Talk:Main Page/Archive index/122

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Regarding Video Games and Adam Lanza

I am what you might classify as a 'gamer'. I enjoy playing games such as Halo, Starcraft, and Skyrim. I do this fairly often and have an enjoyable time doing it. Like reading a good book or catching up on the latest TV shows, it's a hobby that I do in my spare time. And I have never had the urge to shoot up a public building.

And so it certainly irks me that on the very top of your homepage you blame the very hobby I enjoy for the workings of a psychopath. Don't get me wrong, I know where you're coming from. You see a game like Call of Duty, look at the latest tragedy, and draw a connection. Add in the media coverage and you have this. But, Andy and friends, you have to understand: This is a moral panic. The news does this with every emerging trend among the younger generations. A few decades ago, for example, we were talking about the evils of rock music and how they lead to Satan worship or the End of Days or whatever crazy theories the news anchors had. When we see a barbaric and senseless tragedy, like Sandy Hook, our first response is to try to make sense of it, to explain it. And when we're dealing with psychopaths, whose minds are cloaked in mystery, their actions are nigh on unexplainable. So we find a scapegoat.

Can you all please just do us all a huge favor and watch [this video][1]? The video is courtesy of a popular Youtuber called Totalbiscuit, a rather cynical fellow that does video game coverage. It's about the media's reaction to the tragedy of Sandy Hook and how video games tend to get thrown under the bus. It provides statistics to support its claims, and Totalbiscuit is a very intelligent person. Give it a watch and make your own decisions from there. I just don't want the good name of gamers soiled by the actions of a mentally ill man with a gun. --Bdor24 17:54, 21 December 2012 (EST)

Violent video games give players the idea for unspeakable violence, the desensitivity to unspeakable violence, and the determination to complete unspeakable violence. 20-year-old kids would not wake up one day and murder many defenseless schoolchildren without the incitement and training provided by violent video games. The cause-and-effect is unmistakable.
Not every new fad such as violent video games is worthwhile. When I was growing up, the fad was for 18-year-olds to be able to drink unlimited alcohol lawfully. Many could handle the drinking, but many could not. After tens of thousands died as a result (primarily car accidents) a more sensible approach emerged.--Andy Schlafly 19:57, 21 December 2012 (EST)
Mr.Schlafly, while I agree video games have a desensitizing effect on violence (much like other media depicting violence) and do present ideas and concepts of violence (as do other media), I must disagree with your assertion violent video games provoke people to violence simply by having played them. I myself played Grand Theft Auto, Doom and Mortal Kombat in my younger days, and then I never felt compelled to replicate those acts of violence in real life. Presently, it horrifies me to think someone might actually decide to commit themselves to violence, which admittedly could draw inspiration from a video game or other media's depiction of violence, but I believe violent video games are merely an influence on one's action, but Adam Lanza made the choice to commit violence himself, not because a work of media robbed him of his ability to choose between good or evil. The games and media he exposed himself to may have influenced him towards violence, but he is ultimately the one who chose to commit the sin of murder by taking the lives of his mother and over two dozen others at his nearby school, and the blood is on his hands alone.
Also, I have played video games for some time, and while games like Doom and GTA give a crude idea of how weapons are used, they do very little to actually train someone for use of real life firearms, which I myself have handled for the purposes of hunting, and I speak from personal experience when I say video games are not very good at teaching someone how to use a real weapon PatrickMarion 20:20, 21 December 2012 (EST)PatrickMarion
But the alcohol problem was not a moral panic. Statistics and reports clearly showed that people were dying as a result, thus the change in law. No statistics have been able to link video games with mass murderers, only pundits uninformed about the issue or with their own biases.
And as for your desensitivity argument, an overwhelming amount of scientific studies (and logic) have proven this false. For example, let's look at South Korea. It has a huge video game culture. Starcraft is a genuine professional sport there. And the magic number of school shootings they have had last decade: Zero. None. You'd think in a country where video games are more mainstream, they'd be shooting each other with rocket launchers by now.
In attacking video games, Andy, you are ignoring the true cause. Whilst only 1/3 of America's mass murderers in the last decade played video games as a hobby, a far greater number had one other thing in common: They suffered from some sort of mental illness. It ranges from a severe case of ADHD to full blown schizophrenia to all manner of ailments, but they are there. And mental illness seems far more likely to cause insanity than a bout of Call of Duty, right?
Again, I implore to watch the video I linked above. It explains the arguments very well and provides statistics to back those arguments up. The vast majority of gamers have never harbored a wish to shoot up schools and kill innocent children, only those with a prior mental illness. Correlation does not equal causation. Just because a few psychopaths play Counterstrike doesn't mean everyone who plays it becomes a ticking time bomb. --Bdor24 20:31, 21 December 2012 (EST)
No, it doesn't. But it does mean that the young men of our nation spend an inordinate amount of time immersed in a culture that does nothing but waste their time and normalize mass violence, making it seem "fun." What does that say about where we're heading? MattyD 15:27, 5 January 2013 (EST)
That's the same old argument that gets thrown up every single time this comes up, and it's just plain wrong. Video games don't 'normalize' anything. In Grand Theft Auto, for example, you're encouraged to steal cars and participate in gang violence. However, virtually none of those playing the game actually come to DO any of that stuff. They (and me as well) find such actions in the real world abhorrent. We can easily discern between reality and a video game. What we do in an obviously false simulation has nothing to do with our moral compass in the real world. It's like sacrificing a pawn in chess. We don't feel guilty about it, because the pawn was never alive. --Bdor24 16:57, 5 January 2013 (EST)

Really, guys? Did you learn nothing? Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you continue to associate video games with psychopaths. I am beginning to wonder whether you are truly honest with yourselves, or if you decided to remain willfully ignorant on the issue. --Bdor24 15:21, 5 January 2013 (EST)

It's irrelevant that many video game players do not harm others with violence. It is enough of a problem that some do.--Andy Schlafly 21:22, 5 January 2013 (EST)
Isn't that the same argument that many make about guns though - 99.9% of gun owners don't go on a child killing murder spree, but that's irrelevant, it's enough of a problem that some do? JOBrien 23:42, 16 January 2013 (EST)
Two fundamental differences. First, guns primarily safeguard against crime, while video games have no beneficial value. Second, video games brainwash people into committing heinous crimes, while guns have no similar effect on the mind.--Andy Schlafly 00:25, 17 January 2013 (EST)
But that's the thing, isn't it? We AREN'T harming others. It's a simulation, a false reality, a product of imagination. Here's a comparison: Let's say we're both playing chess, and you sacrifice a pawn to eventually take my queen. Do you feel guilty about that sacrifice? No. That pawn was never alive. Neither are video game characters. They might look more realistic, they might appear alive, but they are not. They're merely strands of zero's and one's. Human beings, however, are much more than that. They have feelings, thoughts, and emotions. Comparing them to the characters in video games is not a good comparison at all. It is easy to separate fantasy from reality. To be unable to do so suggests a mental sickness... which proved my original point. --Bdor24 13:45, 6 January 2013 (EST)

I know you guys like guns and all ...

... but I really don't know why something hasn't been done about semi-automatic rifles yet. It's part of your culture I suppose, but not a part I'll ever understand, and while people have access to them there will be shootings of this nature. That's all. WilcoxD 21:53, 12 December 2012 (EST)

Good question, and the answer is a logical one: there are bigger causes of rampages by Young Mass Murderers than semi-automatic rifles. Why not treat the disease rather than the symptom? If the approach is to treat a certain type of symptom rather than the disease, then there will be no end to the infringements on liberty that result.--Andy Schlafly 23:55, 12 December 2012 (EST)
I think that there is not really any purpose for semi automatic or fully automatic weapons to be used or owned by the general public (except for historical pieces owned by collectors) as their capabilities are really only needed by law enforcement and the military. A semi or fully automatic weapon kind of takes the fun and skill out of hunting as it is much more satisfying to hit an animal right in the skull or heart, killing them instantly (it also causes a lot less pain, making the meat slightly better) than peppering the animal with dozens of rounds. Pretty much the only use of semi automatic weapons is for nefarious applications such as school shootings. Banning semi automatic rights would not be infringing on liberty as there are plenty of other suitable firearms that can be purchased that are much more suitable for things such as hunting or animal control. Would banning the ability to own an rpg or a grenade launcher (assuming they where already legal) be an infringement of personal liberty or a sensible decision ? I strongly believe that pretty much everyone would think it would be a very sensible decision. Dvergne 00:40, 13 December 2012 (EST)

Yes, the cause of these rampages is....Facebook!! With 800 million users, we can expect a lot more of these killings! -chicagotony

You don't get to 500 million friends... without making a few enemies.--MarkZuckerb 01:31, 13 December 2012 (EST)
I'm not American, but I'll contribute with my two cents. Personally, I agree with Dvergne. I am fully in favour of the "right to bear arms" for personal defense, but I believe a handgun is perfectly up to the task. I don't see why anyone with good intentions should possess an assault rifle. If I am not mistaken, I remember from my American Civilization classes that the Second Amendment was ratified somewhere around 1791. Back then, "arms" would be front-loaded muskets, which were very inaccurate and slow. I wonder if the Founding Fathers would have been in favour of an indiscriminate "right to bear arms" if assault rifles and grenade launchers had been available back then. --LeonardoR 02:01, 13 December 2012 (EST)
If you feel that way, the proper solution is to amend the Constitution. The Founding Fathers recognized circumstances could change, so they included a way to change the Constitution. If you want to change what the Constitution says, that's how to do it. You don't just go about creating new interpretations for existing law. Gregkochuconn 18:18, 14 December 2012 (EST)

"...and a hockey mask perhaps inspired by Hollywood horror movies."

