Talk:Main Page/Archive index/119

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Main Page Right

Leaving aside the content concerns being raised, could some of the older content on MPR be removed? I was trying to get to the info box on the bottom of the front page and it took forever. Looking into it, some of those oldest links are to stories from August. Thanks for your attention. JustinD 01:02, 18 October 2012 (EDT)

Done. Conservative 02:23, 18 October 2012 (EDT)
Lol, He was refering to template:MPR not Talk:Main Page ! Although the earlier bit of talk:main page should have been archived some of the other bits where still being discussed. Would it be possible for you to put the bits from the last 2 weeks back ? Dvergne 02:29, 18 October 2012 (EDT)
Also what happened to user:karajou's cartoon. I thought it was quite good, hopefully he has another one soon :-) Dvergne 02:31, 18 October 2012 (EDT)
And by right I now think he meant MPL, it takes forever to get down to the section on best of conservapedia, would you bump that section to the top ?
I did archiving of both and I am going to keep it that way now. Conservative 02:41, 18 October 2012 (EDT)
Could you also archive some of the links to the blog by the anonymous author as well ? Some of those links are more than 2 months old. Also what happened to the paltalk account ? I was trying to go on there and all that happened was I was abused by some user called KDM? I'm guessing they where a liberal troll :( Dvergne 02:45, 18 October 2012 (EDT)

The Question evolution Paltalk channel that Danny of America set up: Conservative 09:20, 18 October 2012 (EDT)

Thanks! FWIW, I did mean right, and while this is certainly better, it still seems long. On my monitor at least, scrolling down three times the height of my screen gets me about two weeks back. That seems like it should be plenty and would make it much easier to access the links at the bottom of the page. Just my two cents. --JustinD 19:37, 18 October 2012 (EDT)

Overzealous archiving

I'm amused to find yesterday's discussions in the archives! --AugustO 03:04, 18 October 2012 (EDT)

would anyone have any objections if i put them back ? Dvergne 03:21, 18 October 2012 (EDT)
That was... amusing. And yes Dvergne, I think someone would object. :) not me though. Cmurphynz 03:36, 18 October 2012 (EDT)
But archiving today's discussions, that's absurd! User:Conservative, I reverted your actions. The integrity of the upright guides them, but the unfaithful are destroyed by their duplicity. Proverbs 11:3 --AugustO 14:29, 18 October 2012 (EDT)

Main Page

I've repeatedly criticized the state of the main page, especially its left side: it doesn't feature Conservapedia's content, but lures the visitor away to other sites - in this case mainly an anonymous blog. IMO Template:Mainpageleft should provide a visitor with many links into the project - especially in this election year. To illustrate this here a contrast of the top items in a new version (left hand) and the current top items (right hand).

Featured on Conservapedia.

Conservapedia: Over 450 million Views & 970,000 Edits.

Current lecture

The fifth lecture of Andrew Schlafly's current course on the American Government is freely available now, covering the Bill of rights. This series of lectures is especially useful in an election year.

Featured Article

Swing states like Ohio and Florida are crucial in the upcoming election. Therefore the featured article for October 2012 is Ohio. Please help to improve this article!

Ohio State Flag.gif
Ohio is located in the Midwestern region of the United States and on March 1, 1803, became the seventeenth state. The capital of Ohio is Columbus. Other large cities in Ohio include Cincinnati and Cleveland. Ohio borders the states of Indiana, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and West Virginia. The current governor of Ohio is John Kasich, a Republican... (Read more)

Conservapedia toon

VP debate.jpg

(On Thursday October 11 2012, the Democratic Vice President Joe Biden and the Republican candidate for this office, Congressman Paul Ryan hold their only debate before the Presidential Election 2012.)

Masterpiece of the month

The Declaration of Independence, painted by John Trumbull during the years 1817-1819.

Further news

User:Conservative fancies a blog.

Featured on an anonymous blog.

Conservapedia: Over 450 million Views & 970,000 Edits.

American Government Lecture Five is freely available now. It's not public school claptrap.

Big creationist families will rule the earth

10 reasons why creationists have bigger families

Conservapedia toon

VP debate.jpg

2013: A BAD year for evolutionary belief

2013: A BAD year for evolutionary belief

Why is 2013 going to be a BAD year for evolutionary belief?


The 5 strategies to collapse Darwinism

5 strategies to collapse Darwinism


--AugustO 03:04, 18 October 2012 (EDT)

AugustO, I think you just need to adjust to liberal, evolution believing Protestantism shrinking year and year and conservative, creationist Protestantism experiencing explosive growth for the foreseable future. As soon as you do that, the main page will not upset you. Conservative 03:10, 18 October 2012 (EDT)

User:Conservative, just a quick question: which of the columns above show items featured on Conservapedia? A simple answer like left or right will do, no further meandering necessary! --AugustO 03:19, 18 October 2012 (EDT)

The picture of the actual front page is slightly old, the cartoon (which was the only non-'question evolution' item near the top) is now gone. Cmurphynz 03:39, 18 October 2012 (EDT)

If the main page of Conservapedia will not promote its own content, what will? I understand that people each have their personal causes, but can't we agree that the main page should promote this project rather than others? Thanks, Wschact 04:21, 18 October 2012 (EDT)

AugustO, have you ever heard of Pickett's Charge? Conservative 07:10, 18 October 2012 (EDT)
By the way, have you ever considered the possibility that the more whine and complain the less disposed I am to grant your request? Given the fraudulent nature of evolutionism, I certainly don't feel compelled to grant your requests in this matter no matter how persistent you may be. Conservative 07:23, 18 October 2012 (EDT)
I dismissed such a possibility as childish: a request should be granted because of its merits, not to flatter or annoy anyone. --AugustO 07:32, 18 October 2012 (EDT)
I am certainly not seeking flattery. We do have different priorities though. I do have some thoughts of what I am planning to do as far as the main page and the requests of evolutionists do not affect these plans. I am also not willing to share my plans relating to the main page with evolutionists. Conservative 08:11, 18 October 2012 (EDT)

User:Conservative, was your try to bury this proposal in the archives your way of conceding that my version for Template:Mainpageleft is a better fit for the main page than yours? --AugustO 14:51, 18 October 2012 (EDT)

website problems

i couldn't access the website for a while there, was it anything to do with User:Crammo, or was it just coincidence? If it was, how did that happen? Cmurphynz 08:45, 18 October 2012 (EDT)

I looks like it was to do with him. I am impressed. (would be more so if the problems had lasted for more than a minute or two though) Cmurphynz 08:54, 18 October 2012 (EDT)

news item

Perhaps this should be put up on the main page as an important bit of news. DOMA ruled unconstitutional in appeals court--DTSavage 16:12, 18 October 2012 (EDT)

Judge Rules Cheerleaders Can Display Bible Verse Banners at Football Game

According to [2], earlier this year, a high school in Texas banned cheerleaders from displaying religious messages like "If God is with us, who can be against us" at football games. This was following a complaint from the Freedom From Religion Foundation. The cheerleaders sued, and yesterday they won. The judge ruled that the words came from the cheerleaders, and not the school, and therefore, not only were they not prevented by the Constitution, but that they were protected by it. Gregkochuconn 14:15, 19 October 2012 (EDT)

Virgil Goode and others

Although Goode is a true conservative (unlike Romney), he's not on enough ballots to win. Gary Johnson is. He's a Libertarian, so he's pretty liberal on most social issues, but as Governor of New Mexico, he got a higher pro-gun rating than Romney and he is very fiscally conservative. He'd balance the budget his first year, not in 2045 like the Ryan plan. And he's on 49 ballots (including DC). So he can win, theoretically. Of course, debates are excluding Johnson and Goode. But they will be debating eachother, as well as Jill Stein of the Green Party and Rocky Anderson of the Justice Party (both very liberal), on Tuesday at 9 Eastern. And Larry King is hosting. Watch on Should we advertise this as a way to see Goode, a real conservative, and Johnson, who is a real fiscal conservative (not socially conservative)? Gregkochuconn 14:24, 19 October 2012 (EDT)

Interesting information, but none of these "third parties" have made much difference, so I'm not sure how much attention it deserves.--Andy Schlafly 10:41, 20 October 2012 (EDT)
Fair enough, but Goode has gotten attention recently on MPR, which is why I brought it up. Gregkochuconn 20:56, 21 October 2012 (EDT)
Is that debate over? I might see if I can get some of it on youtube. Your third parties are actually far more interesting than the main two, which, if you look at the debates, you can see only disagree on a very small range of issues. It's a pity that your electoral system is set up so that none of them actually get seats in parliament, it would probably make for a more representative section of issues. Cmurphynz 23:30, 21 October 2012 (EDT)
Nope, it's tomorrow (Tuesday) at 9:00 PM EDT. Watch it on And I agree totally, Cmurphynz. Gregkochuconn 13:27, 22 October 2012 (EDT)

"If the Gallup poll is correct."

More than a few statisticians that I've read are starting to discount Gallup and a few other pollsters because they only call land lines and do not call cell phones. Old people have land lines. Young people often do not. Relying on an old tech model to get data can really skew the results. MattyD 08:55, 20 October 2012 (EDT)

Very interesting point. You may be right.--Andy Schlafly 10:33, 20 October 2012 (EDT)

Mitt Romney has the momentum in the United States presidential election.[3][4]

The Barack Hussein Obama team is resorting to desperate measures.[5]

With young people unemployment high, Obama is not going to have as strong turnout for that demographic as in 2008. Conservative 11:01, 20 October 2012 (EDT)

I don`t think we are giving pollsters enough credit here. Its not just `call a thousand people and report the results`. They use very sophisticated methods to ensure they have an accurate sample. If they only reach ten twenty somethings and 100 seniors, the twenty somethings votes are going to receive much more weight.Gallup does, BTW call cellphones, they have for a long time:. . The real issue is how much weight does it give to cell phone calls. Recently they changed this`:`` As we began this election tracking program on Oct.1, our methodologists also recommended modifying and updating several procedures. We increased the proportion of cell phones in our tracking to 50%, meaning that we now complete interviews with 50% cell phones and 50% landlines each night. This marks a shift from our Gallup Daily tracking, which has previously been 40% cell phones``

The real issue is not with who is called, but how the raw numbers are modified to correct for a skewed sample. The reason why the Gallup numbers have diverged from other polls is that they are using a more sophisticated method to determine who is a likely voter. Instead of just asking `are you going to vote``, they are asking questions like ``do you know where your polling station is``. --PeterNant 11:54, 20 October 2012 (EDT)

News pick: Editorial on SC voter ID preclearance

[6]. The author suggests that the version as approved by the three-judge panel was more lenient than the preexisting SC voter ID law and would have been passed the South Carolina legislature "in a half hour" (according to state senator Brad Hutto). GregG 10:01, 20 October 2012 (EDT)

Funniest thing I've yet seen today

The dice used on the discussion of chance on MPL are those most commonly found used in games like Dungeons and Dragons. As we all know, any true conservative should hate this game and anything to do with it as it is the work of the devil. The previous sentence was sarcastic. I know there are people here who would take that statement seriously, and I don't want them getting the wrong idea.--DTSavage 13:19, 20 October 2012 (EDT)

Real conservatives are busy doing productive things and don't spend time on things like Dungeons and Dragons. So they would not be aware that dice like that are used in Dungeons and Dragons. Conservative 16:10, 20 October 2012 (EDT)
Many productive people who have full-time jobs also have hobbies. For me, it's chess, contract bridge, game shows and computer programming. Personally, I simply don't have an interest in tabletop role-playing games, but some people I know do (like my oldest brother). Even so, I know enough about RPGs to know that dice in all platonic solid forms (as well as 10-sided dice) are a staple of Dungeons and Dragons. Further, I don't see anything morally wrong with role-playing games like Dungeons and Dragons per se. Whenever these discussions arise about RPGs, I am reminded of what a Vatican TV station run by the Italian bishops' conference had to say about Pokémon in 1997 (as reported in People):
The Vatican-based satellite TV station Sat2000, which is run by the Italian Bishops' Conference, declared that the Pokémon trading card and computer game is "full of inventive imagination," has no "harmful moral side effects" and is based on the love-thy-neighbor notion of "intense friendship."
GregG 21:02, 20 October 2012 (EDT)
Note to self: Trying to make jokes on this website doesn't go over so well. Avoid in future.--DTSavage 21:27, 20 October 2012 (EDT)

Elderly Widow Told Not to Pray in Public Housing Complex

A widow who lives in a Minnesota apartment complex funded by the Dept. of Housing and Urban Development was told that she could not pray, read her Bible or have private discussions of a religious nature in the commons area of the complex.

