off topic -- slave reparations and carbon emissions

84 House Democrats and 11 Democrat Senators propose slave reparations to reduce carbon emissions.

---

Back on topic

Hi all. As per my userpage I am not a YECer but I am interested in learning more. I have read some of the articles here but what I would like to know, from as many of you as possible, is what you think the best piece of evidence for a approx 6000 year old universe/planet? I am genuinely interested to hear. Thanks! JohnSelway (talk) 23:29, 2 July 2019 (EDT)

Me personally, I identify with God, so that makes it true. Just as Rachel Dolezal identifies with blacks, Elizabeth Warren identifies with the Cherokee nation, or a transgender male identifies as a woman. Science has nothing to do with it. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 23:41, 2 July 2019 (EDT)

Perhaps John Selway is looking for more convincing evidence than whom you identify with. Perhaps he's looking for more objectively observable and verifiable evidence; it sure sounds that way. Perhaps he doesn't even know what it means for a person to "identify with" God. And I think he believes that science has everything to do with it, and Elizabeth Warren has nothing to do with it. SamHB (talk) 00:42, 4 July 2019 (EDT)

I think that's just plain crazy. Who makes the charge that YEC is contradicted by science? The same people who argue that slave reparations will reduce carbon emissions and global warming. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 01:46, 4 July 2019 (EDT)

"Who makes the charge that YEC is contradicted by science?" Just about every scientifically literate person. Millions of them. "... who argue that slave reparations will reduce carbon emissions and global warming" Either zero people, or one (RobSmith himself), I dare say. The sets have very different cardinality, so they can't be "the same people". SamHB (talk) 11:44, 6 July 2019 (EDT)

I generally dislike questions that ask "what is the single best evidence" when there many pieces of evidence (I think you can ignore Rob). For example, the young earth position is the most natural reading of Genesis (and the other portions of the Bible that reference the early earth), including when taking the original Hebrew into account. The dances necessary to reconcile evolution/billions of years into the Bible -- which states the creation was created in six morning-evening days, not in the same order as evolution, and which shows only a handful of generations between the creation and the worldwide flood -- are too great to reconcile.

Regarding specific secular evidences, one of my favorites is that ancient man is now known to have been much more sophisticated/innovative/intelligent than previously thought, and, with technological differences taken into account, likely more intelligent (they were able to do more with less, and technology only represents accumulation of knowledge.

Also, many cultures around the world have creation and flood legends that closely mirror the creation and global flood accounts of the Bible, strongly indicating that the biblical account is true and was remembered, to an extent, by the peoples dispersed at Babel. Also, even for secular people, the earlier a civilization was established, the closer it is to Mesopotamia.

There are many other examples. I strongly encourage you to read Answers in Genesis's website if you want to learn more about the YEC perspective. I have three articles here discussing what they believe are the strongest scientific evidences for a young earth: 1,2,3

And, you can read the Counterexamples to an Old Earth article -- it also has a "resources" section at the bottom. --1990'sguy (talk) 09:41, 3 July 2019 (EDT)

JohnSelway, I think you should decide for yourself which piece of evidence is the strongest using this article as your initial foray into his matter: Age of the earth: 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe.

Second, I don't think you should be over reliant on what experts say about any particular measure of the earth's age and see the section below as for the reason why.Conservative (talk) 09:51, 3 July 2019 (EDT)

I thought my logic provided solid, rational, scientific evidence. Just as scientific as addressing solutions to the climate crisis with Medicare for All, slave reparations, and a guaranteed income. Opposition to these solutions would be anti-science. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 14:45, 3 July 2019 (EDT)

You're making absolutely no sense. SamHB (talk) 00:42, 4 July 2019 (EDT)

OK, here goes. I apologize for being long-winded, but this is a complex subject.

First, let's restrict our attention to the age of the Earth (4.5 billion years) rather than the age of the Universe (13+ billion years), because we have a much better scientific handle on things on Earth, without having to deal with the big bang, cosmic inflation, dark energy, and such. But the main reason is that the "radioactive decay clock" started with the supernova that created the solar system. That supernova caused the nucleosynthesis that started the radioactive decay that we observe. And we can actually dig up the rocks exhibiting that decay. You can't dig up particles undergoing cosmic inflation.

Next, you need to know that I, for one, do not accept things found in fundamentalist religious websites. If it can't be explained or supported outside of the cocoon of fundamentalist sources, I am loath to accept it. I've had this discussion with the various editors of the User:Conservative account. They don't like it, and they think I am being narrow-minded, but that's the way it is. So I don't accept the various sites being discussed here—Creation.com, Answers in Genesis.org, Institute for Creation Research, and so on. I recommend that you too should be skeptical of fundamentalist web sites that don't want to come out into the light of day.

Now there are two areas that I think are well suited to careful observation and analysis. They are the speed of light and the rates of radioactive decay. Creationists seem to posit some kind of "time dilation field" to reconcile a 6-day age of the universe with a 13 billion year age. They seem to require a speed of light, in the past, thousands of times its current value. And they present a graph showing the speed of light miraculously converging to its present value, while just skirting the improvements in accuracy of measuring it. See the article C decay where I analyze this.

The other area is radioactive decay; creationists require that decay rates be radically different (ratio of thousands) in the past. I actually went through a fundamentalist web site to track this down. The one thing I found that actually relates to observations that one can make is in this page, from creation.com, in the bibliography section of our Radiometric dating page. That page indicates a variation in the decay rate of Beryllium-7. The difference is 1.5%, far less than required to refute an old Earth. So what's going on? Are decay rates constant and uniform, or aren't they? Creationists will latch on to any discrepancy, however small, to try to break down the entire edifice of nuclear physics.

The answer to this conundrum is that, in Beryllium, the 1s electron orbitals are very close to the valence electrons, and the chemical environment can therefore have a measurable effect on the electron field near the 1s orbitals. And, for electron-capture beta decay, the availability of electrons near the nucleus affects the decay rate. (In fact, by completely ionizing the Beryllium, one can shut down the electron capture decay altogether.) Basically, we know a lot more about how radioactivity works than we did in 1896. The principles laid down in the early 1900's were pretty good, but our knowledge is more sophisticated now. Just as Newton's law of gravity is extremely good for most purposes, but our present knowledge is more sophisticated. See Systematics of beta decay for an explanation of this phenomenon.

So I'd suggest that you look at the various sources of information bearing on the age of the Earth, and scrutinize them carefully.

And I definitely endorse the work of the various editors of the User:Conservative account in compiling the list below of web sites that question the accuracy of so-called experts. Those editors are quite skillful at scouring the internet for articles touching on various topics; much better at it than I am. I find their articles, when they are not about religion (and the articles below are not), to be quite useful and interesting. However, the articles below seem to be about predicting the future, not about analyzing evidence to make deductions about the past.

In conclusion, a question you might ask yourself is "Why would God create a Universe that is radically different from what it appears to be? In most areas of science, the methods of observation and deduction seem to work well. Why is God making that totally wrong for geology, cosmology, and a very few areas of physics?" SamHB (talk) 00:42, 4 July 2019 (EDT)

Off topic -- slave reparations and Medicare for all

Nice pitch. Now explain to me how slave reparations, a guaranteed income, and Medicare for All will solve the conclusive scientific evidence that the planet is undergoing global warming? RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 01:54, 4 July 2019 (EDT)

RobS has, with his usual logical and rhetorical flair, made his case that reparations for American slavery are relevant to the age of the Earth. Whether John Selway finds that useful is not for me to say. SamHB (talk) 12:39, 4 July 2019 (EDT)

Sam, tell me something. Why do you refuse to show deference to RobS, but insist on it in your own case?

You told RobS, "You're making absolutely no sense." You buried his political commentary under a histrionic remark, ridicule, and condescension.

Yet, you yourself insist that your audience go to outside knowledge to understand obscure physics terms like "beta decay", "electron capture" and "valence electrons" when you describe your thinking regarding physical science. This is shown by you making them integral parts of your descriptions as your readers pass through your ideas, with the implied expectation that they "catch on" at every instance. Your readers must either do that or show you deference.

We have been talking here lately about hypersensitive individuals in our democratic institutions who have dominated too much of today's public discourse, triggered by the slightest bump along the groove they are accustomed to and are then allowed by social convention to bring discussion to a halt. Could it be that you too are engaging in a type of conversation with others that is really a conversational strategy, a strategy even going beyond the subject matter being discussed and thus broadly applicable to any sort of ethical or civic contemplation that doesn't happen to jibe with you—ultimately designed so that you don't have to...show them deference? VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 12:59, 4 July 2019 (EDT)

Sam, tell me something. Why do you refuse to show deference to RobS, but insist on it in your own case?

I really can't show deference to someone who brings slave reparations, Elizabeth Warren, and transgender people into a discussion of the age of the Earth. And I'm not insisting on deference. A little looking around will show that I rarely receive deference from anyone here at CP. I don't expect it. SamHB (talk) 11:44, 6 July 2019 (EDT)

Lol, nobody interrupts your physics tirades but me. VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 12:44, 6 July 2019 (EDT)

SamHB: Don't dodge the subject. This is of major importance in the 2020 presidential election. Godless atheist Cultural Marxists are telling God-fearing Christian African Americans that, scientifically, slave reparations will solve the problems of global warming, climate change, and carbon emissions. Back up these allegations now with truth and scientific evidence. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 13:15, 6 July 2019 (EDT)

You told RobS, "You're making absolutely no sense." You buried his political commentary under a histrionic remark, ridicule, and condescension.

Back on topic

Yet, you yourself insist that your audience go to outside knowledge to understand obscure physics terms like "beta decay", "electron capture" and "valence electrons" [to make sense of your arguments] when you describe your thinking regarding physical science. This is shown by you making them integral parts of your descriptions as your readers pass through your ideas, with the implied expectation that they "catch on" at every instance. Your readers must either do that or show you deference.

It was admittedly a little bit jarring to bring valence electrons and beta decay into this discussion. But I wanted to make a very clear case, involving just scientific observation, for an old Earth. This struck me as being very well focused. The issue of variability of decay rates explains very well the weakness of the YEC position, with as little distraction as possible by other issues. While I don't expect the readers (the John Selways of the world) to know this off the top of their heads, it is a topic covered in many college-level physics textbooks. Readers can easily see the absurdity of demanding that decay rates can very by factors of thousands, while being aware that they can vary by 1.5%. Being aware of the wealth of scientific evidence on the subject is much better than showing me deference. SamHB (talk) 11:44, 6 July 2019 (EDT)

But strangely, as I said, despite your verbal encouragement up front, your assistance in actually helping them become aware somehow later narrows and becomes quite limited (like when you make use of those series of three obscure phrases I mentioned) forcing them to show you deference, while instead maybe you could have tried to wikilink them...like to Conservapedia's Beta decay, Electron capture or Valence electron article (it's a start)? The point is, if "being aware" is much better, you don't seem in any big hurry to see that it happens!—the result being, you get the deference, and meanwhile RobS gets dismissed out of hand by you. VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 16:28, 7 July 2019 (EDT)

Your point is well taken. It was arrogant of me to just say, in effect, "look it up in a college-level textbook." I should have put the explanation into the appropriate page here at CP. After all, we're supposed to be an encyclopedia, helping people to understand things. The Beryllium example is important, and I should have treated it as such. I will fix that, but it will take time. Please be patient. SamHB (talk) 23:07, 7 July 2019 (EDT)

In response to SamHB's criticism of YEC organizations such as AiG, his criticisms of them that they somehow "don't want to come out into the light of day" are ridiculous. Minority groups, particularly those which are regularly maligned and mocked, tend to have a greater interaction with other people/ideas, mainly because it's impossible avoid/ignore "the other side." This is the case with YEC scientists (many of whom earned their PhDs at secular universities), so they typically have a much better understanding of what evolutionists believe than the evolutionists' understanding of creation science (their understanding of YEC is often still stuck in the 1980s), and thus, their arguments/research tend to be more refined.