Or perhaps inspired by Ken Dryden or Patrick Roy? MattyD 23:50, 12 December 2012 (EST)

Do you really think that might have been the inspiration???--Andy Schlafly 23:57, 12 December 2012 (EST)
Ever faced a really good butterfly goalie? Ever been stoned by a guy repeatedly when you've had any number of clear shots at the net? Enough to make you want to do something crazy. That seems as reasonable as your horror film analysis. MattyD 00:05, 13 December 2012 (EST)
If a poll were taken of the public about this, do you think many would find your theory to be "as reasonable" as the horror film inspiration?--Andy Schlafly 00:25, 13 December 2012 (EST)
I would be far more interested in what the police, criminologists and mental health professionals would have to say about it thatn I would a bunch of poll respondents. MattyD 09:42, 13 December 2012 (EST)

Andy, do you think he went out and bought a hockey mask, saying to himself "I want be just like Jason Voorhees, the killer from Friday the 13th," a movie that came out 32 years ago? Why not the "Scream" mask? Or Freddie Kruger? Mike Myers? I'll bet the hockey mask was on sale and he was mad at his favorite team. There IS a strike going on. - chicagotony

11/15 atheists featured on the "We are atheism" website had the Nerd/Skimpy beard/Wear black/Spiked or shaggy hair Syndrome. See: Essay: "We are atheism" campaign faces some challenges.
We know that Jacob Tyler Roberts was: wearing black at the time of his murder spree; had a skimpy beard; did not have short, neatly trimmed hair; and lived in a state with one of the highest percentages of atheists in the United States (Oregon). Oregon, in the year 2000, had the highest percentage of atheists of all the 50 states in the USA.[2] His Facebook page was described as bleak and he killed himself. And we know that atheists have higher rates of depression/suicide. See: Atheism and mental health.
The Barna Group found that atheists and agnostics in America were more likely, than theists in America to look upon excessive drinking as acceptable. See: Atheism and morality. Jacob Tyler Roberts said he liked to get drunk from time to time.
Roberts also said that there is no reason for another person to tell you what to do.[3] In a 2008 interview, Dinesh D'Souza declared: "Look at Satan's reason for rebelling against God. It's not that he doesn't recognize that God is greater than he is. He does. It's just that he doesn't want to play by anybody else's rules. This idea that it is better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven is Satan's motto, and it turns out that this is also the motto of contemporary atheists such as Christopher Hitchens."[4]
In addition, according to The Atlantic: "Maybe [the break-up] pushed him over the edge," Morrison said, adding that the last time he spoke with Roberts, his friend said he thought his girlfriend was pregnant." 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: sexual relationships outside of marriage; abortion; and cohabitating with someone of opposite sex outside of marriage. See: Atheism and morality Conservative 03:57, 13 December 2012 (EST)
This paragraph is totally incoherent. MattyD 09:42, 13 December 2012 (EST)
Is it incoherent or is the information merely displeasing to you?!!!!. Conservative 18:37, 13 December 2012 (EST)
Is your writing incoherent or displeasing? That's a very excellent question! I can only pick one, eh? I'm going to have to settle on displeasing. Though your writings seem to slip in and out of coherency, they are consistently displeasing, both in style and content. --DonnyC 21:02, 13 December 2012 (EST)
Jacob Tyler Roberts liked to play video games. [5] Plus, he liked "shooting" on his Facebook page rather than being the strong and silent type who keeps his liking of shooting a private matter. The evidence is mounting that he may have been an atheist nerd who was inculcating violent fantasies within himself! Conservative 18:37, 13 December 2012 (EST)

Jacob Tyler Roberts also never had a good relationship with his father.

Taken from: Causes of atheism: Poor relationship with father: Some argue that a troubled/non-existent relationship with a father may influence one of the causes of atheism. Dr. Paul Vitz wrote a book entitled Faith of the Fatherless in which he points out that after studying the lives of more than a dozen leading atheists he found that a large majority of them had a father who was present but weak, present but abusive, or absent. Dr. Vitz also examined the lives of prominent theists who were contemporaneous to their atheist counterparts and from the same culture and in every instance these prominent theists had a good relationship with his father. Dr. Vitz has also stated other common factors he observed in the leading atheists he profiled: they were all intelligent and arrogant. See: Causes of atheism

While there are many people who are able to make lemons out of lemonade and have adversity make them stronger, his fatherless upbrining is another indicator that Jacob Tyler Roberts may have been an atheist. Conservative 20:46, 13 December 2012 (EST)

"...fatherless upcoming" Cons.? AlanE 21:44, 13 December 2012 (EST)
Fixed edit above. Conservative 00:10, 14 December 2012 (EST)

Has anyone researched whether he had a Wikipedia editing account? I know that Anders Breivik was involved with Wikipedia. Thanks, Wschact 08:44, 14 December 2012 (EST)

Atheism drops England lower on the European standard of living ranking..."

Sorry am I missing something? I've just read the linked article and it makes no mention whatsoever of atheism, or religion. Not sure how you get the conclusion that atheism is the cause of the decline in UK standard of living when your own source clearly accounts for the situation quite differently: “The problem is that UK inflation has been higher than generally in the rest of Europe and obviously that has particularly squeezed purchasing power.

“Earnings growth in the UK has also been particularly low which has been a factor helping to keep employment higher but it also means that people’s purchasing power has been squeezed.

“Although more people are probably safe in jobs than would otherwise be the case, people feel less well off.”

Absolutely no mention of atheism there. NicosB 14:12, 13 December 2012 (EST)