The incident allegedly occurred at the Osborne Apartments in Spring Lake Park, Minn. — near Minneapolis.

Ruth Sweats was was having a casual conversation with another resident about the Bible when a social worker interrupted the conversation and told her that she could not talk about religion or the Bible in the commons area.

The social worker then told the widow that the apartment complex receives funding from the federal government and therefore she did not have First Amendment rights because HUD does not allow religious discussions in public areas of the complex. -

The remaining question is whether she is allowed to think about Jesus.

This would certainly an powerful argument against socialism, but the idea that the First Amendment is the basis for this is absurd. Jefferson himself regularly attended ecumenical religious services in the house of Representatives, and the antiseptic separation is not supported. Daniel1212 20:09, 20 October 2012 (EDT)

Stephen Hawking: Humans Should Fear Aliens

"To my mathematical brain, the numbers alone make thinking about aliens perfectly rational," Hawking says in a new Discovery Channel series called Stephen Hawking's Universe. "The real challenge is to work out what aliens might actually be like."

He suggests that aliens might simply raid Earth for its resources and then move on: "We only have to look at ourselves to see how intelligent life might develop into something we wouldn't want to meet. I imagine they might exist in massive ships, having used up all the resources from their home planet. Such advanced aliens would perhaps become nomads, looking to conquer and colonise whatever planets they can reach."

He concludes that trying to make contact with alien races is "a little too risky". He said: "If aliens ever visit us, I think the outcome would be much as when Christopher Columbus first landed in America, which didn't turn out very well for the Native Americans."

The aliens are out there and Earth had better watch out, at least according to Stephen Hawking. He has suggested that extraterrestrials are almost certain to exist — but that instead of seeking them out, humanity should be doing all it that can to avoid any contact. Daniel1212 08:03, 21 October 2012 (EDT)

" Evolutionism is for pantywaste evolutionist "men" and distant, fussy, cold fish, evolutionist women!"

I believe the word you want is "pantywaist." "Pantywaste" would be something else altogether. MattyD 09:29, 21 October 2012 (EDT)

Where's the contents?

Is there a way to put the contents menu back on this talk page? It seems to have vanished. That or I've turned it off somehow. Can anyone else see it? Cheers. WilcoxD 17:52, 21 October 2012 (EDT)

I just fixed it. AugustO transcluded a page in his userspace that had the __NOTOC__ keyword, which suppressed the printing of a table of contents. I have substed the template and removed the magic word, so the TOC now displays. Cheers! GregG 18:04, 21 October 2012 (EDT)
Good one, thank you :) WilcoxD 18:05, 21 October 2012 (EDT)

Pressure on evolutionism, atheism and agnosticism

Someone recently posted at CP: "I've been watching what he's doing for a long time and over the last few months he's been pushing and pushing."

Two of the definitions of push are: "to bear hard upon; press" and "A vigorous or insistent effort toward an end; a drive". There are various signs that increased pressure on evolutionism/atheism of several orders of magnitude are on the horizon.[7] And there doesn't seem to be any game plan to effectively respond to what is coming.[8] Conservative 21:15, 21 October 2012 (EDT)

'Defeating' Atheism

Can someone explain to me this concept of 'defeating' American atheism? What is the end goal? We hear so much about the Question Evolution campaign and ShockOfGod and so on, and that's all well and good, but I'm starting to feel like they are promoted on this website simply to generate website hits. I'm not trying to accuse anyone, and it may just be my failing to find the relevant material, but what is the aim of the whole movement? Because if it's 'to remove atheism from America' that's a bizarrely lofty (and essentially unobtainable goal). JRegden 22:09, 21 October 2012 (EDT)

Creation Ministries International (CMI) has a contact page: Conservative 02:20, 22 October 2012 (EDT)
I had a look at the CMI website and couldn't find any link to QE! blog or shockofgods website. I think you need to email them as i'm sure it's just a mistake/oversight. On a side note I don't think having animated fly kittens or tumbleweed will do anything to atheism except make atheists laugh at however made the page. I would suggest getting rid of them as they look like something over at uncyclopedia or the wiki full of atheist rather than content from conservapedia. Dvergne 02:24, 22 October 2012 (EDT)


Are you an atheist? If so, it seems like you have sloppy research habits and go out of your way not to find evidence.

1. Link to Shockofgod's YouTube channel in their flagship atheism article:

2. Aims of the Question Evolution! Campaign taken from CMI's website page on the campaign:

"The campaign involves people empowering people to stand firm together against the evolutionary indoctrination so rampant in our schools, universities and media. You can encourage your friends to ‘Question evolution’—especially if you are a student who is being force-fed evolutionary dogma."[9]

Also the endorsements:

Dr Gish: “As one who has debated over 300 evolutionists, I am delighted to see this Question Evolution campaign under way. The 15 Questions for Evolutionists brochure hits all the major questions on origins that evolutionists have no satisfactory answers for. The questions should be propagated widely. I commend the campaign.”

Dr Sanford: “I enthusiastically endorse the campaign to encourage all thinking people to question evolution. The era must come to an end where all things with the single exception of evolution are subject to critical examination. How sad that so much evidence has been suppressed, such that most people who consider themselves to be ‘well informed’ have in fact only heard one side of the question. Indoctrination, intimidation, censorship—this is not how science is supposed to operate. Let us return to the true spirit of science, which is critical thinking, dialog and open inquiry.”

Ian Juby: “The Question Evolution! Campaign is an innovative, grassroots anti-evolution campaign which I believe will have a lasting and far reaching impact. The campaign is worldwide in scope and I hope to see it serve as a uniting force within the biblical creation community. I heartily recommend getting involved in this grassroots anti-evolution movement.”[10] Conservative 02:30, 22 October 2012 (EDT)

You should remember to indent..... Yeah you are right. I haven't read every article down to the letter and some of them are quite long, more of a case of too long, didn't read it all/remember it all. My bad:). Could you address my question regarding the flying kitty/tumbleweed/bestiality articles. I don't think they really belong on a family friendly site. I'm sure your would agree with that. Dvergne 02:36, 22 October 2012 (EDT)
Poor excuses. The aims of the Question Evolution! Campaign are right on their web page for the campaign. Conservative 02:41, 22 October 2012 (EDT)
Could you address my question regarding the flying kitty/tumbleweed/bestiality articles. I don't think they really belong on a family friendly site. I'm sure you would agree with that. Dvergne 02:36, 22 October 2012 (EDT)
Yes I am quite familiar with the aims of the QE campaign and support it. I just haven't read every single page at CMI with a magnifying glass like you have. Dvergne 02:44, 22 October 2012 (EDT)
The Bible is very family friendly and mentions bestiality several times. It seems like you have an axe to grind and I suggest grinding it elsewhere! :) Conservative 02:48, 22 October 2012 (EDT)
In other news, I had a look at the ALEXA rankings for conservapedia, they have been quite a few jumps in the readership, I think this deserves a mention. Dvergne 02:51, 22 October 2012 (EDT)
There are parts of the Bible that are family friendly. There are parts that aren't. The parts which deal with impermissible sexual relationships (including bestiality) are the latter. That doesn't mean we should ignore them, but I wouldn't feature them so prominently on the front page. Gregkochuconn 17:08, 22 October 2012 (EDT)
God created the family. All of the Bible is family friendly. Conservative 22:51, 22 October 2012 (EDT)

Interesting video.

Interesting video:[11], particularly the bit about healthcare. Do you guys have anything to add? (note that saying 'liberal media' does not invalidate an argument :) ) Cmurphynz 23:37, 21 October 2012 (EDT)

Lack of healthcare isn't a reason that the coroner or doctor can put as a cause of death. --Dvergne 01:22, 22 October 2012 (EDT)

Democrat Governor of New York endorses Republican Who Voted for same-sex marriage in 2011

See [12]. Although Saland narrowly won his primary, his opponent Neil DiCarlo won the Conservative Party primary in a landslide, and is a candidate in the general election against Saland and Democrat Terry Gibson. Cuomo also offered to endorse Roy McDonald of Saratoga (near Albany), another same-sex marriage supporter, who lost the GOP primary but won the Independence Party primary (almost the reverse of the Saland situation). McDonald declined and dropped out. Cuomo declined to endorse a third Republican State Senator who voted for same-sex marriage, Mark Grisanti, although he did appear in an ad commending the latter's work for the University of Buffalo, without mentioning party affiliation ([13]). A fourth Republican crossover is not running for reelection. Cuomo has not endorsed anyone in the 32nd District, featuring Democrat incumbent Ruben Diaz Sr., the one Democrat in the Senate who voted against the bill. You can hardly blame him though, after Diaz encouraged supporters to mock Cuomo on twitter.] Gregkochuconn 17:06, 22 October 2012 (EDT)

"Romney Wins Debate"

Do we have a source on this? And what criteria are considered a victory? I just finished watching the debate, and I'm not quite sure which candidate won.--DTSavage 22:37, 22 October 2012 (EDT)

I would say it was a tie, neither landed any knockout blows or made any major gaffes. Dvergne 22:39, 22 October 2012 (EDT)
I would agree, so I'm wondering why this site was crowing unsourced claims before the debate was even over. Seems somewhat intellectually dishonest. We're welcome to try to put our particular perspective on the results once polls come in. --DTSavage 22:41, 22 October 2012 (EDT)
I knew Mitt Romney was going to win the debate when Barack Hussein Obama greeted the debate moderator with the greeting "Salaam alaikum" and ended the debate by shouting "Allahu Akbar!".  :)Conservative 22:59, 22 October 2012 (EDT)
Obama doesn't want to win the presidency that much or at all and Romney badly wants to be president.[14] The first debate showed he is just going through the motions and does not want to be held accountable for his failed presidency. Conservative 04:16, 23 October 2012 (EDT)
All of the other items on the main page are sourced, but these comments about the debate are not. Absent reliable sources, it would be best to avoid the topic. For example, if I believed that "Miss. Alabama should have won the Miss America pagent," putting it on the main page may be an expression of my personal opinion, but will strike the reader as a Conservapedia-wide held viewpoint. Arguing about who "won" a debate is meaningless personal opinion. Reporting on how the debate influenced polling data is a verifiable fact. Wschact 04:33, 23 October 2012 (EDT)
The superline of the main-page is somewhat traditionally not a news item, but a shout-out by User:Aschlafly, reflecting only his personal opinion (see the page history). That is unfortunate, but not worse than all the pseudo-news about the Question Evolution! - campaign. --AugustO 05:01, 23 October 2012 (EDT)
Thank you. I did not know where to find the history. Maybe we would get more readers if the main page had a reader poll letting them "vote" on who they believed won the debate or other similar topics of the day. Wschact 05:51, 23 October 2012 (EDT)

AugustO, I think Dr. James Thomas Kennedy from Alabama would disagree with about the Question Evolution! Campaign news item.[15] Conservative 06:26, 23 October 2012 (EDT)

  • Has Dr. James Thomas Kennedy from Alabama given his consent to be fully named here on Conservapedia? AFAIK that's something you yourself are trying to avoid! Perhaps someone will contact the good doctor and ask him to whom he was talking....
  • Would he disagree? Or did he disagree? Or does Dr. James Thomas Kennedy from Alabama maybe think that a question like "Why is 2013 going to be a BAD year for evolutionary belief? " isn't exactly news?
A poll would just apply ad populum logical fallacy of who won the debate as far as substance. Marco Rubio rightly points out Obama is liberal empty suit and so it was inevitable that Obama would lose the debate.[16] A more government debt laden America with a president who likes to bow a lot and apology a lot is less respected in the world which means the world's citizens are less likely to buy America's products and challenge America more in international affairs. Obama failed! Conservative 06:58, 23 October 2012 (EDT)
I know the rest of the world does not get to vote but it seems most of the rest of the world are more likely to connect in a positive way with an America that has Obama as president unfortunately see here Davidspencer 09:48, 23 October 2012 (EDT)
User:Conservative, you seem to be confused: a debate is the ultimate "ad populum" activity as its raison-d'être is to influence the public. Winning a debate doesn't mean that you are right and your opponent is wrong, but that you were able to sway the majority of your listeners. --AugustO 07:25, 23 October 2012 (EDT)

If you "win" a debate using empty words and sophistry then your governance will be judged as a failure because your poor thinking will yield inferior results. The first debate told me that Obama was not enjoying failing and didn't earnestly want a second term. Conservative 07:45, 23 October 2012 (EDT)