Going on a tangent, this is similar to what we see in U.S. politics between Trump and Clinton supporters -- Clinton supporters have the vast majority of the media on their side (for example) and have fewer chances to interact with Trump supporters (thus, they're far less tolerant of Trump supporters when they actually meet them: [1][2]). Trump supporters are often afraid to openly discuss their views and interact with ideological opponents more often. Because of all this, the Trump campaign was better able to connect with Americans and won Wisconsin while HRC slept.

Thus, YECers and Trump supporters tend to be more informed and aware of "the other side" and tend to have more effective and well-thought responses. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:03, 5 July 2019 (EDT)

Continuing on that tangent (Trump, Clinton, Wisconsin, etc.) some people may very well have better communication skills than others, and be better informed, and "have more effective and well-thought responses". They should bring their responses on the YEC question into the light of day. SamHB (talk) 11:44, 6 July 2019 (EDT)

SamHB, you wrote: "In conclusion, a question you might ask yourself is "Why would God create a Universe that is radically different from what it appears to be?". SamHB, appears to be according to what party/parties? Is it people who make incorrect assumptions? Every method that uses extrapolation to determine the age of the earth has assumptions that cannot be tested. And testing is the cornerstone of the scientific method. If you look at the articles below relating to experts and the difficulty of forecasting and extrapolating to the past, you will see that untestable assumptions have tripped up myriads upon myriads of experts.

Right. That's why I narrowed the focus down to the most straightforward case I could find—radioactive decay rates. The assumptions and methods here (Geiger counters, etc.) are things that we can see in the present, with the assumptions in extrapolating to the past as simple, straightforward, and testable as possible. SamHB (talk) 12:39, 4 July 2019 (EDT)

On the other hand, careful Bible exegesis clearly indicates that the earth is young. The ancient Jews and the great majority of the early church fathers believed in a young earth because the biblical text clearly indicates this matter. And multiple lines of evidence point to the veracity of the Bible/Christianity (see: Christian apologetics websites).Conservative (talk) 09:08, 4 July 2019 (EDT)

Well, all I can say is that I've made my case for using science and observation, and the Cons people have made their case for using other things. It's up to John Selway to draw his conclusions. SamHB (talk) 12:39, 4 July 2019 (EDT)

You either believe God or you don't. There is nothing to debate or discuss here. If someone thinks they are smarter than God, or calls God a liar, we know what that is. It is called pride. God instructed us so. God calls prideful non-believers stupid and foolish. God likewise says it is stupid to argue with a fool cause others might see and think you are a stupid fool yourself. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 11:17, 4 July 2019 (EDT)

I know you were talking more to SamHB than to me, and I definitely agree with your overall point in condemning SamHB and John Selway's naked attempts at pushing leftism (and I certainly agree with you that you either believe or don't, and the fact that I even think God exists at all, not to mention currently exists, means I clearly believe in God).

However, speaking as someone who actually DOES view God as superior to all in everything, even view myself as little more than an expendable tool to God to be disposed of at his whim ultimately, and that I neither can do anything about it nor do I particularly CARE to change that status (thus, I am not prideful, and if anything am closer to self-loathing and a massive fatalist), I can state that God did in fact lie once (and ONLY once, I should add, and just so we're clear, by "lie", I mean "willfully giving information you knew full well to be false beforehand", so yes, it does in fact fit that definition of lying.), and that was during his little barter game with Abraham during the events of Sodom and Gomorrah. God, being all-knowing, most certainly knew since long before even the first day of creation that Sodom and Gomorrah was such a horrid place that it needed to be destroyed, and especially that there weren't ANY innocents barring perhaps Lot and his family. Had he been truly honest with Abraham, he would have done pretty much the same thing Ocelot did with Solidus and Dead Cell when fessing up to the Patriots' role in the S3 Plan, or how the Patriots acted to Raiden when revealing themselves to the latter, or how that Bonethief monk talked to Anthony regarding one of the Ancients, or even how Bahamut acted to Ardyn regarding the latter's choice on his fate, regardless of the choice in other words, pretty much cut off Abraham before he could even ATTEMPT to barter with God, silence him for even daring to question his orders while citing his omniscience as to how he knows they're doomed from the start to be destroyed by him, and even telepathically assault Abraham with a large amount of images of what Sodom and Gomorrah is truly like to such an extent that Abraham is left profoundly broken as a result, with God being overjoyed over the fact that he fully demonstrated his omniscience by utterly breaking the mind of even his closest follower, with the only real respite being that God made sure to teleport Lot and his daughters out and do so right in front of Abraham.

Whenever I think of "omniscience", it's closer to Palpatine's "Everything that has transpired has done so according to my design" or Ocelot's "Your plan was invalidated, even before execution, Solidus." line in reference to Solidus's rebellion against the Patriots and how it failed before he even started the planning process. Does what I view as omniscient come across as dark and creepy? Perhaps, and my view of God being honest I'll admit is extremely disturbing, but then again, truth isn't supposed to be hearts and rainbows, it needs to be painful for it to truly be truth, mostly because that's what I've seen of truth where it always seems to hurt people, if not the victims, then certainly the villains when gloating.

And I don't think I'm smarter than God at all. Quite the opposite, I'm absolutely certain God's far smarter than me or any other human on this planet (can't be omniscient if he is dumber than his own creation after all), and that we must be utter slaves to him, that God alone rules everything, to such an extent that he does not tolerate dissent. If anything, it's that knowledge and full awareness that God's far smarter than any human could ever get that makes me very angry that God lied to Abraham by doing that barter game, especially when I know full well that he knows full well Sodom and Gomorrah didn't have innocents barring Lot and his family. God's supposed to not lie, right? Then considering he knows Sodom and Gomorrah doesn't even have any innocents barring Lot and his wife, letting Abraham think there was even a chance at it being savable means he willfully misled him and thus lied. He may have lied to spare him the grief, but he lied nonetheless. Pokeria1 (talk) 13:25, 4 July 2019 (EDT)

EDIT: per VargasMilan's request, I divided them into more paragraphs. Pokeria1 (talk) 13:39, 4 July 2019 (EDT)

tl;dr Do you dare to break that down into paragraphs? VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 13:28, 4 July 2019 (EDT)

Pokeria, this may not be the main point of your remarks, but what you said early on has me puzzled, and what I ask may help us understand you better.

Where does it say in the Bible that God said there were actually less than ten "just men" in Sodom? And on the other hand, where does God actually say there were more than zero "just men" in Sodom, excluding Lot's clan? Wasn't it rather the case that Abraham was afraid to ask?

Yet God did "lie" to Abraham when He said He needed Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. But maybe God's "lies" are like today's judges "sentences" to convicted criminals, in which they are allowed to show mercy and reduce the "sentence". God "sentenced" Abraham and Isaac, but because of Abraham's faith, God allowed a substitute.

This may be the same case when God "lied" to Adam, when God "sentenced" Adam to die "that very day" if he ate fruit from the Tree of Good and Evil—the "sentence" was reduced by mercy. VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 22:37, 5 July 2019 (EDT)

To address your points, 1. It was during the whole reading of Sodom and Gomorrah, how Abraham did a barter game that stopped at 10, with God eventually telling him not to try and continue. God sent the angels, and... well, long and the short is, they failed to even find ten just men. And he said that he'd spare the city if there were, bare minimum, 10 just men. That's more than zero. 2. At least with Isaac, it was made clear he needed to test Abraham's loyalty, which he ultimately did (of course, why God would even NEED to test Abraham's loyalty to him when he's omniscient is it's own issue altogether). This is different considering God let Abraham think there was any chance at Sodom and Gomorrah being saved when in reality, he knew, being omniscient, that Sodom and Gomorrah had no innocents besides Lot and his family. 3. Adam and Eve did die, in a sense. His spirit was effectively killed, separated from God. And if I must explain further, here's some links covering the concept of omniscience and how those who have it or close to it generally act, either directly or attributed by their followers:

• The Patriots (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrVThXFnE1s&t=196s), specifically, Ocelot’s statement of “Your plans have been invalidated, even before execution, Solidus”, in reference to Solidus’s revolt against the Patriots.
• The Patriots, again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKl6WjfDqYA
• The Architect: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADMptNF3O5c
• Palpatine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVl_sjUrNQE
• Chatturgah/Xellatoth/Uyaoth (specifically, one of the monks associated with him, when they said Charlemagne’s fate had been decided centuries before Anthony’s time, alongside the fate of the world): https://youtu.be/mRgvtOK2o5U?list=PL15099A3BEC8B0EBB
• Heck, Bahamut from Final Fantasy XV from these scenes: https://youtu.be/okLrvAIuRYU; https://youtu.be/PJX4tEr7NIk?t=174 Especially the latter scene.

And yes, I know that view of omniscience is dark, dank, and unpleasant, but it still matches the definition. Pokeria1 (talk) 22:53, 5 July 2019 (EDT)

Earlier Abram washes his hands of obligation to Sodom (right after paying tithes to a priest and different king, King Melchizedek) saying to Sodom's king that his city didn't benefit him in any way (Gen. 14:21-24). So did Abram barter on behalf of Sodom? Or was it not a case of Abram (later Abraham) really hoping he could barter with Lot to persuade him to leave Sodom by being able to promise Lot that Abraham's God was just?

I was reading a little about omniscience and found this by Calvin: "When Abraham said to his son, God will provide (Gen. 22.8), he meant not merely to assert that the future event was foreknown to God, but to resign the management of an unknown business to the will of Him whose province it is to bring perplexed and dubious matters to a happy result." Is this lighter consideration of omniscience not a possible reading, or don't you think this is a fair generalization of God's law, as known, up to that point in history? VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 08:35, 6 July 2019 (EDT)

You might do a better job of convincing the John Selways of the world that the Earth is young if you didn't go off into things about Sodom, Solidus, Palpatine, etc. SamHB (talk) 11:44, 6 July 2019 (EDT)

I'm learning from Trump not to be negative, so I haven't said anything at all to the effect that I believe John Selway intentionally asked a question that he knew would be disputatious rather than conducive to inquiry or even shared inquiry. And like Trump's comments about forgiveness, I tried to put the issues eventually raised to positive use, even though I didn't believe the discussion was initiated, like I said, in good faith. VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 13:34, 6 July 2019 (EDT)

Actually, my comments were addressed to John Selway and User:Conservative. But SamHB and Pokeria raise good points.