NicosB, it looks like you are new around here, and you have a lot to learn. Here is one possible explanation: First, start with the fact that Christianity is a logical religion, because it is based on the most logical book ever written - the Bible. Atheism, being the opposite of Christianity, is therefore illogical. England is well-known to be a haven of atheism. Anything bad that happens in the country must be the result of atheists in government making illogical decisions or atheists intimidating lawmakers into enacting harmful policies for selfish or malicious reasons.
Another possibility, which is ignored by the liberal media in the UK, the US, and elsewhere, is that the simply being Christian and having a moral code, values, and a purpose in life leads to a better quality of life. Atheism has none of those. The increasing atheism in England means that less of the country is receiving the inherent benefits of Christianity. --Randall7 15:35, 13 December 2012 (EST)
"Atheism"="stop trying," particularly with respect to God. It's not a secret that atheism has taken hold in England. That results in a tendency for people there to stop trying.
People have free will to reject logic, and some people reject it all the time. But that doesn't change or negate the logic.--Andy Schlafly 15:44, 13 December 2012 (EST)
I wish you'd stop confusing soundness with validity.
  • If P: God exists, then Q: there is evidence of God's existence.
  • Not Q: There is no evidence of God's existence.
  • Therefore not P: God does not exist
We can debate all you like about whether not Q is true, and thus whether the argument is sound, but it's impossible to deny its logical validity. --JohanZ 16:43, 13 December 2012 (EST)
No, the above statements are not logical. They should say:
  • If P: God exists, then Q: evidence of God's existence may be found by those who look for it with an open mind.
  • If someone stops looking, then he cannot draw any conclusions about whether God exists.
  • Those who stop looking for God's existence are also more likely to stop trying in other ways, such as intellectual or athletic achievement.--Andy Schlafly 17:07, 13 December 2012 (EST)
I'm sorry, but it's impossible to deny the structural validity of modus tollens. --JohanZ 17:18, 13 December 2012 (EST)
No one is denying "modus tollens." In your application above, anyone who stops looking for evidence could mistakenly deny that God exists. Indeed, someone could falsely deny that it is raining outside simply by refusing to look.--Andy Schlafly 17:42, 13 December 2012 (EST)
Excellent. The atheist is therefore not rejecting logic. His argument is valid, but unsound as a result of his mistaken belief in the truth of not Q. I hope you agree that it's important to draw this distinction. --JohanZ 18:30, 13 December 2012 (EST)
If "P": evolution is true, then "Q": evidence of evolution "may be found by those who look for it with an open mind" Beardude1963 18:10, 13 December 2012 (EST)
In response to Johan, atheism is simply a decision not to look for evidence of God with an open mind. And that's why atheists tend to be underachievers in other fields that require an ongoing effort, such as sports.--Andy Schlafly 20:44, 13 December 2012 (EST)
But Andy, the truth of those arguments is dependent on the definition of terms and the validity of assumptions, not the validity of the logic. Logic can support almost any belief if the assumptions and definitions are chosen with that goal. KingHanksley 20:52, 13 December 2012 (EST)
No, the logic is clear and indisputable: declaring that God does not exist means nothing more than a decision not to look for evidence of God.--Andy Schlafly 20:59, 13 December 2012 (EST)
That's a separate argument with its own valid logical structure, (given its own assumptions) not a flaw in the logical structure of the evolutionist argument. It would be easy to structure an anti-God argument as
If God exists, then A
Therefore ~(God exists.)
But I cannot think of a valid assumption that would fit A (I do believe that God exists, but I believe this a matter of the validity of assumptions, not of a logic.KingHanksley 12:17, 14 December 2012 (EST)
At this time, the evidence is clear that over the long term that atheistic societies are unsustainable. Atheists tend to belong to the secular left. Socialism, liberalism and the sub-fertility birth rates of atheist populations are a toxic brew over the long term (Soviet Union, Eurozone crisis, aging populations with generous government benefits and smaller younger generations to support them, Sweden bringing in problematic Muslims immigrants with poor work ethics, degradation of the Protestant worth ethic over time although the cultural legacy of the Protestant work ethic can endure for awhile, etc). In the atheistic, communist Soviet Union they had a joke. The people pretend to work and the government pretends to pay them. Conservative 18:25, 13 December 2012 (EST)
So where does this leave Eric Kaufmann's theory? Rafael 12:51, 14 December 2012 (EST)
It reinforces it. Kaufmann points out that reproduction is more of a choice that it was historically in the past (By the way, I am pro-life). In a down economy, more secular people will choose not to have kids whereas highly religious people will be less likely to have less kids during a down economy. The Abrahamic religions don't have religious texts which say, "In a down economy, you should have less kids." Conservative 13:30, 14 December 2012 (EST)
It also moves the baseline somewhat because atheism still has the massively upper hand. Also, the rate of immigration will slow down as the British economy slows down, with more and more migrants moving on or going home.Rafael 15:45, 14 December 2012 (EST)
Rafael, you wrote: "It also moves the baseline somewhat because atheism still has the massively upper hand." Please clarify.
Vox Day, who predicted the 2008 crash, believes that an upcoming economic depression will be bigger and longer than the one in the 1930s and he expects it to last about 20 years.[6] If he is right then immigration might only see a pause.
The investment expert Harry Schultz, who also predicted the 2008 crisis, writes: “Roughly speaking, the mess we are in is the worst since 17th century financial collapse. Comparisons with the 1930’s are ludicrous. We’ve gone far beyond that. And, alas, the courage & political will to recognize the mess & act wisely to reverse gears, is absent in U.S. leadership, where the problems were hatched & where the rot is by far the deepest.”[7] The General Crisis of the 17th Century was a period of about 100 years of societal instability. I would think such a long period of instability if repeated in Europe would tend to bring global atheism/agnosticism into further disrepute and cause many people in Europe to reexamine their worldviews. Russia saw a religious revival after the collapse of the Soviet Union.[8]
In any economic downturn scenario, strongly religious populations would still have more kids than atheists/agnostics who have sub-replacement levels of births. Conservative 02:33, 15 December 2012 (EST)

Rafael: "In London, only 45 per cent of the population now define themselves as white British. Two years ago, the distinguished Oxford demographer Professor David Coleman suggested that, if immigration continues on a similar scale, the white British population throughout the country will become the minority after about 2066."[9] My guess is that this is why evangelicals are starting to challenge the Anglican establishment.[10] These immigrant evangelicals do not have any affinity to upholding Charles Darwin's legacy which is Darwinism. Conservative 02:53, 15 December 2012 (EST)

To clarify the upper hand comment, your posts suggest the economic downturn is the fault of growing secularism. The economic downturn will slow down immigration and the proposed growth in evangelism. So, it seems the growing secularism has affected the growth of evangelism but growing evangelism has yet to affect growing secularism.
Like I have said before, as long as Darwin's face is on our money, he's still winning.
I'm very familiar with the 55% figure, being a second generation immigrant myself working with lots of second generation immigrant kids. However, as we have discussed before, it's the second generation that starts to turn away from the faith of their fathers.
Re: predicting the crash of 2008. Most of the predictions I read back in 04-07 came from the hard left - the Socialist Workers Party and the like. Proof that the Truth has a monopoly on facts, irrespective of politics. Rafael 16:09, 15 December 2012 (EST) 11:56, 15 December 2012 (EST)

Rafael, the UK has a external debt to GDP ratio of 390%.[11] There was recently rioting in the streets in the UK.[12] Plus, the global economy and the Eurozone economy is fragile right now and this could affect England. This is does not indicate that the powers that be have a strong upper hand, but rather a unreliable hand at best in terms of its longevity. Generally, people are more apt to question things and ideologies when things are not going well.

In addition, evangelicalism is rising in the UK.[13] The UK evolutionist and agnostic Richard Dawkins has seen a big drop in his web traffic lately.[14] Evangelicals have more kids than atheists/evolutionists. See: Decline of atheism.

As far as the currency having Darwinism on it face, as long as the evangelicals and other non-Darwinist make steady gains over time, the currency having Darwin on it does not insure victory over the long term - especially when the future holds no guarantee that white, evolutionary racist will continue to be on the currency. Conservative 19:14, 15 December 2012 (EST)

Shooting at Connecticut elementary school

This is truly horrific. I'm a school teacher myself and I can't even start to imagine the nightmare that young kids and their teachers had to experience today.

I think your prayers (or thoughts) should be with the families affected by this tragedy.

EJamesW 13:43, 14 December 2012 (EST)

This is definitely the worst shooting (emotionally) in recent history. Thoughts are with the families of those children. I'll be hugging my girl extra tight tonight. -- Jeff W. LauttamusDiscussion 14:31, 14 December 2012 (EST)
Perhaps the answer is to make it compulsory for every student and teacher to bring a gun to school. Nobody would try anything if everyone was armed. It might sound absurd, but the opposite approach (trying to ensure no-one brings guns to school) is an abject failure. --DamianJohn 18:27, 14 December 2012 (EST)
You could ban high-powered assault rifles, which have nothing to do with self-defence. Just a thought... StaceyT 18:35, 14 December 2012 (EST)
DamianJohn's suggestion has merit with the modification of making it voluntary rather than compulsory. However, I think Switzerland did have compulsory gun ownership in the 1900s, and Hitler never invaded it. Cause and effect?--Andy Schlafly 18:46, 14 December 2012 (EST)
Switzerland still has compulsory gun ownership, as did Iraq under Saddam. I am sure there were political reasons as well, but the terrain is a bigger deterrent than a militia, just as the Pacific was a bigger obstacle to the Japanese in 1941 than armed civilians along the west coast of the US. Rafael 18:59, 14 December 2012 (EST)
No, not cause and effect at all. One, the Nazis stashed their cash in Switzerland. Two, the Germans judged that Switzerland would be too hard to conquer, being so mountainous. StaceyT 19:27, 14 December 2012 (EST)
I sincerely doubt that kindergarteners wielding Browing 9mm's would be a good idea. If you want to train and arm teachers—with firearms stored in a safe as opposed to on the teacher's person—that's another issue entirely. -- Jeff W. LauttamusDiscussion 19:17, 14 December 2012 (EST)
Sure, and when a madman starts shooting, the teacher runs to the safe place where the key is kept, unlocks the safe, loads the rifle and... oh dear. Much better not to allow people to carry weapons far more powerful that they'd ever need for self-defense in the first place. StaceyT 19:20, 14 December 2012 (EST)
There would need to be some pretty strict policies in place. Lines for anyone who discharges a firearm in school grounds and instant detention for anyone who discharges their firearm dangerously. I would think that we would need to put restrictions on the types of guns each age group would bring. You wouldn't want a 5-6 year old with anything stronger than a revolver, for example. --DamianJohn 20:11, 14 December 2012 (EST)

I was thinking more like a fingerprint to avoid fiddling with a key, and a rifle certainly wouldn't be ideal for self-defense purposes. I appreciate the sarcasm, but with proper training on use and safe handling, it could be a deterrent. -- Jeff W. LauttamusDiscussion 19:25, 14 December 2012 (EST)

In case everyone has forgotten, the South Ossetia school siege a few years ago shows what happens when you have a shootout in a school Rafael 19:31, 14 December 2012 (EST)

A new all-time low. Really, guns in schools now? StaceyT's scenario is worth examination. Where do you keep the guns and under what safeguards? Shots ring out and the teacher is supposed to leave the kids? I wonder sometimes if some of you have a sane bone in your bodies. Let's have all the kindergarteners bring Glocks to school with their snacks and crayons. Teachers can add combat training to the hours they spend grading papers and doing lesson plans. (Don't tell the union.) How about lunch? The cafeteria staff could be armed too. Kids in the hallways could be asked "where's your hall pass and your clip?" Instead of recess, third graders can do target practice.