AugustO, I know that German evolutionists, such as the evolutionary racist Joseph Goebbels in the 20th century, often try to deny the truth and tell big lies, nevertheless 2013 is going to be the worst year in the history of Darwinism. The trends are clearly in the favor of creationists when it comes to grinding down the pseudoscience of evolutionism.[17] Also, unlike evolutionists, atheists, and agnostics who lack a plan to turn around their decline, Christian creationists have definite plans to increase their expansion.[18][19] Conservative 08:02, 23 October 2012 (EDT)
I'm sorry but what do german evilutionists have to do with the debate (other than the fact that they arn't for the US and the debate was on foreign policy) Dvergne 08:31, 23 October 2012 (EDT)
There may be a place on Conservapedia for these thoughts, but the Main Page is not a good location for it. We want to be inviting and to engage readers with a wide variety of our content. We want to draw readers into the individual article pages, not chase them away. We should come up with stragetic criteria for Main Page inclusion, here is the start of a possible list:
  • states CPs mission or purpose
  • identifies who we are, how we can be contacted, and invites new editors
  • helps explains or illustrates why CP is different from other wikis/reference websites
  • illustrates the diversity of our offerings
  • demonstrates to the reader that we are up to date
  • demonstrates to the reader our values and standards
  • demonstrates to the reader our sophistication
  • demonstrates to the reader that we have some sense of what is important and interesting

I favor GregG's redesign of the Main Page. Once a new design is adopted we can then apply agreed-upon criteria for populating the new design with specific items. The current design is not inviting to new readers or new editors. While I do not claim to have the perfect solution to the Main Page issue, I believe that a combination of a better design and a reasonable set of criteria for Main Page inclusion will help resolve the problem. Thanks, Wschact 10:05, 23 October 2012 (EDT)

I was made an Admin so I could edit/create a CP evolution article. Purpose, check. Values, check. The Question evolution! campaign fans have a sophisticated plan, while atheism, evolutionism and agnostics are bumpkins with no plan to stop their decline and the rise of Christianity/creationism.[20] Check. The decline/unraveling of atheism, evolutionism and agnosticism and the rise of Christianity/creationism in the 21st century is important and interesting.[21] Check. The Question Evolution! Campaign is a worldwide movement with people from various cultures, languages, and backgrounds. Diversity, check.
Well, I am glad we got that cleared up! Conservative 11:05, 23 October 2012 (EDT)
Careful saying that, because if the main page doesn't change then you're going to gave to admit that this website is not up to date, lacks sophistication and does not have a sense of what is important or interesting :). Cmurphynz 11:12, 23 October 2012 (EDT)
Creation Ministries International blows past Richard Dawkins in terms of their website traffic. Question Evolution! Campaign: Faster and faster and faster![22] Speed of operation means lots of change. I don't think you have anything to worry about. :) Conservative 11:29, 23 October 2012 (EDT)
Serious question: On what kind of timescale do you see the QE! campaign achieving lasting change? I suppose I'm talking about the point at which YEC is taught as basic scientific fact in schools and universities worldwide. Thanks, --JohanZ 18:03, 24 October 2012 (EDT)
I'm sure CMI does have more web traffic than Richard Dawekins, but I'm sure that there are a number of atheist forums /forums with atheist subgroups that get more traffic than CMI (although don't really have figures atm) . R/Athesim would have traffic multiple times that of CMI, then again a video of a cute cat would also get more traffic than CMI and the atheist forums put together. Dvergne 22:17, 24 October 2012 (EDT)

Reddit atheism is intellectual wasteland with lots of links to atheist "idiotic cutsy garbage" that is not even humorous. It is not surprising that reddit lost marketshare recently.[23] Shockofgod/Viva easily won his 15 questions debate which I believe was with a reddit atheist.[24] Conservative 10:02, 25 October 2012 (EDT)

Hi. Could you answer my question above when you've got a moment? I'm genuinely curious to hear your answer. Thanks, --JohanZ 14:30, 25 October 2012 (EDT)

Kim Jong-Un

@User:Conservative: Given that most of the world knows very little about him, how do you know he is an evolutionist ? Do you have contacts within North Korea or is it just speculation ? Dvergne 06:39, 25 October 2012 (EDT)

If he's anything like his father, he probably is a Creationist who thinks he is the Creator. Gregkochuconn 09:26, 25 October 2012 (EDT)
The system of gov't in North Korea heavily borrows from Marx/Lenin/Stalin/Mao who were all significantly influenced by Darwinism.[25][26][27][28]. Stalin had a cult of personality as did Mao and neither of them thought they were the Creator. [29] I don't think you made a good case that he thinks he is the Creator. In fact, you merely asserted it. Conservative 09:49, 25 October 2012 (EDT)
Still, it does seem to be a pretty bold assertion to state that Kim Jong-Un is an "evolutionist" without any evidence of what his personal belief in the development of life is. Is this the kind of assertion that should be on the front page of a site that bills itself as "the trustworthy encyclopedia"? GregG 10:01, 25 October 2012 (EDT)
Again, he heavily borrows from Communist evolutionists. You still haven't made a case for your Creator assertion. Conservative 10:04, 25 October 2012 (EDT)
According to your line of argument (as I understand it), because I live in the United States (a mostly-Protestant country) and have ancestors from the South (a very Protestant region of the US) and believe in the Protestant work ethic, I am therefore a Protestant. Yet I can assure you that I am a Catholic. Something is therefore wrong with this line of argument... GregG 10:07, 25 October 2012 (EDT)

Juche is just Koreanized Marxist-Leninism. These two obese Korean communists are not known for being intellectual giants. They are just communist thugs and communism was strongly influenced by Darwinism. [30] You spouted nonsense with your Creator comment.Conservative 10:12, 25 October 2012 (EDT)

This is an example of the "guilt by association" logical fallacy. Just because some very objectionable people hold or have held a particular opinion does not mean that said opinion is not true. Additionally, Stalin is established not to have been a "Darwinist". He was a firm believer in Lysenkoism; a long-rejected alternative to Darwinian natural selection as a driving force for evolution. Regarding Mao, his writings are virtually devoid of any mention of biological evolution at all.--JHunter 14:49, 25 October 2012 (EDT)
JHunter, I see you have still not yet sobered up (I heard a bouncer threw you out of Shock's chat room due to inebriation). Furthermore, your conspiracy thinking about how Christianity formed and why the Apostles would die for a lie are not credible. I suggest laying off the booze and going over points 1-7 so you can form more cogent historical analysis. Conservative 16:53, 25 October 2012 (EDT)
I have no idea who JHunter is or if he/she/they drink alcohol, and I care even less, but it does seem to me that such a response above to his/her/their, entirely reasonable, comment is unbecoming of a Christian. You obviously don't agree with what was said, as of course is your right, but it was said in a polite and gentlemanly manner. He/she/they made a suggestion which, as far as I can see, was aimed at furthering the discussion on the matter in hand, and all you could do was attempt to smear him/her/them. So, if someone disagrees with you they are drunkards? Is this really the way to encourage people to contribute to this Project? NicosB 18:02, 25 October 2012 (EDT)

Jhunter has shown himself to be a crank when it comes to historical analysis. I saw some of his crackpot ideas about early Christianity in Paltalk. Second, I was using Darwinism in its most broadest sense (evolutionism), nevertheless, Darwin may have had a strong influence on Stalin as can be seen here: "God's not unjust, he doesn't actually exist. We've been deceived. If God existed, he'd have made the world more just... I'll lend you a book and you'll see." A teenaged Stalin after reading The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin as quoted in Young Stalin (2007) by Simon Sebag Montefiore, p. 49[31] Plus, I am guessing the naturalistic ideas of Darwin had influence on the culture/ideas that Lysenko was brought up in as far as origins. Conservative 18:40, 25 October 2012 (EDT)

I have never claimed (nor, for that matter, desired) to possess any real knowledge on the topic of early Christian history; after all, debating ecumenical minutiae is entirely irrelevant to any discussion of the evidence for the theory of biological evolution (a topic in which I actually can legitimately claim a credentialed level of expertise and professional experience).
That said, my stated ignorance of early Christian history does not affect the veracity of the statement I made earlier today regarding Stalin's adherence to Lysenkoism and Mao's silence on the topic of biological evolution. Perhaps, if you wish to argue more persuasively, you should focus on addressing the substance of my arguments, rather than how I choose to waste time on the internet after my second vodka tonic. --JHunter 19:13, 25 October 2012 (EDT)
I just cross-posted with you, user::conservative. I wrote the above comment before reading your most recent one.
Nowhere in On the Origin of Species does Darwin suggest that God does not exist. Actually, in the conclusion of the first edition of the book, Darwin credited a "creator" with potentially kick-starting the evolutionary process. It is well-established that, as a young man, Darwin was a biblical literalist; even in his old age (long after he rejected biblical literalism), Charles Darwin remained a devout member of the Anglican church until the day he died. Thus, claiming that Darwinian natural selection is an idea inspired by atheistic philosophy is incorrect. Additionally, Lysenkoism is derived from Lamarckian evolution which pre-dates Darwin's theory of natural selection by a little over 50 years. Indeed, that biological evolution had occurred and continues to occur was well established in scientific circles by Darwin's time; Darwin's only contribution was the major mechanism of biological evolution.
Finally, I will grant you that Stalin was clearly an atheist. I will even agree that his atheism undeniably helped to shape some of his political philosophy. However, to say that the atrocities he committed were because of his atheism, and to imply that such atrocities are the inevitable consequence of atheistic thought, is grossly illogical (remember, notably in Mein Kampf, Hitler often used his own Christianity to justify his beliefs).--JHunter 19:13, 25 October 2012 (EDT)
I still fail to know how you know that kim jong-un is an evolutionist User:Constervative. Given that not much is known about him, I'm sure the NSA/CIA would love to hear your insights and character analysis of him.:) Dvergne 19:30, 25 October 2012 (EDT)

JHunter, more crank/poor historical analysis. For example, in his private notebooks Darwin wrote he was a materialist (a form of atheism) so he was clearly being deceptive when inserting a Creator in his racist work On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.[32] Next, your analysis on atheism and mass murder is faulty as well.

Vox Day notes concerning atheism and mass murder:

“Apparently it was just an amazing coincidence that every Communist of historical note publicly declared his atheism … .there have been twenty-eight countries in world history that can be confirmed to have been ruled by regimes with avowed atheists at the helm … These twenty-eight historical regimes have been ruled by eighty-nine atheists, of whom more than half have engaged in democidal162 acts of the sort committed by Stalin and Mao …

The total body count for the ninety years between 1917 and 2007 is approximately 148 million dead at the bloody hands of fifty-two atheists, three times more than all the human beings killed by war, civil war, and individual crime in the entire twentieth century combined.

The historical record of collective atheism is thus 182,716 times worse on an annual basis than Christianity’s worst and most infamous misdeed, the Spanish Inquisition. It is not only Stalin and Mao who were so murderously inclined, they were merely the worst of the whole Hell-bound lot. For every Pol Pot whose infamous name is still spoken with horror today, there was a Mengistu, a Bierut, and a Choibalsan, godless men whose names are now forgotten everywhere but in the lands they once ruled with a red hand.