Off topic -- sidereal time

Science does not exist in a vacuum. It is limited by human understanding. That's what science is - human perspective. It's like the adage, if a tree fell in the forest... How do we know God was not speaking in some advanced form of Sidereal time, which according to the Wikipedia article, itself is now being disposed of because of advances in human knowledge, learning, understanding, and science?

Sidereal time? Do you have any idea what you're talking about? SamHB (talk) 11:44, 6 July 2019 (EDT)

I know. It's outdated now. It's been overtaken by the latest fad. Science is limited by human understanding. A "day," refers to human's understanding of a solar day. Being that the whole universe doesn't recon time according to when the sun rises and sets on planet earth, the meaning of the term "day" doesn't apply throughout the universe. And God tells us as much (My thoughts are not your thoughts, etc), which scientists conveniently ignore. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 12:11, 6 July 2019 (EDT)

I'll take that as a "no".

Sidereal time and solar time are not just some "latest fads". Solar time is the thing we all know, with a 24 hour day. Humans have been using it throughout history, be that 6000 years or some longer interval. Sideral time is a much more recent, and extremely specialized, time scale. It is of interest only to people who build and operate astronomical observatories. So it's much more recent than solar time. It's the time scale that's used to run the motors that move the telescope for long photographic exposures, tracking the star being photographed. A sidereal day is 4 minutes shorter than a solar day. SamHB (talk) 22:59, 7 July 2019 (EDT)

Duh, Bingo. Solar time is human perception. 1 day in human perception is reconned in solar time. God is not a human. If God says "6 days," he his not bound by human perception or understanding of what "6 days" means. The people who build telescopes, after 13 billion solar years, figured out that solar years aren't much help in measuring the size, distance, or age of, God's universe. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 01:15, 8 July 2019 (EDT)

Back on topic

Who am I to question God's reasons? God existed before me. God continues to exist after me. And it is utter insanity for me to spend my limited life in a quest to prove God doesn't exist by science. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 13:57, 4 July 2019 (EDT)

Let me say this again: The purpose of this whole section was (or should have been) to give some guidance to the John Selways of the world who are looking for evidence concerning the age of the Earth. SamHB (talk) 11:44, 6 July 2019 (EDT)

SamHB, you wrote: "Well, all I can say is that I've made my case for using science and observation, and the Cons people have made their case for using other things."

A few things:

1. You cannot observe the past. Strictly speaking, you have not used science and observation. You have not used operational science (Observational science about the present), you have instead used historical science which is rife with extrapolations and assumptions. The track record of science when it comes to forecasting and knowing the distant past is not nearly as reliable as operational science about the present.

Your point, and the points of the articles cited below, are well-taken. But drawing conclusions about the past, difficult though that may be, is nowhere near as difficult as predicting the future. It's what detectives do when the analyze a crime scene and figure out who the perpetrator was. Imperfect, but our criminal justice system uses this all the time. On the other hand, if predicting the future were anywhere near that straightforward, the police would simply arrest suspects in advance of committing the crime, saving everyone a lot of grief, wouldn't they? SamHB (talk) 11:44, 6 July 2019 (EDT)

SamHB, whether or not you are forecasting the distant future or determining the distant past, the farther you are going from the present, the more unreliable your conclusions are going to be all other things being equal. And evolutionists are positing that their historical science, unaided by the divine, can accurately know what happened before man himself existed.

Secondly, intelligent design, uses the detective principle. In every single case where we see intelligence exhibited (like a code as in the genetic code and DNA) it is the result of intelligence and not the result of blind, unguided forces. And as Conservapedia's intelligent design article indicates: "Design detection is used in a variety of sciences including forensic science that investigates the cause of a death or fire."Conservative (talk) 10:28, 10 July 2019 (EDT)

2. The Atlantic 2019 The Peculiar Blindness of Experts, Smithsonian and other articles I gave below about forecasting the future talk about "hedgehogs" who have a tendency to: myopically focus on one discipline, intransigently double down and be credentialed people who have an overinflated egos. And these hedgehogs are largely rewarded for their behavior because they are rarely held accountable when they are wrong - even when they are spectacularly wrong. On the other hand, people who are intellectually curious, have breadth of knowledge and are team players when it comes to a multidisciplinary approach, perform far better at forecasting the future (which is outside the realm of operational science). So your refusal to look at YEC material is symptomatic of the cognitive inflexibility and hubris that hedgehogs possess (It is also illogical and uses the genetic fallacy).

I'll thank you not to cast aspersions on my cognitive powers or my susceptibility to various classical fallacies. SamHB (talk) 01:20, 10 July 2019 (EDT)

SamHB, your own words/actions tell me you are committing the genetic fallacy. So that you are committing the genetic fallacy and being illogical is undeniable. Deny that you are committing the genetic fallacy and lose all credibility!Conservative (talk) 10:54, 10 July 2019 (EDT)

3. YECs certainly use a multidisciplinary approach when it comes to the physical sciences (hence the article Age of the earth: 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe, but we also look at things which have a better track record and reliability when it comes to the realm of the distant past and knowing the future. And not only do YEC, Bible believers have a better track record about the distant past than irreligious/nonreligious academics/scholars when it comes to biblical history (city of Ninevah existing, writing existing at the time of Moses, etc., etc.), but we also have a better track record when it comes to predicting the future (Israel becoming a nation again, an explosion of knowledge occurring in the world as per Daniel the prophet, etc, etc. See: Bible prophecy articles and websites). In addition, Bible scientific foreknowledge certainly indicates that one can reasonably infer that the Bible is divinely inspired as is more reliable than myopic, egotistical hedgehog experts who have a very poor track record when they are operating outside of the realm of operational science (Again, the physical sciences have limitations when it comes to forecasting and knowing the distant past due to unverifiable assumptions in their extrapolations).

I'll thank you not to invent your version of "operational science" and suggest that people who don't accept the accuracy of the Biblical scientific foreknowledge article are operating outside of this realm and have a very poor track record. SamHB (talk) 01:20, 10 July 2019 (EDT)

4. You have taken exception to my many "Atheism and ...." articles. SamHB, you should be delighted that I take a multidisciplinary approach when it comes to the existence/nonexistence of God issue and look upon the issue from many angles.Conservative (talk) 14:14, 4 July 2019 (EDT)

Yes, Cons. I actually am delighted by the approach you take in your articles. It is multidisciplinary in a way that no one else here can achieve. But you're still wrong about YEC. SamHB (talk) 11:44, 6 July 2019 (EDT)

Cons arguments are very persuasive. "You cannot observe the past....You have not used operational science (Observational science about the present}". Let's extend it farther: the same holds true for predicting the planet will come to an end in 2030 unless the Green New Deal is passed and slave reparations paid. Science is little different than reading the past performance of a horse at the race track. It gives you good clues, but can't forecast if the horse is going to twist an ankle today. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 14:53, 4 July 2019 (EDT)

RobSmith, as much as I hate to do it, I am going to have to declare victory over the old earther SamHB. :)Conservative (talk) 21:47, 5 July 2019 (EDT)

Whoa! Not so fast! I'm not finished with you people! I just stepped out to enjoy the fireworks. Then my real life got in the way—it always does. Cons, my friends, we go back a long way. This is all in good fun, complete with smiley faces. (Well, the underlying topic is serious, but the way we discuss it is in good fun.) I'll be back. Ready to clean some clocks and mop some floors.  :):) SamHB (talk) 21:13, 5 July 2019 (EDT)

Off topic -- radical leftists, fireworks displays, and "unfree states"

Well, I 'sppose it might be possible for some radical leftists to enjoy fireworks.... 22:24, 5 July 2019 (EDT)

If I run into any "radical leftists" here in the unfree state of Massachusetts, I'll ask them whether they enjoyed the Fourth of July fireworks, and get back to you. I can't think of any such people now, but it's quite possible that there are some among my acquaintances. SamHB (talk) 11:44, 6 July 2019 (EDT)

The NE part of the USA does have a lot of unfree states with burdensome taxes/regulations that are causing jobs/people to leave those states (MA is the 7th most unfree state in the USA as far as people fleeing the state).[3]Conservative (talk) 11:27, 7 July 2019 (EDT)

Wildly off topic -- Boston subways

Well played, Cons!! Your use of the term "burdensome taxes", in the context of Massachusetts, really rang my bell. There is a song called the "MTA song" that is wildly popular here in Massachusetts even after 60 years. It was recorded by the Kingston Trio. It starts with a gravely intoned spoken prologue, the first line of which was lifted from Thomas Paine:

These are the times that try men's souls.

In the course of our nation's history, the people of Boston have rallied bravely whenever the rights of men have been threatened.

Today, a new crisis has arisen. The Metropolitan Transit Authority, better known as the MTA, is attempting to levy a burdensome tax on the population, in the form of a subway fare increase.

Citizens, hear me out! This could happen to you!

It is still popular in Boston. In fact, the current electronic fare cards are called "Charlie Cards", after the fictional person who was victimized by this burdensome tax. SamHB (talk) 01:01, 8 July 2019 (EDT)

Back on topic

But I question your use of a "National Movers Study," conducted by United Van Lines (a moving company!) as a source of wisdom on whether a state is "free". Particularly since the article clearly states that jobs are the main reason for people moving to or from Massachusetts. And I note that your home state of New York is listed as #4. SamHB (talk) 00:18, 8 July 2019 (EDT)

First, as TAR would say, "People vote with their feet." In terms of the United States and economic/social freedom, one of the great things about the United States is its highway system and mobility. If you don't like a states economic opportunity and/or culture, you can move rather easily. Sometimes, you don't even have to move out of state. You can move from a blue county of a state to a red county in a state. Even in liberal states up north, you could see Trump signs in rural areas during the 2020 election. And although there are libertarians (conservative on economic issues, but liberal on social issues), by in large, there is a large overlap between social/economic conservatism and social/economic liberalism (The exception to this general rule is the state of Washington which has no state income taxes, but is liberal in its social policies).