Certain individuals on this site desperately try to blame video games, black clothing, Facebook, long hair, atheism, Hollywood, and liberals for these shootings; conveniently ignoring the one thing that is present in all of these mass murders - assault weapons. The fact is, we live in a violent country. It always has been violent. All of the ancilliary things you like to blame because you don't like them have little or nothing to do with WHY we have so much violence. It is a problem that won't be solved easily because it's a part of who we are but the first step is to make it more difficult, if not impossible for a twenty year old to get his hands on an Uzi. -chicagotony

And just what is causing the violence, Tony? How about a permissive, "anything-goes" attitude? How about a refusal under penalty of a lawsuit to bring God back in the classroom? How about a Hollywood culture that glorifies violence so a bunch of idiotic actors can make a million bucks? Just who is it that's running the show in what I've just mentioned? And how about your city of Chicago, Tony? Who's running the show there? I see a violent, criminal act up in the Windy City every day of the week, and what do the politicians you elected do? They just have to disarm the law-abiding citizens, don't they? Did they bother disarming the thugs?
It's your side of the fence that's the problem, Tony; it's your side of the fence that caused personal morals, responsibility, and accountability found in the Bible were thrown out of school; it was your side of the fence that made sure a "NO GUNS ALLOWED" sign was nailed to the side of that school building in Newtown; it was your side of the fence that made sure not a single teacher could defend herself when that thug and others like him hit. Don't you ever come here and lecture us again. Karajou 02:14, 15 December 2012 (EST)
US has about 9000 gun murders per year, UK about 40. UK has the same anything-goes attitude, even less God in the classroom than the US, consumes as much Hollywood as America. If the Bible has been thrown out of the school in the US, it's been set fire to in the UK. Your argument is very flawed. ----

My high school had a drill in case of something like this happening, one that seems pretty reasonable and should be broadly implemented. When teachers learn of an armed intruder, they do the following: 1)get kids under desks or against walls and generally out of sight from doors or windows. 2) close and lock all curtains, doors, and windows wherever possible. 3) shut off lights. I feel that something along these lines would be much more effective, and more easily implemented, than training and arming every teacher in a campus. For example, what do you do if there's a substitute teacher? do you train and arm all substitute teachers?--DTSavage 20:43, 14 December 2012 (EST)

The fact that schools, any school, should feel the need to have such a drill tells us there is something very rotten at the heart of America. Call me a liberal if you must, but at times like this I'm glad my family and I are in the UK Rafael 16:11, 15 December 2012 (EST)

Grand Theft Auto features "mall rampages"

No it doesn't. It features various sorts of criminal violence but nothing involving a shopping mall or resembling this kind of incident. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DGalore (talk)

Vice City and Vice City Stories both did if I remember correctly, you seem to be a liberal as you are loose with the facts. Dvergne 19:37, 14 December 2012 (EST)
Yes they do have a shopping mall, they have at least one in San Andreas. They also have hospitals that you can go "code silver" in on GTA IV, which I think is messed up; apparently it's okay to go postal in the hospital and kill sick people but it's taboo to go into a school. They're both equally taboo. They may not have missions involving mass-murder in such settings, but a quick search at YouTube reveals a good portion of players do it in free mode. DMorris 21:38, 17 December 2012 (EST)

Another shooting?

Is Facebook or a computer game at fault this time? Or maybe it's just too easy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RyanFT (talk)

Hey, did you see that there was a similar rampage in China!? 22 children stabbed. None dead. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RyanFT (talk)
It is shocking that the MSM doesn't cover or mention these issues. There are numerous human rights issues happening in China and the atheistic, liberal and communist leaders of china are just trying to cover it up. Dvergne 19:39, 14 December 2012 (EST)
Dvergne, 22 injured is better than >25 dead, you'd agree. US is a Christian nation and should have strict gun control laws to prevent this. ElectionDay 19:43, 14 December 2012 (EST)
The right to bear arms is a right, as it should be in all countries. Not having a right to bear arms and defend oneself is an infringement on ones human rights. (Not that the UN would care about that) Dvergne 22:46, 14 December 2012 (EST)

Video games and gun murders -- a question for ASchlafly.

There are roughly 9000 gun murders a year in the US, and 40 in the UK. Are we to conclude that people in the UK play way fewer video games, wear fewer masks, or do you think there may be another reason? MattyD 19:04, 14 December 2012 (EST)

There are fewer people in the UK and they don't have the gun crime like they do in many of the larger cities in the US (Like Detroit, LA and NY which are all Democratic areas I might add) Dvergne 19:15, 14 December 2012 (EST)
And that's because ownership of almost all guns apart from single-shot rifles and shotguns is illegal in the UK. StaceyT 19:21, 14 December 2012 (EST)
DVergne: there are roughly 1/5 as many people in the UK as the US, so they should still have closer to 2000 gun murders, not 40. "and they don't have the gun crime like they do in many of the larger cities in the US." That's just you restating my question -- why don't they? Also, they have big cities in the UK, and the most recent mass killings -- Aurora, Oak Creek, and today, all took place outside of large cities. MattyD 19:28, 14 December 2012 (EST)
So why do countries like Spain and Italy, where gun laws are a lot more relaxed, have an even lower gun homicide rate? There's something in the American psyche that isn't there in the UK mindset, guns or not. Rafael 19:30, 14 December 2012 (EST)

England has suffocating gun control. It does have lower gun homicides than in the U.S., but I think those rates were lower even before the U.K. imposed gun control. After gun control was imposed, other types of violent crime in the U.K. skyrocketed. Cultures similar to England (such as Switzerland) have widespread gun ownership and yet low amounts of homicides using guns.

Areas in the United States that have the strictest gun control (e.g., Washington, D.C. and Chicago) also have some of the highest rates of gun homicides.--Andy Schlafly 19:43, 14 December 2012 (EST)

Do they play fewer video games in the UK? Are masks less popular? Why are there 1/50 the number of gun murders, proportionally-speaking? That's a statistically significant difference. Is it the video games? MattyD 20:08, 14 December 2012 (EST)
Gun laws even in DC and Chicago are still extremely lax compared to anywhere in Europe. You really can't compare. Not even to Switzerland, where every adult male is required to have an army rifle (so as to be part of the militia, as envisaged by William Pitt the Elder and later by the writers of our Constitution) but powerful assault rifles are kept on military bases. StaceyT 20:33, 14 December 2012 (EST)
I don't know why Mr. Schlafly and others keep saying Chicago has strict gun control. SInce that Supreme Court case you only need $100, an Illinois Firearm Owner's Identification and an affidavit from a certified firearms instructor saying you took a safety course[15]. We don't have any of those requirements in Northwest Indiana. I wonder if the gun violence statistics for Chicago include Gary, Hammond, East Chicago, etc. Nate 10:53, 15 December 2012 (EST)

Liberal Censorship

I actually can't believe I'm agreeing with one of the more ridiculous points on this site, but I have found a rather blatant example of liberal censorship on a nominally-neutral news site. I've noticed a rather blatant pattern on the Ann Arbor news site, of comments disagreeing with the editors being quickly deleted. I am critical of conservatives who do this and so, out of fairness, I must be critical of liberals who do this. Usually they cite such comments as being off topic. Censorship of any kind cannot be tolerated. Please report on this. --JHunter 22:38, 14 December 2012 (EST)

Rampage/spree killers

Perhaps, Conservapedia should have an article on Spree killers. There might be less bickering once more information was known about spree killers.

Another wiki has a list of rampage killers: List of rampage killers.

It seems as if the first 2 rampage killers happened in Indonesia in the late 1800s with the first one happening in 1879 and I think Indonesia might have been predominantly Muslim by then.[16]

The first rampage killer in America was in 1927 via a school massacre in Michigan.[17]

The first rampage killer in Europe was in 1904.[18]

Semi-automatic guns became more widespread in use in the early 20th century post 1903.