Is a 58 percent chance that an atheist leader will murder a noticeable percentage of the population over which he rules sufficient evidence that atheism does, in fact, provide a systematic influence to do bad things? If that is not deemed to be conclusive, how about the fact that the average atheist crime against humanity is 18.3 million percent worse than the very worst depredation committed by Christians, even though atheists have had less than one-twentieth the number of opportunities with which to commit them. If one considers the statistically significant size of the historical atheist set and contrasts it with the fact that not one in a thousand religious leaders have committed similarly large-scale atrocities, it is impossible to conclude otherwise, even if we do not yet understand exactly why this should be the case. Once might be an accident, even twice could be coincidence, but fifty-two incidents in ninety years reeks of causation."[33] Conservative 19:34, 25 October 2012 (EDT)

JHunter, Addendum: By the way, as far as "Hitler's own Christianity" your historical analysis is exceedingly weak there as well and you gave no compelling evidence that Hitler was a Christian merely a claim employing the fallacy of exclusion at best and not a serious historical investigation.[34] Even the anti-Christian Wikipedia offers data indicating that your historical claim is shallow at best.[35] Conservative 20:59, 25 October 2012 (EDT)
Even if we exclude Hitler from the list of Christian genocidaires, we are still left with names like Jozef Tiso (a priest, and major Nazi collaborator), Athanase Seromba (incidentally, also a priest; implicated in the 1994 Rwandan genocide), and Slobadan Milosovic. And those are just the first three names I can produce off of the top of my head.--JHunter 21:21, 25 October 2012 (EDT)

Body counts, hmm? I guess the technological advances of the 20th century have no bearing on the number of people killed in contrast with those of the 15th through 19th. - chicagotony

ChicagoTony, are you saying that Bible believers haven't figured out how to use guns yet? Conservative 21:56, 25 October 2012 (EDT)
More than half of all atheist leaders will commit mass murder? Are you sure about that? I know our last leader was an atheist and she didn't kill anyone. I can think of a lot more countries that are run by atheists where the leaders are not genocidal maniacs. (actually even China has cleaned up their human rights record a lot) I will check those sources. Cmurphynz 21:53, 25 October 2012 (EDT)PS. I don't think that you can call the 'origin of the Species' racist, as far as I am aware it does not deal with human origins at all, except by implication.Cmurphynz 21:57, 25 October 2012 (EDT)

JHunter, I think you need to have a more sober look at world. I didn't take you seriously before and after you came into Shock's chat room drunk with your red nose and big floppy shoes and were thrown out, and now I take you even less seriously. Second, I am a Protestant. Conservative 21:54, 25 October 2012 (EDT)

I drunkenly troll a chatroom once (okay, maybe more than once) and it keeps coming back to haunt me... I will very freely admit that my conduct that night was both unforgivably disrespectful and highly inappropriate. I have admitted as much to the admins in Shock's chatroom; they were kind enough to allow me to issue a formal apology over the mic. Regardless, as I said previously, you are better served as a debater focusing on the strengths/weaknesses of my arguments than on the shortcomings of my character.--JHunter 22:43, 25 October 2012 (EDT)
JHunter, bottom line is that liberal evolutionists/atheists have a far worse historical record when it comes to their conduct and relative to Christians they don't have a strong record for charitable works and building hospitals. Conservative Bible believers like "living right and being free". And at Christian colleges football is still the roughest thing on campus and the students still respect the college dean!. Conservative 22:52, 25 October 2012 (EDT)
I went to a small "Christian" college for my first three semesters of undergrad. Compared to the large "atheistic" university I transferred to, it was backwater and overwhelmingly chauvinistic (actually, that's a large part of why I left). I transferred to a supposedly "godless" school with fifteen times the number of students and half the annual number of sexual assaults. I don't care how often you read the bible, I expect you to treat all people with respect and dignity--it's that simple. If your only claim to righteousness is piety, then I have no reason to trust you.--JHunter 00:46, 26 October 2012 (EDT)

Ok, back to the topic at hand. How do you know that Kim Jong-Un is an evolutionist user:conservative. I think your argument is weak and gives no proof that he is an evolutionist. I doubt he or his father has rarely or ever commented on these matters, let alone those comments made it out of North Korea ! Dvergne

JHunter, I notice you didn't give the name of the college. It was probably some so called "liberal Christianity" school.
Second, there is a reason why you were drunk in Shock's chat room and why you render a warped view of history. You are a sinner in need of repentance and making Jesus Christ your Lord and Savior. The Barna Group found that atheists and agnostics in America were more likely, than theists in America, to look upon the following behaviors as morally acceptable: illegal drug use; excessive drinking; sexual relationships outside of marriage; abortion; cohabitating with someone of opposite sex outside of marriage; obscene language; gambling; pornography and obscene sexual behavior; and engaging in homosexuality/bisexuality.[36] And you seem to have fitted the bill in at least one aspect in terms of your behavior in Shock's chat room. Conservative 03:12, 26 October 2012 (EDT)
User: Conservative you seem to be avoiding my questions and focussing on Jhunters supposed drunken antics. And there is nothing wrong with drinking, it's pretty much the unofficial australian national sport ! Dvergne
Well; you know what they say about a hard earned thirst. AlanE 17:33, 26 October 2012 (EDT)

News pick: Tenn. Court of Appeals upholds Voter ID, allows Memphis library card GregG 08:55, 26 October 2012 (EDT)

The vegetarian cat...

Vegetarian lion shows cats do not have to eat meat.[1] The Bible showed foresight again. Put that in your atheist pipe and smoke it!

"...isn't. If you check the original Daily Mail article the cat's owner says that it sometimes finds the meat in its food and refuses to eat it. It's eating meat. Otherwise it would be dead."

The troll who wrote that one never bothered to check for "her"self whether or not the cat actually rejected the meat; all "she" did was to push "her" own dogmatism on the site. If the cat's owner says the cat rejects meat, then it's settled. Karajou 00:51, 27 October 2012 (EDT)
I think you are incorrect: 19:46, 26 October 2012 (EDT)
I highly doubt the source of this story, given it happened so long ago and there is not any verifiable proof that the lion didn't eat meat. If it did it wouldn't have lived that long as it would have missed a lot of nutrients and the like as lions are carnivorous not vegetarians, hence why I call BS on that story!. Dvergne
I don't care if you highly doubt it. So what. Any fool can say they highly doubt something. You certainly did not provide compelling reasons.
Have you seen this: "The evolutionists may continue to make their feeble attempts to stop the inevitable and continual rise of biblical creation belief, but they are like inept defensive players in American football who are easily passed by a fast moving members of the offensive team. Evolutionists, make no mistake. We laugh at the "superior evolutionist intellects" who are totally unable to effectively tackle the 15 questions for evolutionists and cringe before our debate offers. And we will continue to score point after point against evolutionism. Are you ready for the already growing biblical creation movement in the United States to become a majority? Get ready evolutionists! It rapidly approaching!"[37] Conservative 22:12, 26 October 2012 (EDT)
There are several legitimate physiological reasons that the story of a "vegetarian" lion is highly implausible. For starters, felidae have a relatively short digestive tract. They can efficiently digest foods high in animal proteins and lipids, but they do not really have the capability do digest complex carbohydrates. Because of their short digestive tract, a diet too high in fiber poses a serious risk of causing a bowel obstruction. Additionally, their liver and kidneys are very well adapted to a high protein diet--so well adapted that a diet with too little protein will cause renal disease. Next, there's the matter of feline dentition. Cats don't have the molars necessary for grinding up vegetable material--their teeth are built for slicing, not chewing. Finally, felidae are known to carry an ancestral mutation in a gene required for the ability to taste carbohydrates--a piece of fruit would taste something like cardboard to them. --JHunter 03:28, 27 October 2012 (EDT)
JHunter, it is a lot more plausible that your crank claims about early Christianity. Danny of America hit it on the head when he said "conspiracy theory". You can't explain away Saul/Paul's conversion or the rapid growth of the early church or the early eyewitness martyrs and the claims of the early church fathers like Polycarp who was a disciple of John and died a martyr's death. I find agnostics/atheists selective skepticism humorous especially when it comes to things like the origin of life. Conservative 14:41, 27 October 2012 (EDT)

As a Brit, I have to ask why you are using the Daily Mail, albeit from 2009, as a source. Its main selling point is celebrity news and it has an unhealthy levening of violent videos. It recently ran a puff piece for a porn site that claims to be different because it has committed couples posting their home videos instead of whatever porn sites normally have. Like some of Rupert Murdoch's effluvia, it isn't a reliable source for conservatives. Rafael 16:04, 27 October 2012 (EDT)

For the record, the "crank claim" you keep slamming me for is when I said that the 27 books recognized as the canonical New Testament were not formally settled until the mid-fourth century, shortly before pope Damasus I commissioned the vulgate bible. That is actually a pretty well accepted estimate for the establishment of the New Testament canon. Either way, the truth of a statement I made several weeks ago regarding a completely unrelated topic has absolutely no bearing on the truth of the statement I made above. --JHunter 17:24, 27 October 2012 (EDT)
Why were the books recognized as canonical? Was one the reasons the early church fathers quoted extensively from them? Can the entire N.T. be recreated from their quotations?
"It is not possible that the gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four quarters of the earth in which we live, and four universal winds, while the church is scattered throughout all the world, and the 'pillar and ground' of the church is the gospel and the spirit of life, it is fitting that she should have four pillars breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying men afresh… Therefore the gospels are in accord with these things… For the living creatures are quadriform and the gospel is quadriform… These things being so, all who destroy the form of the gospel are vain, unlearned, and also audacious; those [I mean] who represent the aspects of the gospel as being either more in number than as aforesaid, or, on the other hand, fewer." - Irenaeus (2nd cenutry C.E. – c. 202)Conservative 09:14, 28 October 2012 (EDT)
That's a feeble rationale for having four gospels. --JohanZ 10:09, 28 October 2012 (EDT)
User:Conservative, I don't see how this is at all pertinent to a discussion on whether or not a lion can survive on a vegetarian diet, but I will entertain your tangent.
I am, admittedly, pretty unfamiliar with the writings of Irenaeus. I do know that his insistence on there being four gospels in the canon, and his criticism of contemporary Christian sects which only relied on a single gospel, had a major influence on later Christian ecumenical thought. However, before I can say more than that, I will have to look him up and read more about him. As I mentioned in Shock's chatroom, most of my knowledge of the history of the bible comes from a Latin class I took in my junior year of undergrad in which we had to translate excerpts from the vulgate (I almost minored in Latin). In that class, we primarily focused on the political climate in the Roman empire at the time; a climate in which the nascent church was charged with filling much of the power vacuum left by the collapsing Western empire.
According to many historians, this political reality contributed significantly to the imperative need to establish a Christian liturgical cannon; a need that was first formally addressed at the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea, convened at the request of Emperor Constantine I in 325 AD. This was, at least partially, an attempt to unify the fracturing empire under the auspices of a single, unified set of religious beliefs. It is reasonable, therefore, to hypothesize (as several historians do actually hypothesize), that the works chosen to be canonical, out of the tens of gospels in circulation at the time, were somewhat politically motivated. The degree to which the political implications of the contents of the four gospels chosen affected this decision remains a matter of debate; but to argue that this decision was entirely apolitical overlooks the historical context in which it was made.--JHunter 13:29, 28 October 2012 (EDT)

Early Voting

I would love to hear Mr. Schlafly elaborate on his statement that the "scourge of early voting" is "being exploited by Dems in Ohio." First, I don't understand how it is a scourge, since it allows people who otherwise might not make it to the polls on election day the opportunity to vote. The two criticisms on Conservapedia's early voting page have no evidence to back them up. Second, I don't understand how it is being exploited by Democrats if it is open equally to people of all political affiliations and non-affiliations. --Randall7 08:53, 27 October 2012 (EDT)

Please see additional discussion on Talk:Early voting. There are other substantive concerns. Wschact 20:45, 27 October 2012 (EDT)

Meat Loaf, an "intelligent" rocker.

Actual quote from Mr. Loaf's address at that event: "The other night when President Barack Obama, God bless him, said to Mitt Romney, 'The Cold War is over.' I have never heard such a thing in my life." MattyD 14:55, 27 October 2012 (EDT)

World Series?

There should perhaps be a news item on the main page about the World Series.--DTSavage 21:39, 29 October 2012 (EDT)

Done: Baseball news: The World Series which is between the teams of two liberal cities (San Francisco and Detroit) has record low television ratings.[38]
Apparently, the limp-wristed homosexual community in San Francisco is not into baseball. See: San Francisco values Conservative 22:26, 29 October 2012 (EDT)
Considering the fact that the Giants have won two of the past three World Series, I'd beg to differ.--DTSavage 23:22, 29 October 2012 (EDT)
Their baseball team imports heterosexuals from outside of San Francisco. :) Conservative 00:05, 30 October 2012 (EDT)
I live in the SF Bay area. Everyone here seems very happy that our local team won the World series. I was really proud of the Giants for winning and thought they played very well and had great sportsmanship. So it made me kind of sad to see this on the main page, it seems a bit mean-spirited. Regarding the comments on the Main page: is this particular wording really necessary? Couldn't we just say "Congratulations to the S.F. Giants" or something similar? I usually try to avoid commenting in a critical manner on anything someone has done, but do you think most people will like reading this, or be put off by it? Not an attack, just an honest question that I hope will be given some thoughtful consideration. Thank you. Taj 16:24, 30 October 2012 (EDT)
Thank you for editing it, it's appreciated. Taj 00:51, 31 October 2012 (EDT)
A lot of America sees San Francisco as a gay city, but there's a lot more to it and that. It's got one of the strongest Catholic communities in America, and some of the richest history and tradition of any city on the west coast. My father is an Irish Catholic from San Francisco (my mother is Episcopalian, and that's how I was raised) and would be very insulted to see that the city is considered "homosexual" and that its baseball team is being dismissed. The Giants worked very hard and showed great teamwork throughout the season; they're the opposite of a Hollywood values team like the overhyped Yankees. The teams had low ratings because they're from smaller markets, rather than the East Coast, LA, or Chicago blockbuster markets. KingHanksley 13:49, 31 October 2012 (EDT)
I love San Francisco. In fact it's my favourite US city. The food is great, the nightlife is spectacular and my extremely heterosexual girlfriend lives there.--KRMunson 20:38, 1 November 2012 (EDT)

Quantitative Easing: How Obama still caters to the will of the banks

Just recently, I found out about an interesting thing that has been happening under Obama's watch, which has been that the Federal Reserve is giving 40 billion dollars a month to big banks as a way to "bail out" the banks; and Obama is actually allowing this to happen. While Americans all over are suffering from economic depravity, Obama allows the federal reserve to give 40 Billion dollars a month to big banks, which is something that has been going on ever since the first bank bail out. Under Obama, it has gone from an initial millions and millions to hundreds of billions. This is why we need someone else who is better than Obama, but isn't a fake like Romney. We need a real president who is willing to do what is best for this nation, which is why I advocate that Conservapedia endorse a real candidate who will put this country back to the path of greatness.