Next, the User: Conservative account is made up of four individuals who live in 4 states. Conservative (talk) 09:02, 8 July 2019 (EDT)

Right. I knew the number, but didn't know whether you all live near each other. Thanks for clarifying that. SamHB (talk) 01:20, 10 July 2019 (EDT)

Experts and the difficulty of forecasting and extrapolating to the past

• The Peculiar Blindness of Experts, The Atlantic, 2019

• Why Experts are Almost Always Wrong, Smithsonian

• When Forecasters Get It Wrong: Always, New York Times, 2017

• Be Wary of the Experts: Predictions Are Usually Wrong, The Blaze, 2016

• Why Experts Always Seem To Get It Wrong Forbes, 2014

• Why Experts Get It Wrong, The Atlantic

• Why experts are usually wrong, NY Post, 2010Conservative (talk) 09:53, 3 July 2019 (EDT)

In addition, please see: Limitations of scienceConservative (talk) 09:54, 3 July 2019 (EDT)

Extrapolations involving the future or past can have a number of assumptions and it is sometimes difficult to predict matters in a multiple variable situation.Conservative (talk) 09:56, 3 July 2019 (EDT)

If you do reasonable Bible exegesis and when you compare the evidence of the Bible versus the track records of extrapolations of scientists into the future/past, the evidence for the Bible/Christianity come out on top hands down. See: Christian apologetics websites. Conservative (talk) 10:03, 3 July 2019 (EDT)

33 key questions for Robert Mueller

Mueller, keeper of secrets

If Robert Mueller is testifying, there is certainly a lot to ask him.
Mueller first came to public attention during the investigation of the crash TWA 800 in 1996. Early on in the investigation, the FBI reported that traces of explosives had been found in the wreckage of the passenger seating section. Why would there be traces of chemicals on pieces of metal that had been underwater for weeks? The NTSB eventually concluded that the cause of the crash was a fuel tank explosion caused by an electrical short. This was a curious explanation in that 747 was a common plane with a long service history, but no problem similar to this has been reported previously. Who knows what really happened. But one thing this episode does not sound like is an example of great FBI sleuthing. Yet Clinton administration was so relieved when Mueller withdrew the suggestion of terrorism that they promoted him to U.S. attorney for Northern California.
As FBI director under Bush, Mueller helped engineer the rise and fall of the WMD rationale for invading Iraq. The actual reason Bush wanted to invade was because he believed that Saddam was behind 9/11. The WMD rationale was created by Mueller, as well as by Tennet at the CIA, both Clinton holdovers. Perhaps the terrorism rationale was considered too partisan.
In the anthrax case, the FBI pursued Steven Hatfill for five years, although Hatfill was an Ebola researcher with no access to anthrax. The case against Hatfill was promoted by New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristoff. It is yet another see-no-terrorism episode in Mueller's career.
The part of Mueller's career that I find most amazing is that although he played a major role in the downfall of New York Governor Elliot Spitzer in 2008, no one in the media has ever taken him to task for this. (Okay, I did find one article in the Los Angeles Times) What worse crime can you commit against liberalism than to take out its rising star? Somehow, liberal reporters knew that Mueller was a friend, destined for bigger things. PeterKa (talk) 00:51, 7 July 2019 (EDT)

You should read our TWA 800 article. It gives the most widely held plausible theory around today. Of course, some official secrets in every state, with good reason, will never be known or never meant to be known.

As to WMD (and I get tired of repeating this) the sanctions had to go PERIOD The sanctions were being used as a recruiting tool by al Qaeda for suicide killers PERIOD IF the sanctions had to go, Saddam had to go PERIOD Without sanctions, Saddam was free to pursue WMD LEGALLY, without sanctions PERIOD Saddam could LEGALLY use oil profits to build WMD PERIOD Saddam and his entire regime declared their intentions to do so PERIOD.

Stop making yourself look like an idiot mouthing garbage like you did above.

Mueller has two big skeletons in the closet Whitey Bulger and Joseph Epstein. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 02:03, 7 July 2019 (EDT)

I fixed up the TWA 800 article, which had been quite conspiracy theory oriented. The point I was making above concerns Mueller's career rather than the cause of the crash. Although the FBI's claim that it found the residue of explosives in the wreckage has to be mistaken, neither Mueller nor any other agent involved suffered any adverse consequences. PeterKa (talk) 14:02, 7 July 2019 (EDT)

Sources and methods. TWA 800 was shot down by a U.S. built Stinger missile. Al-Qaeda had cells in the U.S. in the 1990s. How al Qaeda smuggled a Stinger into the United States from Afghanistan in the 1990s (more specifically, How counterintelligence found out, who? where? how many? etc.) is the question that cannot be revealed due to sources and methods. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 14:34, 7 July 2019 (EDT)

As to Bulger, he was conveniently murdered in prison shortly before the Mueller Report came out. Why someone feels the necessity to murder an 89 year old man in protective confinement in prison is a question we'll never learn the answer to, RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 14:44, 7 July 2019 (EDT)

Crossfire Hurricane was a rank amateur operation. How they expected to get away with it is anybody's guess. Mueller was called in to try to bury it. Of coarse, many were Mueller's pupils. Mueller's not much of a keeper of secrets when everybody finds out about everything.

Only legislation now can address the problems the Obama conspirators created. FISA was created specifically so that this whole Obamagate conspiracy would not happen again. That will take a bipartisan consensus. Democrats don't seem to want to co-operate in reform. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 14:52, 7 July 2019 (EDT)

Jeffrey Epstein

I would imagine that a number of people would like to talk to Jeffrey Epstein right now. Numbered among them may be Robert Mueller, who was the Director of the FBI while Epstein received a slap on the wrist after he was charged with [over a dozen] sex offenses. VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 11:19, 7 July 2019 (EDT)

Epstein was a Mueller informant. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 11:57, 7 July 2019 (EDT)

somepeoplesay [garbled] Epstein was part of a Mossad operation that framed and blackmailed people like Bill Clinton and Prince Andrew. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 11:59, 7 July 2019 (EDT)

I've heard that rumor, but it can't be true.

That would be against the law. VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 14:30, 7 July 2019 (EDT)

We'll never know the full Epstein story. I interpret this as Barr cleaning up the DOJ. Manafort will be out before Epstein ever sees the light of day again. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 14:38, 7 July 2019 (EDT)

In unrelated news, while detained, Jeffrey Epstein has developed a hand disease in both hands and a mouth disease and can neither speak nor write. When asked how he'd be able to communicate with interviewers from the US Attorney's office or his own defense counsel, Epstein responded by shrugging his shoulders. VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 14:42, 7 July 2019 (EDT)

Brace yourselves. Pelosi's daughter tweeted, "is quite likely that some of our faves are implicated.”. Imagine that! Democrats have to defend a pack of pedophiles they have worshipped over the past 15 years in a Presidential election year.

Call it the boomerang effect. They tried it against Justice Thomas. They excused Bill Clinton. They tried it against Judge Moore and Justice Kavanaugh.

In the Epstein case, it's a two time convicted pedophile.

GOP needs to open it's arms to the #MeToo movement now.

Antagonist: Bbbbbutt Rob, Trump, Sec'y Acosta, and Dershowitz?

Rob: When they get charged, we'll address it then. Right now we'll stick to facts. Acosta let Epstein off cause of the deal Mueller cut with Epstein. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 18:02, 7 July 2019 (EDT)

What we have is a pattern of conduct. Mueller allowed a convicted pedophile to run loose, endangering the safety of our children, as long he as he provided the the kind of testimony Mueller wanted, in both the Epstein case and the George Nadar case cited in the Mueller Report. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 18:05, 7 July 2019 (EDT)

Trump warned about potential legal charges for Epstein at CPAC 2015 when Trump was being interviewed by Sean Hannity. VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 18:18, 7 July 2019 (EDT)

The “faves” here include Bill Clinton and a whole bunch of Democratic bigwigs. All hoping to avoid being caught with their pants down!—Dinesh D'Souza. VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 18:46, 7 July 2019 (EDT)

NBC censored the video, but this discussion from Morning Joe on May 18, 2016 convinced me Trump has nothing to fear from Epstein revelations, despite what the fake news/Soros/Media Matters/DNC disinformation machine tries to spin. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 19:01, 7 July 2019 (EDT)

You mentioned "Dershowitz", but Alan Dershowitz worked with Mike Cernovich and the Miami Herald to unseal the records. VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 19:06, 7 July 2019 (EDT)

Yes. Commie libs accuse Dershowitz of going to fantasy island for Clinton-type tryst; Dershowitz visited the island to solicit funds for Harvard. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 20:43, 7 July 2019 (EDT)

Epstein is said to have the largest apartment in Manhattan, one of the most expensive real estate markets in the world. Dershowitz is said to have lived there. Dershowitz has been going on Fox news for the past year defending Trump. Fine. Maybe he was trying to curry favor with the Trump White House and Trump supporters. I don't know and I don't care. Come what may, I feel no compunction to defend Dershowitz. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 02:28, 10 July 2019 (EDT)

“I’ve known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy,” Trump booms from a speakerphone. “He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it – Jeffrey enjoys his social life.” [4]

Expect the Epstein case to revive interest in the shenanigans that were going on at the now-defunct Trump Model Management. JohnZ (talk) 16:24, 9 July 2019 (EDT)

Do you have proof that Trump engaged in the behavior that Epstein is accused of? Karajou (talk) 16:34, 9 July 2019 (EDT)

Karajou: I got an idea, and I'm serious about it. As things develop in coming weeks and months (after Mueller testifies and the media wants to bury Russia Russia Russia once and for all), if any mainstream fake news narrative develops to where CP feels the need to address it, don't let them put it in any Trump-related articles or create new pages. Dump it all in the Pizzagate article, cause that's where it belongs. Create new subsections, etc., and address it there. We've told them this massive Pedo/Dem scandal was coming for years, and Pizzagate was just the tip of the iceberg. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 02:13, 10 July 2019 (EDT)

Trump tossed Epstein out of Mar-e-Lago. Epstein had a condo there. Virginia Roberts, at the center of the victims case, worked at Mar-e-Lago where Epstein met her. After Epstein's conviction, Trump tossed Epstein out. Trump was the only person, according to victims attorney's, with information about Epstein who was willing to help victims. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 16:37, 9 July 2019 (EDT)

Aye, but I imagine the initial lines of inquiry will be more about what did the (future) president know about Epstein and when? It won't be being easy being on record as aware of Epstein's preference for younger women, and then trying to claim ignorance that Epstein liked them that young. JohnZ (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2019 (EDT)

A man who had a preference for younger woman. That is so incredibly rare! You are grasping at straws JohnZ. The fact remains that Trump kicked Epstein out of Mar-e-Lago and Trump was the only person, according to victims attorney's, with information about Epstein who was willing to help victims.

The two people with the highest profiles who have the appearance of being a scum in regards to Epstein are Bill Clinton and UK's Prince Andrew. See: PRINCE Andrew has been dragged back into the Jeffrey Epstein paedo scandal as a photo of him with an 'underage prostitute' has been listed as an exhibit at a new court case.. Instead of looking across the ocean at Trump to look for misbehavior, you should be looking in your own backyard! Conservative (talk) 18:17, 9 July 2019 (EDT)

What a joke (and this is good material for MPR): Chuck Schumer calls for Acosta's resignation; and who heads the list of recipients of Epstein campaign contributions? Chuck Schumer. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 19:38, 9 July 2019 (EDT)

Acosta wrote a letter to explain what happened that you can read here. He blames the Florida authorities, as well as "Washington," which he says rejected his appeals. The Florida authorities were the ones who came up with the unique six-day-work-leave prison regime that made Epstein's sentence a joke. Epstein had a team of legal superstars that included both Alan Dershowitz and Ken Starr. President Bush was a good buddy of frequent Epstein travelling companion Bill Clinton and his administration was full of Clinton holdovers like Mueller. (After the disgraceful banking bailout, I don't cut Bush slack anymore.) PeterKa (talk) 22:06, 9 July 2019 (EDT)

I don't see where the Bushes factor in to any of this. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 22:50, 9 July 2019 (EDT)

Uh, because Acosta puts much of the blame for this on "Washington" and Bush was president at this time. Perhaps Acosta's comments are better interpreted as referring to Mueller, then the FBI director. When I read Acosta's letter, he struck me as a guy trying to do his best, but who didn't quite succeed. Deferring to local authority makes sense as a general principle, but the authorities in Palm Beach County were sadly outclassed in this case. PeterKa (talk) 02:49, 10 July 2019 (EDT)

Acosta answered to Gonzales. Bringing Bush's name into it only confuses what is already a confusing story for most people. Read the Little Black Book as a starting point. Zerohedge has link to a twitter feed at the end that also is worth reading. Also, the Vanity Fair article. (I'll find the link later).