Psychological view of rampage killers:

  • Key commonalities of rampage killers Parental rejection - prominent predictor. Older men - anger at societal rejection or anger at society or romantic rejection; adolescent men - teasing/bullying, rejection by peers, romantic rejection

Sociological view of rampage killers:

    • I’m honestly curious about a couple of things. One, why is it “disgraceful” to discuss gun control after a shooting, but okay to immediately blame the use of video games for killers’ actions? Two, why is it good to go to a shooting range and fire a real gun at images of people, while doing a simulation of the same on TV or the computer breeds violence? I ask these as someone who neither owns firearms nor plays video games. Politicizing tragedies is despicable, though such events also necessitate reflection and re-evaluation of one’s opinions. If we don’t learn from experience, how will we ever learn? So much of US violence and suffering can be traced back to socioeconomic inequalities and a lack of care for those suffering from mental illness. What could be more Christian than creating a society fully devotes itself to elevating the lowest and caring for the weakest? I’m sure we can at least agree on these basic principles, and build a better future together from these goals.--MRend 03:14, 15 December 2012 (EST)
Spot on, MRend--JasonKL 14:23, 15 December 2012 (EST)
'Like', MRend. StaceyT 15:14, 15 December 2012 (EST)
Wrong, wrong, wrong! When is the last time you heard about a killing spree happening in the Amish community done by an Amish person? Many Amish are avid hunters as can be seen here: But the Amish do not go on killing sprees. Now I am not Amish, but I do recognize the Amish are Christians. It is a spiritual/moral bankruptcy that is the main culprit in these killings. People from loving Christian families do not go on killing sprees. Conservative 15:28, 15 December 2012 (EST)
You need to deal with people as they are, not as you'd like them to be. There are a lot of sick people out there who want to hurt other people. In almost every other country, they take out their rage with sticks or rocks or knives and they might hurt a few people. In the USA, they're allowed access to military-grade weaponry, with desperately tragic consequences. It's time to enforce the Second Amendment: the right to bear arms (e.g. a single-shot rifle or handgun, carried openly) as part of a well-regulated militia. The Second Amendment does NOT confer the right to confer any particular type of weapon. Sorry if that hurts some of the old guys around here but I hope to grow up and raise my kids in a country that respects human life. StaceyT 16:25, 15 December 2012 (EST)

As far as dealing with the things the way they are, I doubt President Obama, his party and his gun control allies, are going to have much progress on their gun control agenda as long as conservatives and others believe that Obama and the Democrats and RINOS don't respect the U.S. Constitution and want to grow the size and the power of the state. As they say, only Nixon could go to China. Conservative 19:28, 15 December 2012 (EST)

Amish people, and most civilians, do not need semi-automatic machine gun type rifes. These rapid-fire weapons cause far more damage before anyone can hide, take counter-measures, etc. One can believe in the Second Amendment and also support reasonable limitations on semi-automatic weapons, particularly lethal bullets, and background checks. Wschact 20:38, 15 December 2012 (EST)
Trust in American government is at an all time low in recent years. The American government is printing a ton of money and racking up a ton of debt. Government purchases of deadly hollow point bullets for domestic use are at an all time high (they may be predicting civil unrest like in Europe/Greece). [19] Many are calling for an economic recession/depression in 2013 plus America has the fiscal cliff and debt ceiling heated negotiations coming up. American gun sales are at an all time high. In addition, many see Obama/Democrats/RINOS engaging in unconstitutional acts. Also, many think the government is engaging in excessive power grabs post 9/11 as far as domestic security and laws related to domestic security. If you think anything substantial is going to occur on gun control legislation in the present environment, I think you are fooling yourself. Conservative 06:30, 16 December 2012 (EST)

"which would not have happened if laws banning guns for self defense in public schools were repealed"

So we should let kindergardeners go to school with guns? Or let teachers have guns on campus? Say what you want about gun control everywhere else, but this tragedy did not happen because of a lack of guns on campus--JasonKL 14:20, 15 December 2012 (EST)

The tragic massacre never would have been attempted in the first place if teachers, administrators and others had a right to have guns in school. Due to laws banning guns in schools, they are defenseless targets for criminals.
How often does a massacre occur at a shooting range? Never.--Andy Schlafly 14:53, 15 December 2012 (EST)
I can't think of any massacres... but a couple years ago there was a woman named Marie Moore that shot her son at a shooting range and then turned the gun on herself. She thought that God had turned her into the anti-christ, so she killed her son to send him to Heaven... or something like that. Also, suicides at gun ranges are fairly common. But I think I understand the point you are trying to make. Basically you are saying that you think a criminal won't wade into an environment where he expects to meet with armed resistance. Yet gunmen have strolled right into police stations and shot up the joint. Such incidences can be classified as "suicide by cop". It's clear that perpetrators of mass killings typically expect to die during the commission of their crimes, so I'm not too sure that arming the planet would act as much of a deterrent. A guess you can make an argument that some responsibly armed citizen could limit the carnage by taking the killer out sooner. It's plausible, assuming the concerned citizen doesn't accidentally shoot innocent bystanders in the process. --DonnyC 15:24, 15 December 2012 (EST)

By Jove, he's done it again!

I see that the Connecticut police can stop investigating yesterday's massacre. "Sherlock" Schlafly has already cracked the case, presumably from the comfort of his armchair. It wasn't the long history of mental illness combined with access to guns, including an assault weapon---no, it was that old vile arch-fiend video games, once again sinisterly twirling its mustache with a dastardly cackle.

Never mind that it is extremely rare these days to find a young man who DOESN'T play video games, or that we have no idea what games the killer enjoyed. I've also come across disturbing information that suggests the killer, as well as most of the other young mass murderers of recent years, routinely ate at McDonald's and shopped at Walmart. WHY IS THE LAMESTREAM MEDIA SO RELUCTANT TO CONFRONT THESE HARSH TRUTHS?!?---eg

The authorities know by now whether 20-year-old Adam Lanza trained with video games for this tragic massacre. So why isn't the media asking about this basic issue?--Andy Schlafly 14:44, 15 December 2012 (EST)
Because unlike you, they're not leaping to conclusions. StaceyT 15:13, 15 December 2012 (EST)
I also had no idea that wearing khakis, button down shirts and a pocket protector made you a goth. Superb insight! --EdgarP 17:05, 15 December 2012 (EST)
In reply to Stacy, the authorities know what Adam Lanza was doing on his computer in the days and hours leading up to the tragic massacre. Why aren't the authorities telling the public, so that people can prevent these atrocities in the future?--Andy Schlafly 20:41, 15 December 2012 (EST)
A video game about violence is about as reliable a combat training tool as a video game about farming (yes, they exist) can help turn you into a competent field hand. It's also worth pointing out that most people who play video games aren't murderers- indeed if they were we'd all be neck deep in blood by now. When a video game "causes" a murder, it's because the player is disconnected with reality and overall mentally troubled. The issue, then, is not video gaming, but mental illness. Instead of attacking video games, infrastructure to care for people with mental illness should be set up or expanded. --CamilleT 21:42, 15 December 2012 (EST)

More information about Adam Lanza:[20]

  1. Nancy Lanza, his mother, owned five guns, and often took her sons to gun ranges.
  2. Adam Lanza had a developmental disorder, was a loner, was considered bright, but didn't always get along with other students.
  3. He was homeschooled for a while. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SharonW (talk)
Meaningless, obviously. What matters infinitely more is what Adam Lanza was doing on his computer the days and hours before he went on his killing spree. The authorities know the answer, but they won't say unless the liberal media ask, and they won't ask.--Andy Schlafly 22:55, 15 December 2012 (EST)
Video games have been used by the military to train new recruits, and desensitize them to killing.--Andy Schlafly 21:50, 15 December 2012 (EST)
When I watched that speech by Barack Hussien Obama, I noted that he didn't seem particularly shocked or concerned about what happened. I'm sure that he thinks that this is exactly what he needed to impose stricter gun control laws on the general population of america. The same sort of thing happened here in Australia when the port arthur massacre occurred however John Howard and the rest of the liberal and national party (despite the name they are our major conservative party) genuinely shocked and concerned about the event and the changes made means it is still pretty easy to get a gun licence and subsequently a gun if you have a genuine reason (ie kangarooing/pigging or a member of a shooting club) but has helped stopped a similar event. Dvergne 22:28, 15 December 2012 (EST)
Andy, while I can buy the logic behind the use of games to desensitize someone to killing, I can't buy their use as a training tool. I don't even think that their use in desensitization is accurate, but I can see the logic you are using to come to this conclusion. However, as someone who plays a broad spectrum of games, I can pretty firmly assert that the only game I've ever played that has given me some kind of skill set usable in a real-world combat situation would be flight simulators, and that only would give me a slightly better chance of not crashing a combat aircraft immediately than the next guy. The kinds of games most often cited in this sort of argument--the Call of Dutys and Battlefields of the world--do not teach firearm handling or even any semblance of tactics. While I expect you are going to cite Anders Behring Breivik's statement that he used Call of Duty as a training tool, all those games teach you is to push buttons. "Has played" does not equate to "uses as a training tool".--DTSavage 23:28, 15 December 2012 (EST)
I am pretty sure that the violence in these games does has an effect on the weak and inspires their rampages. There is proven links that people who street racing and hoon almost always play games in the need for speed series, grand theft auto (where you can gain extra money for running people over in street races), test drive unlimited series and the forza series. Dvergne 23:32, 15 December 2012 (EST)
I was pointing out that playing games does not make someone better at a given action in real life, not that they can desensitize someone to the consequences of their actions. Playing a game about Basketball does not, for example, make someone more likely to make their free throws.--DTSavage 23:37, 15 December 2012 (EST)
From my law brief to the U.S. Supreme Court on this issue in July 2010:
"Michael Carneal was 14 years old when he walked into a prayer group in Paducah, Kentucky in December 1997, and began shooting defenseless teenagers with a stolen gun. See Lt. Col. Dave Grossman and Gloria DeGaetano, Stop Teaching Our Kids To Kill 75 (1999). There were several tell-tale signs that this massacre was incited by a violent video game. For example, he never moved his feet during his shootings, and never fired far to the left or right; instead, he fired only once at each target that appeared, just as a player of video games maximizes his game score by shooting only once at each victim, in order to hit as many targets as possible. See id. The killer’s 'tally' for his eight shots was three dead and one paralyzed, all struck in the head or upper torso by a 14-year-old 'who, prior to stealing that gun, had never shot a real handgun in his life!' Id. In contrast, 'the average experienced law enforcement office, in the average shootout, at an average range of seven yards, hits with approximately one bullet in five.' Id. at 4.
Thanks for that information. However, I'm not sure how you get from a particular set of data: subject did not move his feet, subject shot at the head, firing only once to the fact that he picked up those skills from a video game. This could just as easily have come from books, television, film, or common sense. Moreover, the game you reference in connection with the Connecticut shooting, Dynasty Warriors, is a game about melee combat with weapons such as swords, spears, axes, et cetera. I do not understand how this would train someone to use a firearm effectively.--DTSavage 02:53, 16 December 2012 (EST)