Source: Arealconservative

Hurricane Sandy clean-up

It's been less than 48 hours since Sandy made landfall. It seems to be premature to start pointing fingers at executives of all political orientations who have been making monumental efforts to assess and fix the damage caused by Sandy to a region that has never experienced such a devastating storm. My prayers are with those who were much less fortunate than I was, who suffered death or injury of a loved one, or significant property damage. GregG 13:07, 31 October 2012 (EDT)

I also pray for the victims, and that free enterprise be allowed to restore power quickly with the continuing delays being caused by government and union control.--Andy Schlafly 14:22, 31 October 2012 (EDT)

"Free enterprise would have fixed this already."

I did not realize that the electric utilities in New Jersey were owned by the state. When was electric power nationalized there? MattyD 15:45, 31 October 2012 (EDT)

Liberals regulate energy utilities so heavily that traditional concepts of ownership lose their signigicance.--Andy Schlafly 16:48, 31 October 2012 (EDT)
Can you explain in a little more concrete detail (not vague abstractions) how free enterprise would have fixed this situation, and what barriers have prevented it from doing so? I am fairly libertarian (probably a little to the right of The Economist) but I think that disaster relief, along with law enforcement, military defense, and basic infrastructure, are exactly what we need governments for. It would be great if we had less bureaucracy and more public/private partnership, but I would need a concrete argument to see why private infrastructure would have solved this problem. I believe that the free market is generally more powerful than a controlled market, but I do not take it on faith in every case. I have faith in God; but economics is not religion. I take a "best model to approximate the scenario" approach. Pragmatic. The world is too messy for raw principles that are not moral. KingHanksley 18:30, 31 October 2012 (EDT)
Free enterprise could provide superb disaster relief. Indeed, some firms have made a fortune out of the dangerous work of capping oil wells.
But liberals want the public dependency, and unions oppose the competition. The result is days and weeks without power, despite the availability of capital and labor to restore power in hours.--Andy Schlafly 20:05, 31 October 2012 (EDT)
"despite the availability of capital and labor to restore power in hours." Last I heard, all available labor resources (including those from other states) were being used to help restore power as quickly as possible. See GregG 20:14, 31 October 2012 (EDT)
ADDENDUM: Plus, from reports I've read, there has been actual infrastructure damage, especially in New York City, that will require days to fix no matter what. I think the least we can do is to show support for utility workers and first responders who, regardless of political affiliation, are working around the clock to help restore our lives to normal and allow us to go back to conducting "business as usual." GregG 20:19, 31 October 2012 (EDT)
Nations largest power utility is sending help So is Georgia Power, and probably other smaller utilities.--SWeaver 20:23, 31 October 2012 (EDT)
"Free enterprise could provide superb disaster relief. Indeed, some firms have made a fortune out of the dangerous work of capping oil wells.

But liberals want the public dependency, and unions oppose the competition. The result is days and weeks without power, despite the availability of capital and labor to restore power in hours." - this is the kind of vague abstraction. "Free enterprise could provide superb disaster relief" is not a response, it is the original claim. You say that some firms have made a fortune out of the dangerous work of capping oil wells - but that has little to do with a current situation (it's obvious where the profit motive is in this case). How would free enterprise provide disaster relief in the hurricane. You say that liberals want the public dependency - what does that mean in this situation? Where is the pressure? What barrier is there to private industry stepping in this time? What potential private relief enterprise is being blocked by union labor?KingHanksley 02:29, 1 November 2012 (EDT)

God, Andy, you have got some real problems. Exploiting this storm, which killed at least 80 and left millions without power, for your stupid little blog here. Do you just pounce on everything bad that happens in the world and blame it on liberals as soon as you can? You are freaking pathetic man.--TuckerW 10:56, 1 November 2012 (EDT)
Liberal style doesn't work here. In fact it gets you an instant one-month block so I don't have to waste my time responding to it properly. Often, the stronger the validity of a point -- in this case, how free enterprise would restore power and help people more quickly than government and unions do -- the less substantive the rebuttal. --Andy Schlafly 14:38, 1 November 2012 (EDT)
Tucker is being ridiculous with these unfounded ad hominem attacks, and lowering the standard of conversation. I agree, the rebuttal is completely insubstantial. But I still haven't seen a case for how free enterprise would have helped in this particular scenario: comparing it to capping oil wells, where they are working for a single entity with a very strong fiscal interest in disaster relief, doesn't explain this at all. Who would be these private enterprises? Who would pay them? What is preventing them from intervening now? I'm not saying you're wrong, just that I haven't seen the case for it.KingHanksley 15:12, 1 November 2012 (EDT)
Private enterprises are helping. For example the Secular Coalition for America emailed me yesterday asking for donations for the relief effort. I donated, of course, because I'm always happy to help a former colony that's manfully struggling towards civilisation.--KRMunson 20:36, 1 November 2012 (EDT)
There are unemployed and underemployed adults would like to make some extra money in clean-up efforts, much as some work for the National Guard two or so weeks a year. There could be prior training to ensure it is done safely, and residents would be willing pay extra for extra services, just like anything else. But I think government and unions prohibit this, to the extent they can. They certainly don't welcome it.--Andy Schlafly 20:52, 1 November 2012 (EDT)
There would be a few problems with that though. Whilst these people could do simple tasks such as clear away branches and rubbish and the like (Which is what the State Emergency Service, which is a volunteer organisation in Australia who's role includes things like disaster relief, missing persons searches and the like.) most of them do not posses the necessary skills to be able to say put an electrical pole back up in a safe and timely manor. This is best left to the professionals who do this every day as they have the skills and processes needed to do these things safely and efficiently. Dvergne 21:07, 1 November 2012 (EDT)
Nonunion Ala. crews turned away from Sandy recovery in New Jersey --Jpatt 00:34, 2 November 2012 (EDT)
Thanks, Jpatt! What a selfish move by the unions. At a time like this, they shouldn't be turning away non-union labor; you should allow any willing workers to pitch in and get the job done. And it clearly wasn't a skills thing, if they were willing to accept the crews as long as they affiliated for the job (which wouldn't require extra training). That's the kind of direct story I was looking for. (I still think the overall claim is an overreach) KingHanksley 14:25, 2 November 2012 (EDT)

So how much would I have to pay the free enterprise rescuers to move the fallen trees from outside my house? What if I can't afford it?

NY union members shout ‘Scabs!’ and ‘Scumbags!’ at visiting utility crews --Jpatt 19:07, 3 November 2012 (EDT)

The dark side of free enterprise in a time of national emergency

Aschlafly, the core principle of the capitalist system - supply and demand - has resulted in working gas stations charging vastly inflated prices ( Scarcity of goods or services under capitalism inevitably results in rationing where those of greater wealth ultimately benefit. From what I've learned from the teachings of Jesus Christ, I find it very unlikely that many true Christians would subscribe to your particular, gauche point of view. EJamesW 16:23, 2 November 2012 (EDT)


Protip: when trying to portray a man as narcissistic and egotistical, don't link to a candid admission of failure that makes him seem exactly the opposite:

"It's a game that I keep on thinking I should be good at, and somehow the ball goes this way and that way and never goes straight," said Mr. Obama in a Russian media interview in 2009. But on another occasion, he admitted he's "terrible" at golf, but is drawn to the game just the same.[39]

--JohanZ 15:08, 1 November 2012 (EDT)

Why doesn't he getter better at it? He certainly plays it often enough compared to most past presidents! Too proud to hire a golf coach or listen to caddies? :) Not even Obama can pretend to be a golfing giant with his scores. Just admit it. Obama is a narcissistic, lazy president who plays golf too much and he is in over his head.[40][41][42] Conservative 15:22, 1 November 2012 (EDT)
He's not pretending to be a golfing giant - that's the point. You've linked to an article in which he candidly admits to being "terrible" at the game. A narcissist / egotist would be unable (or at least extremely unlikely) to make such an admission of failure. --JohanZ 15:28, 1 November 2012 (EDT)
You can't say you are more than terrible with Obama's scores! Have you looked at how much Obama added to the federal deficit? Obama gave himself a grade of incomplete as a president because he is too much of a narcissist to admit he failed as a president. Just admit it. He failed as a president and is to proud to admit it. Carter failed too and no doubt that is why he has been so publicly active post presidency. Nobody is fooled. Carter failed just like Obama did! Conservative 15:49, 1 November 2012 (EDT)
In case it's escaped you, I'm trying to help your Main Page piece seem less ridiculous by advocating the removal of contradictory evidence. You are, of course, welcome to ignore this advice.
Whilst you're here, though, I'd also like to know on what kind of timescale you see the QE! campaign achieving lasting change. I suppose I'm talking about the point at which YEC is taught as basic scientific fact in schools and universities worldwide. Thanks, --JohanZ 15:59, 1 November 2012 (EDT)

What are two differences between Dwight D. Eisenhower and Barack Hussein Obama? One served two terms and the other probably will not. Eisenhower played golf well and often. Obama is too much of an effete, liberal elitist to ever get good at the game. Obama plays golf a lot but he is too proud to take input from others to improve his game! Just like his presidency! :) Conservative 16:06, 1 November 2012 (EDT)

About a week after the Sun runs out of hydrogen, I'd say.--KRMunson 20:31, 1 November 2012 (EDT)
Out of interest, do you play golf? Do you have a handicap? :) --JohanZ 16:10, 1 November 2012 (EDT)
I will tell you a true story about myself and bowling. The first bowling ball I threw down a bowling lane was a strike. Obama is too limp-wristed to pick up a bowling ball much less ever throw a strike! Conservative 16:20, 1 November 2012 (EDT)
Kim Il-Sung claimed that the first golf ball he hit down a fairway was a hole in one. Funnily enough, nobody believed him either.--KRMunson 20:28, 1 November 2012 (EDT)
By the way Ken, I arranged a debate on the 15 Questions with your mate VivaYashua, although he wasn't very keen because he thinks the questions are badly presented and he's not really all that opposed to evolution anyway. However when I tried to log in for the debate I found that - surprise! - I was banned. Now who's hiding?--KRMunson 20:30, 1 November 2012 (EDT)
Oh yes, I also asked him why, seeing as you're so loud about it, you wouldn't debate me live yourself. He said you're terrible at verbal debates.--KRMunson 20:32, 1 November 2012 (EDT)
Cool story. What's your high score / average? --JohanZ 16:28, 1 November 2012 (EDT)
Bumper bowling doesn't count.--JHunter 16:43, 1 November 2012 (EDT)
How much can you deadlift? KingHanksley 19:35, 1 November 2012 (EDT)


I suspect it will increase another for points next time the figures come out due to the effects of Sandy. Dvergne 08:58, 2 November 2012 (EDT)

Unlikely, since the recovery from natural disasters tends to stimulate economic activity. --Esseph 10:13, 2 November 2012 (EDT)
Havent seen much news on here about unemployment lately - I guess that means its generally falling? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dot (talk)
New ADP Count Slashes Job Creation for September Funny how the number was revised wrong by 50% and yet the unemployment rate had stayed the same at 7.8% for the month of September. Calculated anomaly. --Jpatt 18:59, 2 November 2012 (EDT)

News pick: "Insight: Scant evidence of voter suppression, fraud in states with ID laws" This is a very informative Reuters article on voter ID legislation. GregG 14:38, 2 November 2012 (EDT)

New York marathon to go on?

That is patently false. MattyD 19:01, 2 November 2012 (EDT)

Non-union worker turned away?