The issue is twofold at this point:

(a) Was Epstein acting on his own to blackmail the rich for personal gain? or

(b) Was Epstein part of an Israeli intelligence operation to blackmail the rich and elite of the world?

This is where the role of Ghislaine Maxwell (pron. ji-lane) comes in, daughter of the mysterious Robert Maxwell (d.1991). His story has yet to be written in definitive form. [5] Suffice it to say, he worked for Mossad and was whacked by Mossad. He's buried on the Mount of Olives.

I would suggest to follow the first track, Epstein has self-motivations. If Prince Andrew or Alan Dershowitz wish to argue they were framed by the Mossad, then we can follow that track.

Bush is a non-factor. Trump is a witness for Virginia Roberts. Unless Virginia Roberts claims Trump sold her to Epstein or something along that line, ANY discussion of Trump is B.S., fake news, misinformation, and intended to sidetrack and cover up crimes of others, The Collusion Hoax II. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 12:39, 10 July 2019 (EDT)

See if you can work Soros and the Illuminati in there somewhere. Back in the real world, we await Trump's inevitable attempt to claim he was shocked, shocked, to discover Epstein's taste for younger women extended to underage girls. JohnZ (talk) 22:28, 10 July 2019 (EDT)

I am too ignorant of the situation to write a proper page on this pervert, but a page on him should definitely exist! This sick man is a perfect example of the U.S justice system's zero tolerance toward crime, no matter how rich or powerful one might be. Nobody is above the law, and we fought a war in 1776 to see to that. --PiousOne (talk) 22:44, 10 July 2019 (EDT)

It already exists: Jeffrey Epstein --1990'sguy (talk) 22:49, 10 July 2019 (EDT)

Thank you. I feel pretty stupid having not found that with a search. --PiousOne (talk) 23:03, 10 July 2019 (EDT)

PiousOne, you certainly haven't lived up to your name. You tried to dodge a five-year block by originating a new account, and yet you still try to combine editing Conservapedia with foolish expressions of anger against President Trump. You also wasted your opportunity to get a lighter sentence by visiting the blocking admin, so it's only fitting that you receive the same block for this account. VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 14:02, 11 July 2019 (EDT)

Acosta just resigned. VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 13:27, 12 July 2019 (EDT)

Acosta's 2007 deal could make Berman's indictment double jeopardy, according to Andrew McCarthy. There are new victims coming forward, so perhaps the indictment can be amended. But at this point, it appears to be so much grandstanding. PeterKa (talk) 08:35, 13 July 2019 (EDT)

The issue surrounds the fact that Epstein plead to a single count of prostitution, not trafficing, child molestation, or conspiracy (how a child victim is labeled a prostitute is a separate matter). There is no jeopardy in a conspiracy charge. Prince Andrew (formerly second in line to the throne), Dershowitz, Alec Baldwin, et al ad infinitum are quite nervous. The only resolution at this point seems to be for Epstein to accidentally die in his jail cell awaiting trial. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 13:27, 13 July 2019 (EDT)

After a rocky start, illegal aliens with final deportation orders to be removed by ICE

As you know, two weeks ago, acting Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan was accused of leaking information on the planned deportation of 2,000 illegal aliens with final deportations orders. Those plans were cancelled, and new plans are to be carried into execution Monday of deporting all 925,000 of them. Perhaps surprisingly, roughly 40% of them are not from Mexico, El Salvador, Honduras or Guatemala. Democrats and leftist radicals encourage the American public to hate ICE officers. Ironically this only elevates ICE officers to hero status, especially since they do more than deport but fight and deter border crime.

VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 22:40, 7 July 2019 (EDT)

As I understand it, Africans are flying into Ecuador and hitching a ride to Panama. Reports claim the usual underground railroad smuggling camps right now are overwhelmed with tens of thousands, much more than capacity, making the trek. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 10:43, 8 July 2019 (EDT)

---

Soccer

Soccer is the most popular sport in the world so it’s far from most of world not wanting to watch or play it - the main page item should be changed. JohnSelway (talk) 20:32, 8 July 2019 (EDT)

Women's soccer? I am skeptical. Why Aren't Women's Sports as Big as Men's?, The Atlantic. Why do fans ignore women’s pro sports?, Boston Globe.

As far as popularity, the ice skating queens and the top women's gymnasts will always win hands down when compared to women's soccer.

JohnSelway, as much as I hate to say it, you are wrong again.Conservative (talk) 20:56, 8 July 2019 (EDT)

The mainpage doesn't say woman soccer - it says "...despite how most of the world does not play that game, or want to."

See here "Association football, or soccer, is the most popular sport in the world. It is estimated that more than half of the world's population consider themselves to be association football (soccer) fans"

So if you are only referring to womens soccer then I am right - the main page item should be changed. JohnSelway (talk) 21:28, 8 July 2019 (EDT)

"Google persists in overhyping liberal women's soccer, despite how most of the world does not play that game, or want to. Nearly all the quarterfinalist players were white, in contrast with competitive world sports." (Bolding added for emphasis).

You certainly don't have an airtight case when it comes to your soccer complaint. The "that" can certainly refer to women's soccer.

JohnSelway, you purposefully gave a partial quote. Many times I don't think you are being honest/sincere. You trash Trump for example, while totally ignoring all his accomplishments (World's most competitive economy, deregulation, big reduction of ISIS influence, etc.). Trump is certainly not perfect, but you way overdo the criticism. Let's take the examples of King David or Samson. You can certainly find things in the Bible to trash David/Samson, yet they had accomplishments too.Conservative (talk) 21:43, 8 July 2019 (EDT)

Double standard

You mention a liberal double standard on the main page (which I agree with) but isn’t it a conservative double standard to highlight Biden stammering and slurring when Trump does the same? This isn’t about Trump - more about how Conservapedia maintains its integrity. JohnSelway (talk) 18:17, 13 July 2019 (EDT)

Except that Trump doesn't do what Biden does. He doesn't stammer or get confused when speaking. Sure, you may not like how he speaks (he speaks differently from a typical boring politician), but he's very effective (see his 2016 victory). --1990'sguy (talk) 18:25, 13 July 2019 (EDT)

He doesn't stammer or get confused when speaking. You're kidding right? JohnSelway (talk) 21:12, 13 July 2019 (EDT)

No, I'm not. True, people with Trump Derangement Syndrome usually take every chance they can get to ridicule Trump, including how he speaks, but let's be honest -- he has charisma and is very good at public speaking. I watched most of the 2016 GOP debates and every general election debate, and I watched every Trump rally from his inauguration until the 2018 campaigns truly began. Trump is an effective speaker. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:17, 14 July 2019 (EDT)

It's obvious Biden is on some kind of medication. He's pro-nuclear war with Kim jong-un. The man is a danger and menace to World Peace. It will take "thoughts and prayers" for him to make it to the first round of primary voting in February 2020, which communist Democrats have made clear they do not believe in. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 19:48, 13 July 2019 (EDT)

The item criticizes Biden without mentioning Trump. Conservatives can talk about topics other than Trump -- that's not what "double standard" means. What JS is doing is another rhetorical device called tu quoque or whataboutism. After Fire and Fury was published, the liberal media spent a month using every opportunity to tell us that Trump was demented. So the subject has been done to death already. Trump tweets and speaks in public in an unscripted manner all the time. Everyone in America is a position to assess his mental state. Biden is both less coherent and not as bright as Trump. Unlike Trump, he avoids public appearances as much as possible. PeterKa (talk) 20:38, 13 July 2019 (EDT)

Exactly. Here's the double standard: it is only Trump critics that hang on Trump's every utterance breathlessly (worship of false messiahs is an inherent principle of leftism); normal people and the rest of sane humanity realize that people sometimes make mistakes or are misquoted. We don't hang on his every utterance and understand the context in which Mr. Trump speaks. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 21:23, 13 July 2019 (EDT)

No one believes in global warming

Do you think AOC is trying to save the world from climate change? Think again! "The interesting thing about the Green New Deal is that it wasn't originally a climate thing at all," according to Saikat Chakrabarti, the brains and money behind the AOC phenomenon. "We really think of it as more of a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing." See "The Green New Deal was never about climate change; it's just AOC's excuse to destroy America's economy." The quote above comes from a worshipful profile in Washington Post Magazine. Assuming that AOC's supporters are OK with this revelation, is it not proof positive that climate alarmism was a fraud all along? PeterKa (talk) 00:42, 14 July 2019 (EDT)

It's been a fraud from day one, concocted by people who couldn't predict the weather to accuse people of changing the weather so they could get their hands on taxpayer money. Remember, when it comes to us wanting to keep what we earn, it's the libs who accuse us of being greedy. Karajou (talk) 00:53, 14 July 2019 (EDT)

Green New Deal is based om pseudoscience. Slave reparations, Medicare for All, and a guaranteed income will not stop carbon emissions. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 01:00, 14 July 2019 (EDT)

* ahem * "Commentary: Structural racism and the climate crisis are inextricably linked. Chicago's deadly 1995 heat wave shows the disastrous costs."

It seems that some of us don't have the courage to accept the challenge of climate change. [sadder] That feeling when you project climate knowledge backwards on to extreme weather events you once thought were climate-neutral and discover there's no place among your classmates/co-workers for a climate-hero. In fact, what you once thought was a safe-space is a hate-space where The Chicago Tribune is vilified and ignored, even though they stay up-to-date by having a website version, so if they make mistakes, they can pull the story and not worry about respected journalists being taken out of context by polluters, because in reality they are always accurate about the big picture. The big scary picture. With many parts. Accurate. VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 13:03, 14 July 2019 (EDT)

Economic pseudoscience, i.e. Socialism, is not the cure for global warming. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 14:05, 14 July 2019 (EDT)

Historically, the green agenda came first and the pseudo-science of global warming came along later to rescue it. The environmentalist movement got started in 1962 with Rachel Carson's crusade against pesticides. A few years later, it was overpopulation that was going to destroy the world. In the 1970s, solar power, electric cars, and recycling were justified by pointing to the energy crisis. PeterKa (talk) 15:11, 14 July 2019 (EDT)

When was the last time you climbed out of your lead-lined air-conditioned climate shelter and addressed real-world problems? The government spends billions on green energy, and even that hasn't worked! The problem has only gotten worse! And that's why we need more government thinkers to step in and use our money to change the climate back even harder!

Don't you watch the network news? Experts are showing up to talk about it more than ever, so that proves it! The science is settled! The danger is imminent! Due to our inaction the climate crisis has spawned a political crisis where everything has become climate-determined and the [needed measures and] normal directions of government have been turned upside-down! So hey, socialism kinda fits right in! Thankfully, climate complaints have raised more climate awareness, which causes more climate spending, which proves the complaints are valid, which then proves fresh complaints are valid too, which in turn causes more climate spending. It's a perfect match for a political philosophy that wants government to take control of everything, so we'll certainly know how to...proceed!