Why is the mainstream media ignoring the knife story?

Probably because nobody was killed, and because it happened in China. I'd say they should cover it more because it provides a stark contrast between what a madman can do with a knife or with a gun.--CamilleT 16:54, 15 December 2012 (EST)

Because it happened on the other side of the planet. Because nobody died. Because the tragedy in Connecticut took up all the available airspace. And because they're not ignoring it. It took me all of 5 seconds to find CNN's story. The others are there, too, if you bothered to look. MattyD 17:46, 15 December 2012 (EST)
The inclusion of this story is completely bizarre. The only other place I have seen it mentioned is in Michael Moore's Twitter feed where it was quoted, quite effectively, to illustrate -- as Camille notes above -- the contrast between what a homicidal nut can do with a knife and with a gun. Nobody died in the Chinese attack. Would somebody have died if he had access to firearms? It seems likely. --Jdixon 09:40, 16 December 2012 (EST)

How bout a topic: Liberal Women Enabling Murderers. In the case of Lanza, his own mom Nancy Lanza gave him access to guns, weapons training, insane Kill Videos. In the case of Spengler who burned his house then killed, it was another Liberal woman bought his guns. Then a couple days ago, it was a Liberal black woman who killed the young girl, then went to the hospital and began slashing folks with her knife. Also lately, it was the young Hispanic woman who shoved the man to his death under the train. Notice how quickly the Liberal media erases these news stories, which show an entirely narrative than 'evil white men with guns'. Just imagine how many crimes are completely covered over by the Liberal media.

Hand guns

The claim on the main page that the shooter used hand guns and that his semi-automatic was in the trunk is incorrect based on what I'm reading.--IDuan 14:37, 16 December 2012 (EST)

Wait, I'm confused. Aren't most handguns semi-automatic?--DTSavage 15:07, 16 December 2012 (EST)
  • semiautomatic rifle. source--IDuan 15:21, 16 December 2012 (EST)


You can gripe that the authorities should be blaming video games, but to say that they shouldn't be conducting an investigation (interviews) is absurd. "Video games" doesn't answer the question why did the killer select that particular day or that particular school? "Video games" is just as satisfying an answer as "he was crazy/suffered from mental illness" - but unfortunately that latter answer might be the only one there is.--IDuan 15:26, 16 December 2012 (EST)

The meme of atheism and obesity.

On a hunch, I checked Google for "Christianity and obesity" and it comes up with over 5 million Google USA hits. This confuses me. Search link --KirkK 17:07, 16 December 2012 (EST)

I realize that you are likely a product of public school education and are taught what to think rather than how to think. So out of Christian charity, I will help you. The Gallup study indicated "Very religious Americans make healthier choices than their moderately religious and nonreligious counterparts across all four of the Healthy Behavior Index metrics, including smoking, healthy eating, and regular exercise." (see: Atheism and obesity). I did a Google USA search for "very religious Christians and obesity" and Google returned this message: No results found for "very religious Christians and obesity".[21]
"So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth." - Revelation 3:16
Remember, unlike the atheist PZ Myers, the biblical figures of Jesus, Peter and Paul were never fat! A biblical figure is a slim figure!  :) Conservative 17:50, 16 December 2012 (EST)
Conservative, what you are doing here is committing the No true Scotsman fallacy. Your argument that no obese christian is a "true" christian--or in your language, a "very religious christian"--is therefore fallacious.--DTSavage 17:55, 16 December 2012 (EST)
Conservative, like this? Search link two --KirkK 19:24, 16 December 2012 (EST)
Hong Kong Christians at Gateway Camp. In 2005, there were four times as many non-Western World Christians as there were Western World Christians.Is Christianity taking over the planet?

(photo obtained from Flickr, see license agreement)

I am not committing the "No true scottsman fallacy". Any churchgoer or any people who have visited various churches can tell you that people have different commitment levels to the Christian faith. Gallup certainly recognized this in their methodology.

But after all is said and done, Christianity works when you are committed to it in terms of addressing various human frailties in character such as slothfulness and gluttony. It worked for Paul! It worked for Peter! It works for Christian Asian ladies as can be seen in the picture to the right. It can work for obese people too! And barring a medical condition like a thyroid problem, it doesn't take a genius to lose weight. Simply expend more energy than you intake and you will lose weight.

People just need to hit the gym (or do home exercises) and push themselves away from the table. Conservative 21:25, 16 December 2012 (EST)

Let me break down your argument, Conservative. 1) If Christian not obese. Therefore 2) If Obese than not a "very religious" Christian, which reads as an equivalent to "legitimate" Christain. This could be a textbook example of the "no true scotsman" fallacy.
Let's see if we can put this in other terms. I'm going to rewrite your exact quote, modified to be about a non-religious subject, as a hypothetical. Here goes: So out of charity as a fan of Led Zeppelin, I will help you. The Gallup study indicated "Hardcore fans of Led Zeppelin make healthier choices than their bandwagon fans or non-fan counterparts across all four of the Healthy Behavior Index metrics, including smoking, healthy eating, and regular exercise." (see: non-existent link to "Not being a fan of Led Zeppelin and Obesity"). I did a Google USA search for "Hardcore fans of Led Zeppelin and obesity" and Google returned this message: No results found for "Hardcore fans of Led Zeppelin and obesity".
My argument would then follow, as yours does for Christianity, that no-one who is obese and claims to be a fan of Led Zeppelin is a hardcore fan.--DTSavage 23:55, 16 December 2012 (EST)
DTSavage, due to the fact that you are engaging in the strawman fallacy, you make it impossible for me to take you seriously. For example, suppose an obese person converts to Christianity. Barring a miracle, they are going to start out as an obese Christian even if they are a very committed Christian. Because you are not engaging in a serious attempt to dialogue about this matter, I am afraid I not willing to continue discussing this matter with you. I will share with an excellent sermon though entitled Winning requires discipline. It is always best to be a very committed Christian and not be lukewarm. Conservative 02:34, 17 December 2012 (EST)

Daniel Inouye

Sen. Daniel Inouye of Hawaii passed away today. He served in Congress for more than 53 years (since Hawaii was admitted to the Union), was awarded a Medal of Honor after losing an arm on WW2, and was respected by politicians on both sides of the aisle. Perhaps a Main Page recognition, or a news item, would be appropriate for recognizing his legacy. RonnieCole 19:49, 17 December 2012 (EST)