That is patently false. MattyD 19:03, 2 November 2012 (EDT)

To be fair, it looks there was a miscommunication involving union paperwork. Here's a good article. GregG 21:11, 2 November 2012 (EDT)
Unions are very powerful in New Jersey, and it wouldn't be surprising if non-union workers were turned away. I don't doubt the original story.--Andy Schlafly 23:31, 2 November 2012 (EDT)
This is the original article that you have linked and note even it has been updated to correctly state the facts so that your statement on the main page is directly linked to showing its self as false. SJCootware 11:14, 3 November 2012 (EDT)
This isn't how news reporting works, Mr. Schlafly. You can't continue to proclaim a story after it has been discredited just because it fits in with your hyperpartisan worldview. Claiming on the Main Page that "Democrats refuse to allow non-union workers to help" requires a legitimate source to back that up, otherwise it should be trimmed. --Randall7 13:55, 3 November 2012 (EDT)
While the damage-control in the media is predictable, the fact remains that the crew did return home rather than try to overcome the union red tape. The denial of union requirements does not address the basic issue of requiring non-union workers to agree to certain union demands. Would the union collect dues from non-union workers for any money paid? Anyd implication that more workers are no longer needed is untrue: continuing power outage continues to cause severe hardships.--Andy Schlafly 14:13, 3 November 2012 (EDT)
Well the point is, in this case that you made a big deal about on the Main Page, there actually was no "union red tape" to overcome and no requirements for "non-union workers to agree to certain union demands." It was just a misunderstanding. From your source article:
"Bottom line, it appears now that Decatur Utilities wrongly assumed they would have to agree to the union contract before traveling to New Jersey to help with recovery efforts. The IBEW [electrical workers union] said in times of crisis, help is welcomed from union and non-union utility workers."
I don't think anyone has implied that more workers are no longer needed. You don't have to tell me that power outages are causing severe hardships in New Jersey, as I have many close friends and family residing there. --Randall7 14:37, 3 November 2012 (EDT)

QE! blogspot

Am I the only one who finds the QE! blog posts on the main page left tiresome and repetitive. Maybe a bible verse each day from the conservative bible would be better? NHousen 3 November 2012 (ACDT)

Nope, not by a long way. However nothing's going to be done about it, because for some reason Andy Schlafly is under the impression that the individual responsible is an asset to this wiki. God alone knows why.--GMFrazer 20:45, 2 November 2012 (EDT)
This is a meritocracy, and hence comments by those who contribute the most substantively are valued the most. Please see, for example, our 90/10 Rule concerning edits that are mostly talk.--Andy Schlafly 20:51, 2 November 2012 (EDT)
Dramatic structure.jpg
As an experienced contributor and someone who has designed a new main page, I wholeheartedly endorse NHousen's suggestions. GregG 21:07, 2 November 2012 (EDT)
I also agree with GregG and Nhousen, however I do think that AugustO's version/ suggestion looks slightly more visually appealing. However GregG's is still very good. Dvergne
Gentlemen, mark November 4, 2012 on your calendars. The plot is thickening and November 4, 2012 is going to be a glorious day for the Question Evolution! Campaign![43] Conservative 10:18, 3 November 2012 (EDT)
What, unless you get another cold? Please stop this, User:Conservative. It's become pathetic.--TreyP 14:35, 3 November 2012 (EDT)
User:Conservative obviously has a different idea of newsworthiness than I (and probably others here) do. GregG 14:37, 3 November 2012 (EDT)

Evolutionists are content to passively sit on their couches and in front of the computer monitors and watch news. Fans of the Question Evolution! Campaign make news! It is so sad being an evolutionist. They lack an "exhilarating sense of power or strength" and are like cold, dead fish![44] Conservative 17:20, 3 November 2012 (EDT)

I'm glad that the top item on the Template:Mainpageleft is no longer some announcement of a non-event at the Question Evolution! campaign. It could be much better, but here are some little improvements:

  • between (30% annual growth by Conservapedia for the month of October in unique visitors!) and (Obama v. Romney: 237 to 235, with 7 states undecided) should be a horizontal line
  • Wisconsin, Iowa, Colorado, Virginia, New Hampshire, Nevada and Ohio should be wiki-linked to the states, electoral votes wiki-linked to Electoral College
  • The second and the fourth column of the table should be aligned to the right: This is the Main Page, so it doesn't hurt to attend to the details (yes, I know, I'm nitpicky again)
  • the font-seize of the last sentence ("Obama is likely to finish 3 electoral votes short of what he needs to win.") is different. So, either separate it from the previous paragraph or resize it.

--AugustO 04:18, 4 November 2012 (EST)

Presidential Odds Update

It's been a while since I last did an update, but Obama remains strong favourite in the betting market for Tuesday's election: 2012 Election Odds

-- Ferret Nice old chat 23:15, 2 November 2012 (EDT)

I think whichever party wins the Presidential election in 2012 is going to lose it in 2016 due to a tough economic recession/depression hitting in 2013/2014. Romney was gaining momentum and Obama was committing unforced errors, but Hurricane Sandy seemed to have slowed down Romney's momentum. My guess is that the main stream press may choose to downplay the areas hit by the storm in terms of ineffectual government responses to the storm until after the election since they appear to be pro-Obama partisans. It is probably going to be a close election, but predicting voter turnout is difficult for both Obama/Romney. Conservative 06:03, 3 November 2012 (EDT)

State by state analysis

Good state by state analysis on the front page - I'm interested to know what criteria were used to define the toss-up states?

-- Ferret Nice old chat 07:56, 3 November 2012 (EDT)

That's the standard list of 7 toss-up states, which is confirmed by the focus of the two campaigns and the Super PACs. Which states do you think should be added, or subtracted?--Andy Schlafly 12:05, 3 November 2012 (EDT)
Sorry, I wasn't querying you highlighting those seven states which you are absolutely right in saying are the ones getting the attention. A few of them you have described as a "toss-up", and I was wondering how you made that call. -- Ferret Nice old chat 18:19, 3 November 2012 (EDT)
The characterization of some as "toss-up" is based on an assortment of polling, giving Rasmussen more weight than RealClearPolitics does, and also on issues like the quantity of early voting (the more the early voting, the less likely Romney is to win the state, according to 2010 data). An exception to the early voting rule is Colorado, where Romney has done well in early voting.--Andy Schlafly 20:49, 3 November 2012 (EDT)

Another voter ID news pick GregG 11:06, 3 November 2012 (EDT)

Federal appellate courts have affirmed the use of voter ID based on how they would obviously reduce voter fraud.--Andy Schlafly 12:06, 3 November 2012 (EDT)
This seems like a non sequitur response to me. Ultimately, it's up to the legislature to decide what types of ID are acceptable, and these sorts of stories can certainly influence their decisions. You might also be interested in the other article I posted which basically says that although the amount of voter fraud that could be prevented by voter ID laws is scant to nonexistent, there is little evidence of actual voter suppression as a result of these laws, as liberals claim there will be.
By the way, most reported voter fraud is in the form of absentee ballot fraud and ineligible voters (like convicted felons in some states) casting ballots.[45] Most ID laws (Kansas's being an exception) do not prevent these types of fraud. GregG 14:31, 3 November 2012 (EDT)
I agree that voter ID is incomplete at best, since it misses all the early voting by mail issues. But there does seem to be an obvious, albeit unquantifiable, benefit to voter ID in reducing in-person voter fraud. The fact that federal appellate courts have upheld it, sometimes even mentioning this obvious problem, confirms as much.--Andy Schlafly 20:54, 3 November 2012 (EDT)
As you know, courts generally don't look into legislation and question whether a law is good or bad: those decisions are inherently political and belong to the legislature. At least in my opinion, based on the evidence of actual in-person impersonation fraud at the polls, strict photo voter ID legislation is at best a case of misplaced legislative priorities and, at worst, a brazenly political move whose primary purpose is political advantage (Pennsylvania Speaker of the House Mike Turzai said that its state's voter ID law would "allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania"). I don't think, though, there would be very many who would disagree with the general principle of presenting identification at the polls; the disagreements come from the implementations of voter ID. GregG 22:13, 3 November 2012 (EDT)

November 4, 2012

Can we take it that, when evolutionism and atheism continue completely unharmed on November 5, someone will finally kill off the constant stream of ridiculous QE! items on the front page? Never mind that the latest one links to an article which includes a picture, meant to make an analogy of the defeat of evolution, showing a Liberty ship being sunk by a Nazi submarine; they're just embarrassing.--TPembry 13:27, 3 November 2012 (EDT)

Perhaps there can be a three person panel in charge of reviewing all main page items before they are posted. I realize that there are very few active contributors now, but investing our editor resources in the main page now, might foster the growth of the editor pool in the long run. Wschact 07:06, 4 November 2012 (EST)
Every single day belief in biblical Christianity/creation grows stronger in the world and evolutionism/atheism/agnosticism grows weaker.[46][47] The Matthew effect is in force in the origins culture war as far as demographics/immigration/evangelism and their effect will accelerate in strength for the foreseeable future.[48] And liberals starting to run out of other people's money to spend in Europe and America just adds fuel to the fire. Conservative 14:57, 4 November 2012 (EST)
User TPembry is correct that evolutionism continues on November 5. Apparently, the items on the Main Page about November 4 were an attempt to publicize the announcement of a new coalition to fight the teaching of evolution. The coalition has the goal of attracting 200 members, but is just starting and is far short of 200 members. In retrospect, neither the pre-announcement of the formation of the coalition nor the actual announcement were worthy of the front page. Neither attracted independent press coverage that could be used as sources. I respectfully renew my proposal that CP set up a three person panel to review all main page items before they are posted. Thanks, Wschact 07:16, 5 November 2012 (EST)

Record Number of Senate Seats in Play

As someone who has watched the senate races quite a good deal, I cannot begin to see how you are reaching the number 16 for the number of seats in play. Based on RealClearPolitics there are 12 toss up seats plus 2 lean seats for a total of 14 max that could really be said to be in play, or going by the ratings that are given on the Senate Elections page, there are 9 toss pp and 6 lean seats for a total of 15 that could possibly be considered to be in play. Basically, the number of 16 seats in play is unfounded and unreasonable and should be revised down. SJCootware 16:53, 3 November 2012 (EDT)

The 16 seats in play includes seats like Connecticut, where it would be a massive upset if a Republican wins, but it's possible. I think Rasmussen has a total of about 16 when the lean Republican and lean Democrat are included.--Andy Schlafly 20:51, 3 November 2012 (EDT)
Rasmussen shows 7 toss up and 7 lean for a total of 14 in play, so even they don't back the number 16. You should check your sources before hand. SJCootware 21:18, 3 November 2012
Honestly reading sources is a liberal value. MattyD 08:50, 4 November 2012 (EST)

30% annual growth by Conservapedia for the month of October in unique visitors!

I'm not a native English speaker, so for me the term "annual growth" is used in a confusing way: Do you want to say that October 2012 had 30% more unique visitors than October 2011 - or that Nov 2011 - Oct 2012 had 30% more visitors than Nov 2010 - Oct 2011?