I won't rest until all American public policy deliberations are supervised by green energy tycoons or climate experts chosen from the top environmentalists you see on TV (except Fox), and all carbonated beverages are served flat! And I won't stop yelling either! VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 16:03, 14 July 2019 (EDT)

The climate experts said global cooling was going to happen. I am still waiting for that to happen! In terms of their competence and integrity, the scientific community has seen a major degradation (See: Scientific fraud).

Here are some relevant articles:

• 7 Crazy Realities of Scientific Publishing

• The present scientific community and character issues

• The business of progressive science

• Scientific fraud problem in science community

• Peer review problems in science

• Scientific replication problems and current published science articles

• Over half of psychology studies fail reproducibility test, Nature, August 27, 2015
• Psychology is not science - Discusses lack of transparency of Dutch psychologists in terms of their data for their experimentsConservative (talk) 15:42, 15 July 2019 (EDT)

Do your worst, Trump

Trump is destroying America by perpetrating successive waves of oppressive implementations of structural racism! More and more immigrants are arriving daily to suffer this oppression in America just to prove that there's no limit to the number of people against whom that brute Trump is willing to move arms into motion and to selectively discriminate! And who knows, if a few (or all) manage to survive such abuse, who's to say that these heroes shouldn't stay anyway even if they've already proven their point?

By taking a foreign nation's resources without allegiance, we'll bravely show the world by his (otherwise inexplicable) racial objections to it just what kind of president Trump is (we don't have to tell you, but if someone asks you, tell them: a really mean kind), and if you help us win our campaign to have no borders whatsoever, it'll mean that we'll show the world all the quicker...and we suspect, under what you will find an intriguingly different form of government. VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 08:42, 16 July 2019 (EDT)

In the meantime, though, now you can explain how you can continue to rally immigrants into the United States and meanwhile complain about how completely and terribly oppressive the country is. VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 10:32, 16 July 2019 (EDT)

Their just motivated by hate. They come here, rape and kill somebody, and get free opioids for life and housing. It's called justice. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 11:06, 16 July 2019 (EDT)

Eyes Wide Shut

An eerie calm has descended over the Potomac, broken occasionally by yelps of alleged suffering raised in response to draconian and phantom racial oppression towards newly-immigrated socialist members of Congress and their government clients.

Attorney General Robert Barr's inherited and newly-convened Federal grand juries are said to be carrying out the people's business with regard to the behavior of certain appointed Federal officers over the course of many months; "said" because their secrecy has been sustained for a likewise length of time practically unheard of in a town where typically secrets serve as one of its most valuable commodities.

In the Southern District of New York public corruption unit, schemata are being laid with a similar care for secrecy by prosecutors who have arrested Jeffrey Epstein as a prelude to a series of scandals regarding public officers, now exploded to unknown dimensions as a result of Epstein's forbearance to [effectively] secure photographic records of his contacts [away from the authorities] of whom he is presumed to have been their panderer. VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 18:32, 16 July 2019 (EDT)

Bad press

Nobody makes more empty pronouncements in this country than the mainstream press. This hasn't gone unnoticed by Ann Coulter, who regards their influence as unearned. Google, among other tech companies have taken up the slack to promote them so as to shield them from market forces.

Coulter has begun a process of confronting those in the press who have supported ruining a great many virtuous people's reputations and isolated a great many others. I don't mean her books, columns and Twitter account per se, but nobody knows what form it will take.

Like spring fashions, Coulter has a knack for keeping the contents of her books secret and then revealing them, in this case to her book readers, all at once. This isn't always a good practice, like the hype over the Segway, which ended up being fairly conventional when not suspected of being actually dangerous and got it a lot of bad press it could have avoided.

Peter Ka noted that the mainstream press are able to evoke a noxious atmosphere around a person or concept through repetition, and though many news consumers now do, some don't realize where the smoke and noise is coming from. Maybe that's where Coulter is aiming: at the ability of the press to swarm and repeat itself indefinitely as a means of control over institutions and individuals that don't cast a favorable light on a philosophy where nothing is forbidden [and nothing need be done to help those outside it] for those dedicating themselves to living under it. VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 08:45, 18 July 2019 (EDT)

Trump vs The Squad

In the days since Trump's tweet telling "congresswomen" (apparently referring to Ilhan Omar) to "go back where you came from," it's been Charlottesville all over again. The MSM is shouting "racist" compulsively like a mental patient. They clearly don't know what their favorite word actually means. Prejudice against immigrants is xenophobia, not racism. It would obviously have been better if Trump had avoided the issue of immigration status, as he acknowledges in this tweet: "They are Anti-Semitic, they are Anti-America, we don’t need to know anything about them personally, talk about their policies."[6]
The episode has exposed Omar's longstanding refusal to condemn Muslim terrorism. She was given an opportunity to condemn Al Qaeda at the recent press conference and conspicuously failed to take advantage of it. This is consistent with a career of winking at terrorism and playing the moral equivalence game.[7] The media is currently full of stories insisting that she is just as patriotic as anyone else! One hopes that people who think like this never hold power again.
Before Trump's tweet, Pelosi's faction was making a serious attempt to sideline Omar and her Squad. Now it seems that they are stuck with them as the public faces of the party, at least until they have a nominee. Omar is one of least popular politicians in the country and AOC isn't doing so well in the polls either.[8] PeterKa (talk) 20:08, 16 July 2019 (EDT)

Why does everything make the left think of racism? What Trump's tweet reminded me of is "Loretta" by the Beatles: "Get back to where you once belonged." PeterKa (talk) 20:15, 16 July 2019 (EDT

Where did they once belong? StanleyColleymore (talk) 15:51, 17 July 2019 (EDT)

In their home countries from where they recently immigrated to apply their amazing political knowledge to where it's most needed. VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 17:29, 17 July 2019 (EDT)

The song is about going back to Tucson. (Jo Jo left his home in Tucson Arizona, for some California grass). See here. PeterKa (talk) 20:27, 17 July 2019 (EDT)

Define 'projection'. —Q, 10:51, 16 July 2019 (EDT). VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 22:47, 16 July 2019 (EDT)

It's all just a racist communist plot to deflect attention from the good economy and the success of capitalism. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 19:50, 17 July 2019 (EDT)

Exactly. Trump's odds of winning are UP 0.4% over the past week. VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 19:54, 17 July 2019 (EDT)

Meanwhile, when Kamala Harris joined in, her comeback was so lame (a copycat one that didn't fit the situation) that her odds of winning the nomination went down 3.3% because it showed she sometimes said things that weren't that bright. By doing nothing, Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden gained about that much, with Warren maintaining a five-week winning streak—with the campaign theme "The Forgiveness Tour 2019" VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 20:45, 17 July 2019 (EDT)

Warren's Native American ancestry is working to her advantage; as far as she is concerned, we all can go back where we came from. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 15:15, 18 July 2019 (EDT)

Omar should go to Warren's quack geneticist and get herself proclaimed an American Indian. PeterKa (talk) 18:51, 18 July 2019 (EDT)

"The mainstream media can’t stop talking about how President Trump is a racist for tweeting that four Democrat members of Congress can 'go back to where they came from.' But when Democrats threatened to deport naturalized U.S. citizen Sebastian Gorka over phony allegations, the media yawned."

Sebastian Gorka is a top conservative on Twitter who was recently rudely accosted by a member of the mainstream press at an event at the White House Rose Garden.

Omar looks winsome and childlike, though, so anyone attacking her must be a churl. But, if so, how did she manage to attain to so high a government office? It's sort of like affirmative action...but it isn't. She's sort of disadvantaged...but not really. Somehow her personality seems familiar in the place where we see her...but it's not. Her effrontery seems to result from a hard-fought struggle for progress...but it doesn't. When she dresses like a queen, she seems uncertain as to what her actual role in government is...but she really shouldn't. VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 20:12, 18 July 2019 (EDT)

---

Racism, woo hoo!

There was a time when the media avoided name calling. Now they proudly tally it up: "CNN, MSNBC say 'racist' more than 1,100 times regarding Trump 'go back' tweet since Sunday." I wonder how that compares to the number of times the networks called George Wallace a racist. Reporters today want to work for lobby groups, and a portfolio full of rude remarks about conservatives is apparently what the donors want to see. PeterKa (talk) 02:33, 18 July 2019 (EDT)

"Get Back" (released in early 1969) struck me later in life as being tied to the moon landing, and people were nervous about the astronauts "getting back" alive after walking on the moon (50 years ago this week). Maybe this long-forgotten idea stimulated Trump to make those remarks at this time on an unconscious level. VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 06:57, 18 July 2019 (EDT)

And then there was that 1969 movie Easy Typer starring Peter Ka-nda who was out to find America but instead was beset by fake journalists, because they didn't like the style of truth he was peddling... VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 07:48, 18 July 2019 (EDT)

Send her back!

Stay classy, Greenville. JohnZ (talk) 09:17, 18 July 2019 (EDT)

Dude, she never shuts up. If anything, her complexion has protected her among Americans from criticism and confrontation about her suspicious background and anti-Jewish remarks. VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 09:43, 18 July 2019 (EDT)

Many citizens in Western countries don't want Muslim immigrants. Left off center governments are now in the minority in the West and immigration played a key role in this. Welcome to reality JohnZ.

By the way JohnZ, I know you live in the UK. Do you live in a Muslim neighborhood?Conservative (talk) 10:48, 18 July 2019 (EDT)

Do you think JohnZ should move into one to lead by example? If so, I think he should too. VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 12:51, 18 July 2019 (EDT)

From the archives. Local population ~30% foreign born, ~20% Muslim. Mosque a few hundred yards up the road, another one 5 mins walk away. Lived here 18 years without any bother. I take this as significant evidence in favour of the idea that you're all talking out of your arses about the negative impact of immigrants and Muslims. JohnZ (talk) 17:52, 18 July 2019 (EDT)

Inserted for the record (IOW, news the fake news media ignores) The first Somali cop from Ilhan's district was convicted and sentenced for the murder of an immigrant white woman. Democrats were so proud of their First Somali cop. And some people say there is no justice in America; in this case a cop was locked up for murdering an immigrant. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 18:02, 18 July 2019 (EDT)

Jeremy Corbyn is more or less the British equivalent of Ilhan Omar -- a British person with ties to an anti-British terrorist group and who has a record of anti-Semitism. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:54, 18 July 2019 (EDT)

Which right-aligned Twitter celebrity has the bravest response to the "Send her back" chant?

A remarkable cadre of brave right-aligned Twitter celebrities have stood up to their conservative cohorts to render from them an accounting of their conduct at Trump rallies.

Who will win?