But what is his legacy??? If there is one, it's not obvious, other than his tremendous military service.--Andy Schlafly 20:08, 17 December 2012 (EST)
Inouye was part of the Gang of 14, which repudiated Democratic efforts to stall Bush 43's judicial nominee's. He also chaired the Appropriations Committee, helped lead the investigations into Watergate and Iran-Contra, and supported Taiwan over mainland communist China, among numerous other things. He conducted himself with dignity and never had a whiff of controversy about his dealings. Seems like a pretty robust Congressional legacy to me. RonnieCole 20:35, 17 December 2012 (EST)
Second longest serving senator in US History, and even the story behind his Medal of Honor citation is quite impressive--he managed to destroy two machine gun nests while severely wounded, while fighting in Italy in 1945. [1]--DTSavage 20:31, 17 December 2012 (EST)
It might be worth criticizing the "second longest serving senator in US History" claim to a "legacy". Many of us support term limits. The military service 70 years ago, was exemplary, but not why he's in the news now.--Andy Schlafly 20:36, 17 December 2012 (EST)
Are you seriously going to deny that this is a newsworthy event? The most important politician in Hawaiian history, a true war hero, has died, and you deny his legacy? The citizens of Hawaii wanted him in office and showed that by electing him to 2 House terms and 9 Senate terms. By all accounts he was mentally and physically alert until the last weeks of his life, unlike Republicans like Strom Thurmond who held on too long. People have received main page recognition for far, far less than receiving a Medal of Honor and serving their country as an elected representative for 53 years. RonnieCole 20:41, 17 December 2012 (EST)
Length of stay in office is something to criticize, not praise. Many people in Hawaii voted against his insistence to remain in office, and many who voted for him probably would have preferred a different Democrat.--Andy Schlafly 20:47, 17 December 2012 (EST)
He received over 69% of the vote in every election but one. Clearly he was well-liked by Hawaiians. If you are so supportive of term limits, would you have supported conservatives like Newt Gingrich and Jesse Helms cutting short their very long tenures in Congress? RonnieCole 20:58, 17 December 2012 (EST)
Yes, we're very much in support of term limits, for everyone, Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal. If it's good enough for a president, it's good enough for Gongress. Karajou 21:22, 17 December 2012 (EST)
Fair enough. I support term limits for president but not for Congress; iit's beneficial for districts and states to have Congressmen/Senators who are able to build up seniority and influence and gain good committee assignments, party leadership positions, and influence. RonnieCole 21:27, 17 December 2012 (EST)

He was a respected, conservative member of the Senate Select Committee that investigated Watergate. Wschact 04:05, 18 December 2012 (EST)

Stories like this, remembering anniversaries from the Second World War, the battle between liberals and conservatives for the soul of the Anglican Communion, foreign conservative reactions to Obama's re-election and the way forward for US conservatism - none of which is properly covered by the MSM - don't appear. Instead we get blogs about someone not reading a book because they have a cold, yet more predictions of the imminent destruction of Darwinism and some pretty far out op-ed pieces from Conserative News and Views. It's been discussed here and, bottom line, it's the way it is. Put up or go elsewhere. Rafael 10:45, 18 December 2012 (EST)
Rafael, I know that liberals often have a penchant for creating strawmen and that many Christian conservatives are patient and are willing to grind down false ideologies. You used the word imminent in relation to a certain blog making a prediction of the end of an errant ideology. Could you please cite some material to support your allegation.Conservative 12:53, 18 December 2012 (EST)
Conservative. we've had this discussion before. Here, at the cutting face, working with kids in Church groups and schools, working with schools themselves, working with other churches and faiths, the Question Evolution roject, although valuable, is having no impact at all. I wish I could share your optimism but it is simply not happening.
The debates about gay rights, gay marriage and women bishops, the reelection of Obama and what it means for social conservatives everywhere, the fading living memories of our greatest generations, these are live, important issues that engage young and old alike and are not covered by the MSM or Conservapedia.Rafael 14:37, 18 December 2012 (EST)
You declaring something is having no impact at all is still not compelling evidence. Conservative 18:36, 18 December 2012 (EST)
From where you stand, my evidence is not compelling. From where I work, the evidence of any impact on Darwinism and secularism/atheism is non-existent. Let's agree to differ.
However, none of that makes a difference to the relevance or weight of the main page. Rafael 19:32, 18 December 2012 (EST)

UK Darwinism is doomed

In London, 40% of residents are creationists. It is just a matter of time before Darwinism fades away in the UK. Evangelical Christianity is growing in the UK.[22] Conservative 21:50, 18 December 2012 (EST)

What's that got to do with Daniel Inouye?--CamilleT 22:15, 18 December 2012 (EST)
Nothing. Conservative, how about we carry on below? Rafael 07:48, 19 December 2012 (EST)



Adam Lanza & Homeschooling

Apparently Adamn Lanza was home schooled. Might be worth adding something about how mentally unsound or unsafe people shouldn't be homeschooling their children? Certainty a point worth discussing. JRegden 20:26, 17 December 2012 (EST)

Apparently Adam's mom considered but rejected homeschooling for him. Perhaps a tragic mistake, but hindsight is 20/20.--Andy Schlafly 20:37, 17 December 2012 (EST)
No she didn't. It looks like she pulled him out of school in 10th grade and he never went back. That's called homeschooling. Nate 21:11, 17 December 2012 (EST)
Then why was he reportedly in the school's yearbook, why did people know him in a school club, and why has no real homeschooler made a statement about knowing him?--Andy Schlafly 21:42, 17 December 2012 (EST)
The yearbook photo is from his sophomore year, the year his mother pulled him out of school. I have no idea what a real homeschooler is or why a statement from one would shed any light on whether this guy was homeschooled for his last 2+ years of high school which is what it looks like happened. Can you admit that groups you favor are capable of containing dangerous and creepy people? Nate 22:37, 17 December 2012 (EST)
Homeschoolers often talk with each other about effective methods, as well as doing things like bulk-buying necessary materials. I think that might be what Andy meant when he said a real homeschooler, someone who could corroborate. Hope that helps!--DTSavage 22:45, 17 December 2012 (EST)
In response to Nate, recognition of individuals in yearbooks is typically for seniors, not sophomores. And if Adam had been genuinely homeschooled, then there would be more evidence of it - curriculum and teachers used, comments by the mom about what it requires, participation in activities with other homeschoolers, comments by others about aspects of the homeschooling, etc.--Andy Schlafly 23:33, 17 December 2012 (EST)
Perhaps the liberal media are hiding these facts :P WilcoxD 00:21, 18 December 2012 (EST) (couldn't help it, sorry)
A joke, of course, but it is important to distinguish between the plausible and implausible.--Andy Schlafly 00:34, 18 December 2012 (EST)
"recognition of individuals in yearbooks is typically for seniors, not sophomores." What does this mean? If the yearbook photo is from his sophomore year it's from his sophomore year. And it turns out it's from his sophomore year, which is when his mom yanked him from school. I can think of a pretty good reason you're not going to get any comments from her. As for the rest, I don't follow you asking for all this evidence when you already have his aunt and brother confirming the fact so I can't comment. Nate 00:57, 18 December 2012 (EST)
Maybe some schools only have pictures for their seniors, but I know my elementary, middle, and high school each had a yearbook, and together had pictures for every student in the district K-12. I also know that in the case of one of my cousins in a different district, this was the same; and for two other cousins in two more districts, they only had yearbooks in high school, but that yearbook had pictures of all high school students. So while I don't have any actual statistics, and I know (perhaps unlike Mr. Schlafly) that anecdotal evidence doesn't actually prove anything as far as statistics are concerned, there are definitely schools that have pictures of non-seniors in their yearbooks, and Adam Lanza's school was one of them. User:SJCootware 2:08, 18 December 2012 (EST)

SB 452

A bill requiring the institutionalization of those with mental illness is all well and good, but how do you propose to cover the associated costs? Residential care (that is, in a residential facility) for a mental health patient costs upwards of 500$ per day (and that's on the very low end); most of these patients lack health insurance or immediate family capable of or willing to pick up the costs. Short of locking these people in jail on the basis of their illness, which would be wildly unethical, there is no way of providing care for them. Remember, it was St. Reagan who de-institutionalized the mentally ill (under the mistaken presumption that the free market would care for them); the irony is so concentrated here that it is almost nauseating.--JHunter 01:33, 18 December 2012 (EST)

Mental health policy is largely a state law matter. Most states closed down their large hospital facilities in the 1960s and 1970s in a shift toward community-based mental health care. However, as states face massive budget cuts (perhaps made worse after the US falls off the fiscal cliff) funding for community-based mental health has been inadequate. If you are a single, working mother with a teenage son confronting mental health issues you may not find the needed help from either the school system or the community-based mental health system. Wschact 04:49, 18 December 2012 (EST)

Guns and Video Games

I'm confused at this website's position. Not suprisingly, following this tragedy, there was a move by many to call for stronger gun control laws. This website has responded to this call by denying that guns are to blame, and instead suggesting that evil is to blame. All of this is easy to understand and straightforward, however, the website continues by seeming to suggest that video games are the cause of the tragedy. Does this mean that video games are the cause of evil? I don't think that could be what the suggestion is, however, it seems like the only logical reading of this message. I can't believe that a website that calls itself CONSERVApedia, would endorse censorship of video games, when that would do nothing, like gun control, to address the underlying problem of evil. Clarification would be welcome. --Krayner 08:42, 18 December 2012 (EST)