And what are the absolute numbers? --AugustO 04:09, 4 November 2012 (EST)

From having watched CNBC a lot in my youth, the term "year over year" is appropriate to describe an increase in the number of viewers this past October versus October 2011. GregG 14:22, 4 November 2012 (EST)
Right. Internet traffic has substantial seasonal variation, so the most meaningful comparison is to the same calendar month a year ago. October is a strong month for internet traffic, for example, while July is not.--Andy Schlafly 21:27, 4 November 2012 (EST)

International observers

I'm not entirely sure what your news story about Iowa forbidding international observers being likely to help Romney win means. Is it that Republicans rig the elections, and if there were international observers there it would be difficult to do so? I suppose that that is possible, but given your usual political leanings I don't think that that is what is really meant here. In what way is this actually supposed to benefit Romney? Cmurphynz 19:57, 4 November 2012 (EST)

I'm pretty sure the point is that any international observers would most likely support Obama, and use their position to unfairly rig the election to help the Democrats. By removing their influence, it will help ensure the election's validity and so much improve the chances of a Romney victory. --DamianJohn 20:08, 4 November 2012 (EST)
Yes that's likely. I'm not really familiar with how election observers work, but the point is that they are outside the system. It would be far more difficult for them to do anything to election results than people that are actually involved with the system. Also, why do you think that they would support Obama? I think that the vast majority of overseas people do support him (perhaps there's a reason for that :) ) but it is possible that they wouldn't. And what would you say if Iran or somewhere banned observers? you have to admit that it looks pretty bad.Cmurphynz 20:39, 4 November 2012 (EST)
Well, you gave the Iran example. Do you doubt that the international community would not do whatever it could to implement regime change in Iran? Surely that would extend to rigging elections. If the international community would be prepared to do it for Iran surely they would be prepared to do it for the US. Besides, no doubt the international community believe that Obama will keep pouring money into their coffers if he gets re-elected. I'm sure it wouldn't surprise some if Obama himself was personally organising the election rigging under the auspices of the UN. --DamianJohn 20:46, 4 November 2012 (EST)
The concept of allowing international observers to monitor a U.S. election is quite liberal. For starters, globalists tend to be partisan, favoring Obama in this case. Texas, a conservative state, was the first to assert its sovereignty against the international intrusion. Iowa, a left-leaning state, then surprisingly followed Texas's lead. This helps Romney both by reducing the circus atmosphere, and by making an issue of the foreign intrusion. I would expect most Iowans to be surprised that they were being watched by foreigners on Election Day, and this news was a "wake-up call" that international intrusions into American sovereignty are very real, as conservatives have been saying.
Whether this affects the ability of international monitors on other nation's elections, I don't know, but I can't say those have done any good either. Iran, Cuba and Venezuela have pretended to hold elections, with the results being entrenchment of the status quo.--Andy Schlafly 21:27, 4 November 2012 (EST)
It's liberal? You think? In fact it was agreed in 1990 by a Republican president. The situation is this: The US government requires that OSCE observers attend the elections in all other member states. If you want us to allow OSCE observers (including US ones) at our elections then you are going to allow non-US OSCE observers at yours. Otherwise we are going to stop complying with your demands to "intrude" on our sovereignty, and you will have nobody but yourselves to blame.--RaferJ 12:47, 5 November 2012 (EST)
The USA was the first constitutional democracy, and by many measures remains the only constitutional democracy ever to have existed. The US is therefore the only country that does not need international observers and as part of its role as the only real democracy rightly insists on ensuring that other countries get as close to the required standard as possible. --DamianJohn 01:25, 6 November 2012 (EST)
If you start telling major NATO allies like the UK that they have to submit to your inspectors but you're exempting yourselves from the same rules, you are going to lose friends quite rapidly. Maybe not a good idea, seeing as you don't have all that many left as it is.--AllenMcT 12:36, 6 November 2012 (EST)
What is this "required standard" Damian, whoever has the most number of millions to enrich the nation's TV stations, or, like in your country, actually has the policies the country agrees with? (My country still has to get past Rupert Murdoch.) AlanE 01:47, 6 November 2012 (EST)
Freedom of speech and freedom of campaigning is a big part of it. --DamianJohn 01:55, 6 November 2012 (EST)
I have seen your comments on freedom of speech. I don't agree with freedom to lie - on either side of the political divide - especially when the cost of the ad. that pushes the lie could power a medium sized hospital for a year. AlanE 02:10, 6 November 2012 (EST)
Just about Venezuela 'pretending to' hold elections, apparently they have a pretty good electoral system that makes it quite hard to commit fraud. Yes, Chavez still got in, but the reason was that more of the voters preferred him to the other candidate rather than fraud. (I'll try to find the article that said about their system) Cmurphynz 02:31, 6 November 2012 (EST)
And also I think there are advantages to being part of his party, better access to government services, or something equally iffy. Cmurphynz 02:35, 6 November 2012 (EST)
I am a big believer that freedom of speech includes a freedom to offend. Has to, otherwise there's no point. As for lies in political discourse; tricky issue - sure - but who would you employ as the fact gatherer? And how long before some truths became political. No way around it as far as I can see. --DamianJohn 02:33, 6 November 2012 (EST)
No. Gotta be a limit. Child pornography for example. But we're off subject, I believe my country has the required checks and balances that make any major electoral fraud impossible to get away with. I assume that your country has the same. I find the belief by certain Conservapedians that a win by the other side would be facilitated by some sort of "cheating" - an admission that there is a fault in the system - this system that you laud so thoroughly over that of your own country's. AlanE 03:06, 6 November 2012 (EST)
I think you are getting a bit personal there AlanE. I have said plenty of times that it was the views of some people that I was referring to. The only time I explicitly gave my personal own opinion was when discussing free speech. --DamianJohn 15:30, 6 November 2012 (EST)
Sorry if I offended you. It didn't quite come out like I meant it to. I did remember your discussion - with Rob Smith perhaps? I wasn't meaning to sound personal - at least not that personal. AlanE 16:18, 6 November 2012 (EST)
I wasn't meaning that I was necessarily offended, I just thought I should make it clear that I was making some of my points on behalf of others. I don't for example, think that the US is the only constitutional democracy, but I know plenty of people who do. --DamianJohn 18:46, 6 November 2012 (EST)
Yes. I see now that I came in half-cocked, having read only the last few edits of the section. Cheers AlanE 19:39, 6 November 2012 (EST)


It's not even going to be close, Romney landslide: R 54% O 46%.--Jpatt 02:30, 6 November 2012 (EST)

Despite being a member of the Gang of Seven, Boehner seems sincere, confident and credible about Romney winning Ohio (based on his experience in Ohio in 2008 election and 2012 election and what pollsters said in 2008 and now about Ohio), so I say a narrow victory for Romney. Boehner has a habit of crying in public so he gets sincerity points. :) Conservative 03:03, 6 November 2012 (EST)
Split decision - RINO Romney wins popular votes; Obama wins Electorial College. Wschact 04:53, 6 November 2012 (EST)
Obama will win with about 310 college votes and 51% of the popular vote. -- Ferret Nice old chat 05:24, 6 November 2012 (EST)

Those predictions are very different!--Andy Schlafly 14:42, 6 November 2012 (EST)

I'm going to be gracious to Jpatt and assume he was aware it was a whacky prediction, he was just getting behind his man. Looks like I was generous to Obama in the popular vote, and may well end up light in terms of the Electoral College (at the point in time when I'm writing this Obama is looking favourite but by no means a dead-cert in Florida - if he wins it he will get more than the 310 I predicted). Well done America, whether you are happy with the result or not I think you did a great job in showing the world how to hold free and fair elections. -- Ferret Nice old chat 02:04, 7 November 2012 (EST)
It looks like Boehner was overconfident. :) Conservative 09:51, 7 November 2012 (EST)


Hi Conservapedia. I just recently learnt about this Question Evolution campaign and am quite interesting in following its progress. Looking here and on the campaigns blog page, I have been noticing this new 200+ idea. I am assuming that the poster named 'Conservative' has contacts with the people running this campaign, and so perhaps i could ask questions through you? I wanted to ask whether you plan to talk to organisations over here in the UK like the CSM (Creation Science Movement), etc... We could sure do with a movement like this over here as well. Also, will the Question Evolution! textbooks that have been mentioned be available over here? And are there any places to find previews for them?

I tried to post this on the blog page, but for some reason it wouldn't go through.

Thanks, David H

User:DavidTH 15:10 6 November 2012

DavidH, I have a policy of generally not discussing my personal details nor discussing my activities outside of Conservapedia. I suggest contacting the CMI-UK office and indicate you would like to get involved in the grassroots Question evolution! campaign in the UK. The CMI-UK contact information is located here:
I would suggest initially promoting the campaign in your local area and in the Bible belt portion of the UK.[49] Conservative 12:19, 6 November 2012 (EST)
There isn't a bible belt portions of the UK.--AllenMcT 12:34, 6 November 2012 (EST)

Allen, from the BBC: " Messages posted on the forum section of the University of Oxford biologist's official website have welcomed his decision to come to the Highlands. One message described the area as Scotland's Bible belt."[50] Also, from a website founded by an atheist and an agnostic: "In Northern Ireland, the County Antrim area stretching from roughly Portrush to Larne and centered in the area of Ballymena is often referred to as a Bible Belt."[51][52] Conservative 14:31, 7 November 2012 (EST)

But will Obama claim the office despite losing the popular vote?

You mean like this guy? MattyD 11:12, 6 November 2012 (EST)

If he won the electoral college but lost the popular vote wouldn't not claiming the office be, you know, unconstitutional?--AllenMcT 12:33, 6 November 2012 (EST)

(Liberal double standard: liberals are not likely to complain as they did in 2000 if Obama loses the popular vote but wins the Electoral College.

Conservative double standard: Andrew Schlafly has already staked out a position to complain about what would happen if today's results replicate those of 2000, should Obama lose the popular vote but win the Electoral College. MattyD 16:37, 6 November 2012 (EST)

Best 2012 presidential election coverage

The Wall Street Journal has been the most informative live coverage of the the U.S Presidential election. The mainstream press and Fox News has been overly partisan and filled with too much idle chatter. You can watch live streaming election coverage of the Wall Street Journal at these two locations and Conservative 21:00, 6 November 2012 (EST)

As I'm at work I've been keeping my eye on this graph: - very easy just to have a quick glance every now and then WilcoxD 21:02, 6 November 2012 (EST)


House isn't a branch of government, the whole of Congress is. Also, Akin and Mourdock are out, guess those rape comments bit them in the butt after all. SteveSpagnola 22:35, 6 November 2012 (EST)

The headline is clear about branches of government; semantic quibbling is misplaced with respect to headlines.
The liberal media engaged in some pro-abort demagoguery against a few candidates, but those liberal stunts have no long-term significance.--Andy Schlafly 22:54, 6 November 2012 (EST)
Unforced errors -- one of which was essentially an idiotic gaffe that betrayed a fundamental ignorance about human biology -- cost the Republicans 2 seats and possibly a Senate majority. That's gotta sting. MattyD 23:03, 6 November 2012 (EST)
Muslim/Arab news service Al Jazeera has declared Barack Obama then winner. Dvergne 23:18, 6 November 2012 (EST)
Fox News calls it for Obama as he picks up Ohio, WI, and IA. It's over, four more years. SteveSpagnola 23:21, 6 November 2012 (EST)
Likewise ABC news in Australia (after Ohio) WilcoxD 23:23, 6 November 2012 (EST)
Antony Green has called therefore it must be true. He never gets it wrong much Dvergne 23:25, 6 November 2012 (EST)
The Graun has Obama winning too. Cmurphynz 23:51, 6 November 2012 (EST)

Marriage equality in Maryland.

Nice. MattyD 23:38, 6 November 2012 (EST)

Projected Obama Victory

It might not be over until Michelle Obama sings, but it looks like the incumbent president is going to win.--JHunter 23:45, 6 November 2012 (EST)

Close To Useless took on Dangerously Wrong. Close to Useless has won. Hasta la victoria siempre! Viva la revolucion! (rather inappropriate slogans for a centrist/right-wing politician winning, but whatever) Cmurphynz 23:56, 6 November 2012 (EST)
You can probably ignore that last comment. I can't really work out what I was trying to say. I should probably think before posting.Cmurphynz 19:39, 7 November 2012 (EST)
On the juice last night? --DamianJohn 19:54, 7 November 2012 (EST)
Nice to read a familiar vernacular. AlanE 20:04, 7 November 2012 (EST)
Ha Ha, :) Actually I wasn't, just thinking about other stuff and writing too quickly. Cmurphynz 20:08, 7 November 2012 (EST)
There are almost as many of us as there are Americans in this place.  :) Brings the level of discourse up a notch I should think. --DamianJohn 20:23, 7 November 2012 (EST)

He could win the popular vote too

He's within 150k votes and Cali is only 1/4 counted. Obama could win the whole kitten kaboodle. Good luck with your half of Congress... SteveSpagnola 00:19, 7 November 2012 (EST)

Marriage equality in Maine

Nice. MattyD 00:21, 7 November 2012 (EST)

Why did Romney lose the election

Firstly, why did Romney lose the election? What were the main reasons, as an Australian outsider to US politics? Secondly, can we archive some of this talk page, it is getting a bit too long. JEngland 1:16, 7 November 2012 (EST)

I put some of the main reasons on the main page just now. There are other reasons as well of course. Conservative 09:48, 7 November 2012 (EST)
Where? --AugustO 09:59, 7 November 2012 (EST)
Look at the log for main page right. Conservative 10:23, 7 November 2012 (EST)

Boastful predictions of Romney win

As a conservative I believe in rationality, and I knew Romney was in trouble. So it bothered me that conservative media continually projected the idea that Romney was winning when there was scant evidence. Conservapedia fell victim to this problem repeatedly, and I think it's an embarrassment for the site. Conservatives are supposed to be humble, not boastful, and I often see my fellow conservatives here betray standards of conservative behavior, and this is a pertinent example. We ought to do better. --BillWhitliff 01:23, 7 November 2012 (EST)