	Candidates' Bravest Republican Response to "Send Her Back" Chant
Candidate	Republican response	Bravery factor	My response
Joe Walsh	"SEND HER BACK" is wrong. It's so wrong. Denounce it Republicans. Please. Denounce it.	+7,000	I disavow!
Bill Weld	I challenge every Republican to watch @realDonaldTrump's rally last night, complete with chants of "Send her back", and ask if that is the Party of Lincoln and Reagan we signed up for. We are in a fight for the soul of the GOP, and silence is not an option. #AmericaDeservesBetter	+18,000	I will complete your challenge, sir. This is a pivotal moment!
Bill Kristol	"Send her back" conservatism is not a conservatism worth defending.	+40,000	Alas!
Jonah Goldberg	I know I'm a broken record. But there is nothing in American patriotism that could create an argument for "send her back." There is plenty in nationalism that would demand it. Oh, FWIW I think Omar's views run the gamut from silly to reprehensible. But she's an American. Period.	+15,000	Did You Say Nationalism?? Thanks for not hiding behind empty abstractions that could mean anything.
David French	Agree with Guy. "Send her back" is completely and totally unacceptable. It's not a defense of Omar to say this is not how we treat American citizens.	00.5M:2	Especially when the current President is "not a man", right sir?
Stephen Hayes	But Trump isn't good at making arguments, so he just attacks, often in the ugliest way possible. It is, as others have reported, his plan. It's a choice. And it's a disgrace. (3/6)	03.5M:2	It's a hatchet job, more often than not. It's impossible for me ally myself with him now. If he would only...let the narrative set and harden a little, it would take the edge off everything, and things would go well for him.
Stephen Hayes	Trump's original tweets were xenophobic and racist. The MAGA crowd chants of "send her back" were disgusting and un-American. (4/6)	03.5M:2	And let's say what we're all thinking—a frightening premonition of a coming dark night of fascism over America. And the MAGA crowd is a match for the "un-President".
Hugh Hewitt	"Send her back" is a nativist, terrible chant. Also electoral suicide. There're more than 400,000 naturalized residents in PA, w/ 200,000 more in Michigan. @realdonaldTrump won PA by and MI by 11K, PA by 44K. #VoteHerOut --fine. #SendHerBack --nativist. Catholics, btw, remember.	0	With hearts that cold, I can tell you from being in attendance, there was scarcely heat enough to warm a paw.
Elliott Hamilton	Under no circumstances should *anyone* - whether you're on the political left or the political right - tell an American citizen to "go home.” This isn’t how we address disagreements in values or policy; this is how we demonize each other. Do better, America.	0	I wish you wouldn't talk that way, Elliott. The situation exposed by your moral clarity makes me so indignant that I'm just bound to overreact. And funnily, if we had kept a running total of new Muslims being granted citizenship together with their crime statistics, I'm sure my fellow citizens would have overreacted as well. Just more proof positive that for policy's sake, the American citizenry, such as it is, needs to be kept in the dark.
Guy Benson	"Send her back" is an appalling chant. Omar is a US citizen. My less-catchy chant would be: "Condemn her bigotry, combat her radicalism, and investigate her seriously alleged fraud!"	+41,000	Thank you! And they say political pragmatism is dead!
Seth Mandel	This is menacing racism, instigated by Trump's initial comments this week. It's the same trash that ppl use to attack Jews like myself (even non-immigrants--racists don't care). For shame.	+84,000	Just as neo-conservatives want an American empire to rule over things abroad with American soldiers, there exists a counterpart type to colonize American workers together with unorganized "citizens" pulled from foreign countries domestically into that empire to keep them out of the way.
Allahpundit	Pure mob insanity, led by the most powerful man on earth	+26,000	...criticized by a non-aligned exploiter of opportunities, giving his destiny to come out on top a helpful nudge!
Meghan McCain	For anyone who needs reminding of how a lot of Republicans like me were raised and how we view the world. I love you Dad and I've never missed your leadership more.	+26,000	Not to speak ill of the honored dead, but McCain's conservatism was so "comprehensive", which was a word he used, that you'd often think it might comprehend the opposite of conservatism.
Justin Amash	A chant like "Send her back!" is ugly and dangerous, and it is the inevitable consequence President Trump's demagoguery. This is how history's worst episodes begin. We must not allow this man to take us to such a place.	+26,000	Yeah, remember Dan Rather's moral panic over that Promise Keepers footage?
David Frum	When this is all over, nobody will admit to ever having supported it	+26,000	Because if it prosper, none dare call it mere support!
Andrew Egger	My latest, about that chant last night. The danger here—besides the obvious repulsiveness of the chant itself—is that this accelerating culture of political transgression is like a ratchet that can only turn one way. For a critical mass of conservatives, it is a sign that a given act is actually praiseworthy and brave if it draws condemnation from the despised left-wing media. "Send her back" is a chant that might make some cringe today—but once it's been digested by the media cycle and the battle lines drawn, and it's been repeated at rally after rally, it will become, in the minds of Trump's fans, just another handy weapon for triggering the pearl-clutching libs.	+26,000	This one from the Bulwark Online f.k.a. The Weekly Standard website with it's postmodern analysis wins hands down!—for incomprehensibility.
Matt Brooks	The "send her back" chants were wrong, vile, and don't reflect who we are as Americans. I strongly oppose @IlhanMN views and policies but those chants have no place in our society.	+26,000	Yet you stood right by while non-allegianced aliens and illegal aliens took these same Americans' jobs, which other Americans tolerated out of a sense of charity and who repaid them by sending most of their earnings across our border instead of back into the communities where they "resided". Consequently to that, you comment how you can't understand why normal Americans find the moral stances of Omar Ilhan and her ilk so insufferable.
Tom Nichols	This rally is creepy even by the unbelievably creepy standard of Trump rallies.	+26,000	Night of the Living Dead, huh? Freaks, huh? Gee, that's hardly condescending at all. Why on earth would they feel so unrepresented as to attend a Donald Trump rally!
Charlie Sykes	The cancer spreads.	+26,000	Huh. I don't know where people get the idea that Trump's opponents are uncharitable. It must just be a strong feeling with no basis in fact whatsoever.

The results are in...it's an eighteen-way tie for last place! Congratulations! VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 20:35, 20 July 2019 (EDT)

This is bunk. How do we know the crowd wasn't chanting "Send her back to Minnesota"? RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 21:55, 20 July 2019 (EDT)

That's a good point. I disavow this new phrase! I disavow this one too! Please, let me disa-vow-how-how! >sob!<

I love it how the mainstream media thinks that it's its job to choose to ask and pass along allegiances to or renunciation of various verbal propositions that they think up and ask various people, sometimes delivering the results to other specific people. I guess they think they deserve to be part of a story. VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 22:41, 20 July 2019 (EDT)

That's exactly right. As Ilhan Omar said, "just because some people somewhere did something", now we are expected to pay slave reparations. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 12:12, 21 July 2019 (EDT)

Muslim immigration

JohnZ, ever heard of 9/11? In France, there have been Muslim riots. In 2016, the Muslim population was 6.3% in the UK.[9] In Sweden/France, where it is 8.1/8.8 respectively[10], there has already been significant with Muslims. History shows that once the population of a country nears or is at 10% Muslim, significant problems often arise.[11]

"When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions ( Paris --car-burnings). Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats (Amsterdam - Mohammed cartoons).

• Guyana -- Muslim 10%
• India -- Muslim 13.4%
• Israel -- Muslim 16%
• Kenya -- Muslim 10%
• Russia -- Muslim 10-15%"[12]

I understand that leftist are often ill-informed about history or like to rewrite history, but you are not going to get away with that here.

If you don't think India, Israel and Russia haven't had big problems with Muslims, you haven't been paying attention.

By the way, here is an article for you: Kenya is faced with home-grown muslim extremismConservative (talk) 18:41, 18 July 2019 (EDT)

[Editorial note: "When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness...." This is an unqualified statement about the future that opens both the speaker and the webhost to charges of racism (whether you agree or disagree with the definition of racism). You're not likely to get other editors and viewers to agree with this statement as written. There are ways to express virtually the same sentiment without intentionally exposing yourself to MSM charges of racism and bigotry. My suggestion is to revise your wording and be extremely careful in the near future from taking leftist bait and to refrain from blanket, general, and unqualified statements expressed as such.

For example, be careful about mixing a verifiable historical record with prognostications of the future. Document the historical record, document the current status, pause and let people digest the result, then if you need to speculate about some future era of lawlessness, label it as such and be prepared to answer questions about a cause and effect relationship. As written, the posting can justifiable be considered as racist, under the current leftist definition of "racism." I encourage users to refrain from such a cavalier approach to so important a subject. Focus on educating people with facts, and avoid making postings that may appear to attack certain individuals or groups.] RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 19:40, 18 July 2019 (EDT)

Islam is not a race. It is a religion. Islam is very prevalent in North Africa, Middle East, Malaysia, Indonesia, etc.

The days of right-wingers cowering before the charge of racism is long over. The summit of absurdity of playing the race card has been reached. Democrats are now using it on themselves (AOC used it on Pelosi). Conservatives and right-wingers need to free themselves of approval addiction from the left/liberals. The left/liberals will never approve of right wingers and conservatives - period. And the truth is, the more people believe you crave their approval, the less they will respect you.

The charge of racism has lost much of its bite. The left/liberals overused this tactic. Even liberal/left leaning CNN ran this opinion piece in 2017: Educated liberals overuse the term 'racist'.

Research shows that racism has gone down in the USA and in Western nations post Trump's election.[13] Conservative (talk) 20:27, 18 July 2019 (EDT)

You're doing the cause you claim to advocate a disservice by ignoring honest criticism. There are ways to make the same point without saying "When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness...." which you know good and well will ba called "racist", derailing the valid point you are trying to make. The emphasis is on education, not needless confrontation which discredits your argument and anyone associated with you. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 21:01, 18 July 2019 (EDT)

RobSmith, what we have here is a failure to communicate. Conservatives/right-wingers should not fear being called racists - period. Full stop.

Lastly, as far as "MSM charges" of racism/etc., the MSM has nonstop railed at Donald Trump (90 percent negative coverage of Trump including many charges of racism), yet his popularity is higher than Obama's at the same point in his presidency.[14] The MSM is at record low approval both in the USA and internationally.[15][16].Conservative (talk) 21:10, 18 July 2019 (EDT)

What we have here is stupidity. In a discussion of Ilhan Omar, keep your generalized comments about lawlessness and the future of Muslim immigration to yourself. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 09:34, 19 July 2019 (EDT)

RobSmith, stupidity would be conservatives/right-wingers being like Pavlov's dogs and cowering every time leftists/liberals/MSM reflexively through out the charge racism. The same applies to being afraid of being called racists. I amply provided proof of this matter.

Secondly, the countries of France/Israel/India/Russia/Kenya amply provide data that lawlessness (namely rioting and Muslim terrorism) often increase with Muslims reaching a certain threshold in terms of the percentage of the population (I forgot to mention that Wikipedia has an article entitled "Terrorism in Kenya").

After all is said and done, I offered relevant facts and you spouted ideology plus you actually encouraged those on the political right to have a fear of being called racists by the MSM.Conservative (talk) 09:57, 19 July 2019 (EDT)

Now you're doubling down on stupidity. This thread is about Ilhan Omar. There's plenty of subject material there - her anti-Semitism, her fraud and conspiracy against the United States to violate immigration laws, etc. You have introduced an element of racism and bigotry by slandering the Muslim faith with a hypothetical about the future.

If your not familiar with the particulars of Ilhan Omar's case, remain silent. Do not obscure the facts of Ilhan Omar's case with sweeping blanket statements of unproven, future lawlessness which many consider, myself included, a bigoted statement by an alleged conservative. Stick to the subject of the thread. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 10:01, 19 July 2019 (EDT)

Europe, if you can bring yourself to do this to a helpless and completely innocent fanatical group, with reluctance, we won't try to stop you. See Islam.

RobSmith, please provide me proof that Islam is a race.

Secondly, I offered data from the past in terms of the history of Islam in relation to its demography in a population and its consequences. So my projection was based on history/facts. It was not merely hypothetical. Of course, you know this, but insist on being stubborn/proud in relation to this matter.Conservative (talk) 10:19, 19 July 2019 (EDT)

You dont know when to quit. Accept your rebuke and shut up. This thread is was about Ilhan Omar. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 10:24, 19 July 2019 (EDT)

So, let's follow the logic of your argument: Ilhan Omar should be forcibly sent back because in the future Muslim lawlessness will prevail (as Omar marries more of her cousins to circumvent U.S. asylum laws). This runs counter to Trump's tweet, which even Trump has backed off of. Trump suggested Omar should voluntarily leave and return. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 10:34, 19 July 2019 (EDT)

Democrats Admit: Donald Trump “WON THIS ONE” and He’s “POLITICALLY BRILLIANT”[17]

Trump's attack on Ilhan Omar was brilliant!Conservative (talk) 17:44, 19 July 2019 (EDT)

The United States takes in more refugees than every other country in the world combined. Just because we tolerated first-wave Muslim immigration, persons escaping fanatical Islamic regimes, doesn't mean we're morally obliged to accept every other wave at any cost, on the basis of any known degree of fanaticism whatsoever. I don't recall there ever being a discussion of why, after members of our military appearing in nations where there's neither been a declaration of war nor even an executive order, refugees from said countries suddenly show up here, and we're supposed to harbor them indefinitely.

How can Islam be a "faith" if you're not allowed to leave? "Why can't I leave? I don't believe anymore." "Because Islam is the true faith." "But I don't have faith, or at most only partial faith. How can it be 'true' faith if it doesn't inspire everybody to believe? Shouldn't it just a faith, period, where you can leave, and we'll know if it's true on Judgment Day?" "Islam has helped many people, that's how we know it's true, or at least the best way." "But it's also brought atrocities among those in allegiance, so your belief, even if confident and informed, doesn't bring us to certainty. And on the other hand, wouldn't an exact knowledge of the best faith really amount to 'science' rather than faith, or be self-contradictory?" "Our scriptures are holy." "Some...no doubt. But consider this:

We very often hear complaints of the shallowness of the present age, and of the decay of profound science. But I do not think that those which rest upon a secure foundation, such as mathematics, physical science, etc., in the least deserve this reproach, but that they rather maintain their ancient fame, and in the latter case, indeed, far surpass it. The same would be the case with the other kinds of cognition, if their principles were but firmly established. In the absence of this security, indifference, doubt, and finally, severe criticism are rather signs of a profound habit of thought.

Our age is the age of criticism, to which everything must be subjected. The sacredness of religion, and the authority of legislation, are by many regarded as grounds of exemption from the examination of this tribunal. But if they are exempted, they become the subjects of just suspicion, and cannot lay claim to sincere respect, which reason accords only to that which has stood the test of a free and public examination.—Immanuel Kant, The Critique of Pure Reason (1781).

"Are there any Islamic apologists? A few are known, like Averroës. Where do you find them today?" VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 02:43, 20 July 2019 (EDT)

The USA/Israel and some Western nations are known for their wealth through innovation and they are also known for producing high quality products/services. Islamic nations are not known for this. If the USA is going to have immigrants, shouldn't it take the best and brightest? Like the type of immigrants who will produce jobs/wealth? It is no accident that Islamic countries are not known for their innovation. Islam doesn't exactly promote innovation. The root word for Islam is "al-Silm," which means "submission" or "surrender." Islam will never go through a reformation like Christianity did.

And why would you want to take immigrants whose belief systems are antithetical to American ideals? Islam doesn't embrace American ideals. Are Islamic nations generally known for human rights or do they often have despotic leaders?

Lastly, Christians are the most persecuted religious believers on earth. The BBC reported: Christian persecution 'at near genocide levels'. Why should America take Muslim immigrants when there are so many persecuted Christians in the world? That is especially true given Islamic terrorism and 9/11. In addition, when Muslim immigrants move into an area as they grow anti-semitism often increases.Conservative (talk) 08:31, 20 July 2019 (EDT)

This is ridiculous. You just don't know when to stop. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 10:03, 20 July 2019 (EDT)

RobSmith, provide me evidence that it is ridiculous. Like actual evidence based arguments. For example, how do Islamic countries compare to Western nations and Israel when it comes to patents and Nobel prizes? Like on a per capita basis. As of 2018, merely twelve Nobel Prize laureates have been Muslims.[18] "The Arab world has produced precious few Nobel laureates in physics, chemistry and medicine...". - Arab Weekly.[19] What religion is the most popular among Arabs? Is it Islam? Conservative (talk) 10:38, 20 July 2019 (EDT)

Here's your evidence: Your bigoted rant has nothing to do with Ilhan Omar, Trump's tweet, the 2020 presidential election, conservativism, or the Republican party. Stick to Atheism and evolution; politics is not your fortè. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 10:54, 20 July 2019 (EDT)

Islam is a religion and not a race.

RobSmith, you wrote: "As written, the posting can justifiable be considered as racist, under the current leftist definition of "racism.""

Equivocation should be challenged and not rewarded. People cannot radically redefine words in order to lodge spurious allegations and not be called out on it.

What you are advocating is playing by the lefts/liberals rule book and being largely reactive. That is recipe for failure. Winning/victory requires taking the initiative. "Invincibility lies in the defense; the possibility of victory in the attack." - Sun TzuConservative (talk) 10:58, 20 July 2019 (EDT)

Fine. Don't ask me or Donald Trump to defend your racism. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 11:05, 20 July 2019 (EDT)

Furthermore, you cannot defend the racist and bigoted rant you've posted up here under conservative or Republican party principles. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 11:07, 20 July 2019 (EDT)

Provide me one piece of evidence that Islam is a race. After you do that, then I will take your accusation seriously, but not until then.Conservative (talk) 11:18, 20 July 2019 (EDT)

In his book The Irrational Atheist, Vox Day wrote:

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

In light of this evidence, the fact that a specific religion is currently sparking a great deal of conflict around the globe cannot reasonably be used to indict all religious faith, especially when one considers that removing that single religion from the equation means that all of the other religious faiths combined only account for 3.35 percent of humanity’s wars.[20]

For more information, please see: Irreligion/religion and war.Conservative (talk) 11:25, 20 July 2019 (EDT)

Not interested, at all. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 11:29, 20 July 2019 (EDT)

RobSmith, if you can't defend the notion that Islam is a race, then I declare victory. Game over.Conservative (talk) 11:35, 20 July 2019 (EDT)

Bull. You went on an off-topic rant. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 11:38, 20 July 2019 (EDT)

Individuals vs groups

Trump tweeted about four specific individuals. Trump made a simple mistake - he used the plural "countries" rather than singular "country." This was easy to do, being that Rashida Tlaib is known for claiming Palestinian heritage and flying the Palestinian flag (I myself never verified the fact that Tlaib was not born in the Palestinian territories until after Trump's tweet). Tlaib was born in Detroit.

The fake news MSM and communists seized on this specific reference to four individuals to paint all Trump supporters as racists. You have fed into that narrative, rather than focus on the issues Donald Trump was focusing attention on. You in turn posted a lengthy series of bigoted stereotypes about large groups of people in the same manner that the communist MSM has been doing about Republicans, conservatives, and Trump supporters.

Seriously, read the opening paragraph of the CP's politics article. The objective of the communists is turn attention away from the good economy, and make racism and divisiveness between groups in the United States as the main issue of the 2020 election, and whether or not trump should be re-elected. Congratulations, you are doing yeomans work in service to the DNC. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 11:24, 20 July 2019 (EDT)

In the case of Ilhan Omar, read this individuals story. The case of this INDIVIDUAL needs to be learned and studied. This case alone can spark serious comprehensive immigration and asylum legislation and reform. Seriously -focus on the issue Trump is bring to our attention, and stop these tangents and stereotypes about large groups of people. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 11:28, 20 July 2019 (EDT)

In case you haven't noticed RobS, the MSM has record low trust which I amply demonstrated above.

Second, right-wingers have been swept into government in Europe and antipathy towards Muslim immigration played a large role in it. Now center-left governments are in the minority in Europe. In addition, Trump was heavily anti-Muslim immigration in 2016 and he won the presidency in 2016.Conservative (talk) 11:32, 20 July 2019 (EDT)

That was then, this is now (and I disagree with your characterization that "Trump was anti-Muslim;" you sound like CNN).RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 11:34, 20 July 2019 (EDT)

"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on." - Donald Trump, 2015

Trump was definitely anti-Muslim immigration during his campaign. I did not say he was anti-Muslim.Conservative (talk) 11:45, 20 July 2019 (EDT)

You called Conservative racist, and that doesn't make any sense. Do you actually think Conservative disliked first-wave Islamic refugees from militant Islamic countries like Iran because of the color of their skin? Or isn't rather the case that he probably tolerated later waves of Islamists with jihadis and those who don't even bother to hide their contempt for the non-Islamic longer than he should have because of positive experiences with the first wave? Or worst-case scenario, wouldn't he no longer like the first wave because they seem largely paralyzed to respond to the abuse of later waves and again for reasons not having anything to do with race?

Why would Trump care if he's called racist by the mainstream media? They do that no matter what he does. Even Democrats don't want to be represented by someone as politically near-sighted as Omar, especially when they find out that legally speaking she's damaged goods, whether she's a thorn in the side of Trump or not. VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 11:46, 20 July 2019 (EDT)

read Ilhan Omar.....This case alone can spark serious Comprehensive Immigration and Asylum legislation and reform. Seriously - focus on the issue Trump is bringing to our attention. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 11:47, 20 July 2019 (EDT)

If the mainstream media lied about racism being in Trump's tweet, they're certainly capable of lying about it necessarily referring to four individuals. Again, Trump's approval numbers went up, and his odds of winning the Presidency went up an entire percent. VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 11:55, 20 July 2019 (EDT)

Ilhan Omar is not her name. Her father somehow obtained three asylum spots when she was twelve years old that had been granted to anoither family.

Omar committed immigration fraud herself at the age of 26 in a sham marriage to her brother in order for him to gain illegal entry into the United States. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 12:01, 20 July 2019 (EDT)

RobSmith, the page User:Conservative/Music from around the world features Arab/Somali/Turkish/etc music. Your Hail Mary pass of calling me a racist shows your utter desperation and your lack of a reasonable argument. Once again, I am afraid I am going to have to declare victory!

By the way, the editor base of the User: Conservative account is multiracial. Checkmate!Conservative (talk) 12:07, 20 July 2019 (EDT)

Gee, I don't have things like that documented. It would really be big of you, Rob, if you stooped down to my level and risked calling me possibly-not-racist. VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 12:12, 20 July 2019 (EDT)

I'm done. It's all in the Ilhan Nur Said Elmi article (that, and more to come). I'll leave you two to lick your wounds. Thus far, you're both doing yeomans work in service to the DNC. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 12:16, 20 July 2019 (EDT)