Don't worry, Andy always hedges his bets. Conservapedia will be proved right. Guarantee it. Four more years! CMcMurphy 02:02, 7 November 2012 (EST)
I agree that the overhype of Mitt Romney by the Fox News Channel and other RINO Backers was harmful and worth criticizing now.--Andy Schlafly 08:33, 7 November 2012 (EST)
Republicans appear to have underestimated Obama's turnout machine for his base.
Republicans should have listed to Sun Tzu. "It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle." - Sun Tzu Conservative 09:54, 7 November 2012 (EST)
Romney had some momentum for a while but the Hurricane put a damper on that. I predicted Romney would win by a slim margin and after the popular vote is tallied Obama will probably win by 2-3% points. I personally thought with youth and minority unemployment being high, it would put a bigger damper on Obama's turnout for his base, but he managed to have a good turnout for his base. Plus, Romney didn't connect as well with working-class whites as he wanted. A slim margin prediction is hardly a boastful prediction. Also, Obama has been as ineffective as Carter though on the economic/foreign relations front so a prediction that he would be a Carter 2.0 and be a one term president was not a boastful prediction.
Second, any political party that won the U.S Presidential election of 2012 is probably going to face a heavy duty economic recession/depression and not gain power in 2016. Noted investor Jim Rogers (who often appears on CNBC, Bloomberg, and other venues), is likely correct that a recession worse than 2008 will appear in 2013/2014.[53] The Federal debt is significantly higher so it makes sense that the next economic recession/depression will be worse. Conservative 13:42, 7 November 2012 (EST)
I honestly thought it would be a landslide victory for Romney because Obama had everything stacked against him. Hardcore liberals have been calling him "Obush" whereas conservatives have been calling him a Marxist/socialist/communist. Catholics, Evangelicals, and other Christians are against Obama because of his support for abortion. Unfortunately, the lamestream media was rooting for him and hid all of the skeletons in his closet from public view. Entitlement people know that Obama is their friend. Uninformed bimbos (supposedly a little more than half of female voters) supported Obama because of the so-called "war on women"; they want to be able to murder babies and they want the government to pay for it. Fraud was probably also a major factor in Obama's reelection, including illegal aliens that probably didn't even know who Obama is voting for the man. Supposedly 60% of young voters supported Obamamunism, probably many of them just because they thought it was cool to vote for a black guy. Probably most of the Obama voters simply didn't understand what they were voting for, they just voted for him because someone (the mainstream media, the unions, liberal teachers/professors, etc) told them they should. All that's left to do now is pray, not just that Obama doesn't destroy our nation, but also that he doesn't let world government (the United Nations) take over. DMorris 14:50, 7 November 2012 (EST)
Why such vitriol against people you disagree with DMorris? People can and do disagree about things. That doesn't make them "uninformed bimbos" or not understand the issues, it just means they disagree with your conclusions. Both sides had a fair shake at getting their message across and Obamas was slightly better received. --DamianJohn 16:05, 7 November 2012 (EST)
I've never heard you complain here about the more frequent and more insulting remarks directed at conservatives. Did I miss it? The comments above are tame compared with what is spewed with regularity in liberal circles.--Andy Schlafly 16:17, 7 November 2012 (EST)
I am asking DMorris about his comments. Bringing up comments made by others that I do not know about is just deflection, and irrelevant. DMorrris can answer for himself, I am sure. --DamianJohn 16:39, 7 November 2012 (EST)
I think you misunderstand my position on that. We all have opinions, and we have the right to have such opinions. I've known many people from all ends of the political spectrum, and I have indeed known liberals that are otherwise bright and intelligent human beings. I'm not attacking young ladies as a whole either, I have known many beautiful, bright, and intelligent young ladies of all ends of the political spectrum. I know of many young ladies that voted for Romney on election day. However, you can't deny that a lot of uninformed college and late high school girls went out and voted for Obama simply because they wanted birth control & abortion and they wanted the government to pay for it. They also cling to their food stamps, their Obama phones, their section 8 housing, and their clown-like cosmetics & hair dye they couldn't afford if the government weren't paying for everything else. Obviously not every woman that voted for Barack fits in that category, but you do realize that many people like that were indeed at the polls voting for Barack, and since you seem to have a problem with the word bimbo, how would you describe such people. How is it an intelligent decision to vote for someone because the legal ability to kill unwanted children is more important than the economy or health care, considering those that voted solely based on that? DMorris 12:17, 8 November 2012 (EST)
The issue I have, and given what you have just written I think it is a valid one, is that you generally think that people who voted for Obama are somehow less valid than those who voted for Romney. You have this attitude the deligitimizes the opinions of people who disagree with you. You have a particular vision for the US, but that vision is no better or more legitimate than other visions people have. If conservatives and the Republican Party continue to caricature this defeat on "people who want things" (as Bill O'Reilly puts it) you will struggle to win the presidency for the foreseeable future. Candidates that mock half the population, whilst promising financial gain to those in the very top echelon of society are not following a viable election strategy. Candidates that are forced to say extreme things during the primaries that they do not believe just to get through are then going to find it hard once they get into the general election. Given the economy and Obama's weak performance generally this should have been a slam dunk for Romney. Instead, in terms of the electoral process it was never really close. With all due respect, the attitude that Obama supporters have somehow less legitimate beliefs are exactly the reason Romney was unable to win them over. --DamianJohn 16:00, 8 November 2012 (EST)
Candidates that mock half the population, whilst promising financial gain to those in the very top echelon of society are not following a viable election strategy. Then why the heck do liberals ever win? Do not liberals mock half of the population and promise financial gain to their rich cronies? (When I say that, I don't say all liberals, so you can take your counter examples and shove them.) Do not such liberals win elections? Didn't Obama mock half the population? Stop trolling Damian, expect further comments in this thread to be unaddressed by me (cough, 90/10, cough). DMorris 23:09, 8 November 2012 (EST)
No trolling here. I think I have been very fair with my posts. You may disagree with them and that's fine but there's no trolling. Shame you just want to close down any conversation related to politics, but whatever. --DamianJohn 23:34, 8 November 2012 (EST)

Up-date of the Main Page

Just do it... --AugustO 07:43, 7 November 2012 (EST)

Template:Mainpageleft, too! Pretty please? AugustO 08:23, 7 November 2012 (EST)
Before mentioning all the great successes of the Republicans and the defeats of the Democrats, you should perhaps lead with the main news of today? --AugustO 08:31, 7 November 2012 (EST)
Conservapedia gives appropriate weight to all branches of government. The presidency was not designed to be, and has never been, the most important branch.--Andy Schlafly 08:37, 7 November 2012 (EST)
*LOL*! You do not even mention that Obama won his second presidency - appropriate weight is given only to news which pleases you personally. AugustO 08:42, 7 November 2012 (EST)

For weeks I've lobbied for improving the Main Page, making it looking more dignified, and more centered on Conservapedia (see e.g., User_talk:Aschlafly#Current_state_of_the_main_page). But today's state of the main page is a new low: any visitor of Conservapedia gets the impression that Conservapedia is in denial of reality. If you really intend to give appropriate weight to all branches of government, you first should state who won each of the branches - and then you can start to argue why it isn't fair... --AugustO 09:08, 7 November 2012 (EST)
August, our main page has long stated very clearly that its priority is "what the MSM isn't fully covering."--Andy Schlafly 09:53, 7 November 2012 (EST)
So you expect you reader to inform himself first at the MSM, and then come to Conservapedia... Without giving a little bit of context, the Main Page looks as it is covering only "all the news we like to hear". --AugustO 09:57, 7 November 2012 (EST)
No, we often report on very negative news. But Obama losing millions of supporters is not particularly negative.--Andy Schlafly 10:39, 7 November 2012 (EST)

AugustO, you need to admit to yourself that your lobbying efforts have been ineffective and will continue to be ineffective. I suggest using different approaches or admitting defeat and moving on. :) Being a Darwinist, it is ironic that you have chosen to use the same types of approaches rather than adapting and using new approaches. :) Conservative 10:17, 7 November 2012 (EST)

Ineffective? Downright counterproductive - I'm afraid that even the most common-sense proposals are dismissed perhaps because I'm the one to come up with them. But nevertheless, some things have to be done, or stated at least for the record. --AugustO 10:27, 7 November 2012 (EST)

The basis of AugustO's criticism is that most people will get a first impression of Conservapedia from its Main Page. Do we have any data that confirms or contradicts that point? All that I know is that the Main Page has 14,298,209 page views and is by far the most viewed page. When I Google "conservative current events" Conservapedia does not rank among the top entries, and there are many better established websites for covering current events from a conservative perspective. Perhaps a better approach would be to put the energy that is currently devoted to the Main Page and spend it on updating the substantive articles, such as Evolution or Presidential Election 2012. We can then adopt a Main Page format which better represents all of the content of CP and draws readers into the substantive content of CP. The Main Page left column should not be used to promote other websites to the detriment of CP. Thanks, Wschact 03:02, 8 November 2012 (EST)

I like where User:Wschact is going. Maybe a focus on the substance of this wiki would improve the site. While we are not the only place to get conservative news and views, we are one of few conservative wikis on the net. AndrewBlack 16:25, 8 November 2012 (EST)

"liberal control of the U.S. Senate also weakens."

Based on Politico's results, it looks like Democrats and Independents will have at least 53 seats (and possibly up to 55). In the 112th Congress, Democrats and Independents had 53 seats. I don't see any way the election results could be interpreted to mean that "liberal control of the U.S. Senate also weakens." GregG 10:02, 7 November 2012 (EST)

Because several of the new Republicans are more conservative than their predecessors (e.g., Ted Cruz), and several of the new Dems are less liberal than their predecessors, and the new Independent is more conservative than his predecessor. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aschlafly (talk)
Then the news item should be phrased accordingly: Democrats and Independents kept their number of seats in the Congress, but it still grew more conservative: several of the new Republicans are more conservative and several of the new Dems are less liberal than their predecessors.
Otherwise the item sounds just like wishful thinking. --AugustO 10:47, 7 November 2012 (EST)
Your suggested improvement is far too long for a headline. The headline as written is clear, concise and correct - the hallmark of Conservapedia style.--Andy Schlafly 11:03, 7 November 2012 (EST)
If you say so. But could you explain how "Millions switched from supporting Obama in 2008 to voting against him" is "clear, concise and correct"? The number of voters for Obama fell from 69.5 millions to 60.0 millions, but McCain got nearly 60.0 million votes while Romney only got 57.3 millions... --AugustO 11:28, 7 November 2012 (EST)
Obama lost significant percentage points in addition to absolute numbers of voters.--Andy Schlafly 15:08, 7 November 2012 (EST)
Yes, he did, he lost millions of voters - but they didn't start "voting against him" - that 's the incorrect (wishful thinking) bit of the item. --AugustO 15:25, 7 November 2012 (EST)
Sure they did - the equivalent of 2 million or more voters switched from the Dem to Republican side between 2008 and 2012.--Andy Schlafly 15:31, 7 November 2012 (EST)
Is this just one of your insights or do you have a reliable source? --AugustO 16:56, 7 November 2012 (EST)
Something else to consider is third party candidates August. A previous Obama supporter turning against him this time around doesn't necessarily mean person voted for Romney. DMorris 17:07, 7 November 2012 (EST)
In 2008, 1,900,000 voters elected other candidates, in 2012 there were only 1,700,000 votes for those. So that's not the place were those "millions" went to. --AugustO 17:19, 7 November 2012 (EST)
Notice there's less people voting in general too, because some of Obama's old supporters from '08 probably didn't even go out to vote. Considering the number of former supporters now going for Romney, the one's now going for third party candidates, the one's that didn't vote for anybody for president, the 18, 19, 20, and 21 year olds that didn't vote in '08 that voted Obama this year merely because they think he's "cool", and voter fraud propping Mr. O up, you could easily say two million voters turned against him. DMorris 17:52, 7 November 2012 (EST)
But I hope that we agree that the claim "it could easily be so" is not good enough a source for the top item of the Main Page... --AugustO 18:05, 7 November 2012 (EST)
We can't say exactly who voted for whom, or didn't vote. So the claim "2 million voters switched from Democrat to Republican" can never be proven. However, what Andy said above "the equivalent of 2 million or more voters ...." (emphasis added) actually underestimates the figure significantly. The Democrats lost 9.5 million votes, the Republicans lost 2.7 million. That's a 6.8 million vote swing. I don't see where the 2 million figure comes from, but it's far less than the actual figure, so I doubt it's wishful thinking on Andy's part. Gregkochuconn 23:56, 8 November 2012 (EST)

@Aschlafly: Do you have any source for your claim that "the equivalent of 2 million or more voters switched from the Dem to Republican side between 2008 and 2012."? --AugustO 06:50, 8 November 2012 (EST)

Conservative College Kids Riot

Possible news item: [54]

If 'his' re-election can make conservative kids shout racist things, what will happen in the next four years!