The above comment from one of our own editors points out the problem with the current Main Page. Rather than reflect (and promote) the content of Conservapedia, it promotes two blogs which are located elsewhere and which are beyond the editorial control of Conservapedia. Conservative News and Views discussed "evil" but Conservapedia is promoting that blog entry on our main page. It is time to consider restructuring the main page. One approach is to establish a three person committee to filter and edit main page items. If there is a disagreement about an item, they can vote to decide the issue. Because this would be a lot of day-to-day work, I propose that people would serve on the committee for 9 months, with staggared terms. So, every calendar quarter, the membership of the Committee would be different. People would volunteer and Andy would select among the volunteers. Nobody would be selected to serve a second time until all volunteers had a chance to serve once. I would welcome the thoughts of others on this plan. Wschact 09:06, 18 December 2012 (EST)
"...the current Main Page... promotes two blogs... Conservative News and Views..." And what's the other blog? Are you talking about that blog that was created by the editor we aren't aloud to talk about? The editor that attracts more vandals, parodists and justified critics than any other? The editor whose anti-social behavior is painfully obvious to even the most casual observer? The editor whose articles read like the fevered dream of a mad man? The guy who locks every page he touches? The grand debate master who is too cowardly to debate anyone? Is that the blog you're talking about, or are you talking about the nutters over at CMI? --DonnyC 15:33, 18 December 2012 (EST)
I think it is a good idea. I nominate users Conservative, Terry and Andy as the three on the committee. They would do a very good job in keeping to the ethos of the site. Don't know about rotating committee members though. There isn't really anyone else who could do it as well as those three. --DamianJohn 16:41, 18 December 2012 (EST)
Actually, a vote should be conducted for this kind of a position. brenden 16:59, 18 December 2012 (EST)

In response to User:Krayner, most conservatives do oppose protecting violent video games under the Free Speech Clause. Violent video games are conduct, not First Amendment speech.--Andy Schlafly 16:51, 18 December 2012 (EST)

Conservapedia is a group collaboration. Its reputation depends on the good judgment of each member of the entire team. I would not oppose having Conservative, Terry and Andy as the initial three Committee members. However, rotation of membership is very important. So, at the end of March, one person would rotate off the Committee, and Andy would pick a replacement to serve for 9 months. At the end of June, a second person would rotate off, and Andy would pick a replacement. The Main Page is too important to be an individual project. By constantly changing the Committee membership, people would be reluctant to abuse the position, because they would have to interact with other editors when it becomes their turn to be on the Committee. The goal is a "big happy family" mode of interaction replacing an "entitled us vs. a griping them" mode of interaction. Thanks, Wschact 17:55, 18 December 2012 (EST)

Wschact, how is putting Andy, Terry and _________ in charge of the main page any different than now? Since this is Mr. Schlafly's site, I can't really imagine him ceding the editorial direction to others. Let us not forget that Andy has absolutely no trouble "trimming" content from the main page that he finds objectionable. So you can safely assume that everything that is on there is because Andy wants it to be. Whether that be links to articles that don't support the headline or the latest yawn-inducting "news" from the QE! Campaign. Andy's blog. Andy's main page. Flying cats and all. --DonnyC 19:29, 18 December 2012 (EST)

There are many interesting points raised on this talk page, but many do not get a thoughtful response. I view this as a symptom of burnout. If we had three people sharing responsibility for both sides of the Main Page (rather than one person taking each side separately) and the membership of the committee changed every three months, we would have both a better product and a better process. Even the best volunteers can't keep up maximum effectiveness over a long period of time. Rotating Main Page duties provides clear benefits to CP and to our volunteers. Thanks, Wschact 23:54, 19 December 2012 (EST)

London Creationists

The Main Page states that 40% of London residents are creationists. This seems rather unlikely - almost half of all Londoners are creationists, in a country where 2/3rds of the population have no affiliation with any church? The cited article makes no mention of such a statistic either, and the only appearance of the number 40 in that article is that "40% of Anglicans attend evangelical parishes", which is a rather different measurement, and is national, and not regional. Perhaps a small edit to the Main page is appropriate? DTwinkson 20:36, 18 December 2012 (EST)

I can't imagine many Anglicans would be creationists, at least not how the term is used here. --DamianJohn 21:28, 18 December 2012 (EST)

Conservative, how about here? The evidence you use to show how British Darwinism is being hit hard serves only to prove three of my points.

First, it sadly shows how weakness of some of the material presented instead of news on the main page. You link to the Question Evolution blog which links to an Anglican website which links to an article from the Economist. The Economist article does NOT say that 40% of Londoners are creationists. It says that 40% of people who attend Anglican mass do so in evangelical parishes. Let's do some number crunching with this information and other, easily verified, data.

The Anglican Church estimates around 1 million people attend their masses every Sunday. The population of the UK is around 60 million. The proportion of the British population attending an Anglican mass on any given Sunday is generously around 2%. 40% of 2% is 0.8%. So, using your own source and assuming uniform attendance, we get a figure of 0.8% of Londoners are creationists.

That seems low to me.

Let's say that London, with its higher concentration of evangelical immigrants, will see a higher proportion of creationists within and without the Anglican communion. Let's say its out by a factor of three. 2.4% of Londoners believe in creationism. That works for me. Of course, that doesn't take into account the original Economist article's report that it's the vicars, not the congregations, who have raised the evangelical banner.

That said, instead of news or directing people to interesting material within this site, we have a link to a blog which makes mountains out of pimples.

I owe you thanks, however, for putting up - albeit third hand - a news article which shows the battle for the soul of the Anglican Communion being slowly won on the ground. We need more of this, and analysis of what it means for politics and society in the US and beyond, instead of more hyperbole and numberfumbling. Rafael 08:12, 19 December 2012 (EST)

Thank you for the explanation Rafael. Given that we are a trustworthy encyclopedia, and given that there is a demonstrable (and egregious) factual error on the main page, I would suggest removing the item "United Kingdom Darwinism is doomed". GregG 10:42, 19 December 2012 (EST)
Rafael and others,
re: London and evangelicalism
I am afraid you are engaging in wishful thinking and may have engaged in sloppy reading as well. So I have a few questions.
1. Did you examine this polling data which was cited in the article: If not, why not? Because if you didn't read it and don't have a solid refutation of it, you are wasting everyone's time.
2. Did you read these news stories carefully: and
You have engaged in much time wasting complaining and merely offering your personal opinions without offering relevant and substantive data when it comes to biblical creation belief and the UK. Conservative 17:26, 19 December 2012 (EST)
The study you cite shows that although 17% of UK residents are creationists, this figure goes up to 23% for Londoners. I don't know how or why you are claiming 40%. At least not with a straight face. --DamianJohn 17:55, 19 December 2012 (EST)
Well, I've read all the cited articles now too and can't see anything that supports the claim "In London, 40% of residents are creationists". In fact, the virtueonline article says "... That is against a background of overall decline; he thinks the number of regular worshippers in the Church of England will have fallen to 680,000 by 2020, down from about 800,000 now and just under 1m a decade ago", so it seems to me all they are saying is that Creationists have more relative, not absolute influence. Perhaps you'd like to show us the direct quotes, Conservative. WilcoxD 19:43, 19 December 2012 (EST)
Thanks. The front page now says 40% of the people in London are not evolutionists. The Darwinists have had over 150 years to gather evidence and they still can't convince more than 60% of Londoners that macroevolution happened. Conservative 20:04, 19 December 2012 (EST)
I'm not so sure you can infer that from the data mate. Dvergne 20:08, 19 December 2012 (EST)
Ah, I see the problem. I said above that one couldn't make the claim "with a straight face". Clearly you are not even trying to be intellectually honest. Perhaps the front page should say 77% of Londoners are not creationists? --DamianJohn 20:31, 19 December 2012 (EST)
I can understand you being upset that 40% of Londoners are not Darwinists - especially given that fact that global creationism is exploding in adherents. And let's not forget that non-Darwinists include both creationists, intelligent design adherents and undecideds. So some of those 77% of non-creationists Londoners could be intelligent design adherents. In addition, more and more creationists and non-Darwinists will no doubt immigrate to London, England and to the rest of the UK. Plus, atheists/agnostic Darwinists have sub-replacement levels of fertility while highly religious creationists have above replacement levels of fertility. UK Darwinism is doomed. Conservative 21:59, 19 December 2012 (EST)
Upset? I'm not bothered in the slightest. Do you get upset when people believe differently to yourself? I hope not, because that is a burdensome way to live. I only ask for the strength to change what I can, the tolerance to accept what I can't and the wisdom to know the difference. I know that nothing I or you post on the internet will make the slightest bit of difference to who believes what in London, so no I'm not upset. . --DamianJohn 23:55, 19 December 2012 (EST)

In 2006, the BBC reported: "Furthermore, more than 40% of those questioned believe that creationism or intelligent design (ID) should be taught in school science lessons." [23] Yet, evolutionism is still forced down UK students throats. Conservative 14:50, 20 December 2012 (EST)

You're right, Conservative, I am wasting everyone's time. I discussed our disagreement with my priest and a couple of pastors at our inter-Church tea and cake party on the 23rd and all three suggested it's silly to continue trying to convince you. On a moral level, I've tried enough to explain. On a practical level, they suggested I spend the time promoting Christianity and traditional values where it counts. Despite its own assertions, The Question Evolution blog has zero impact on the work we do in London, it neither helps nor hinders whether it is right or wrong. Rather than spend my time correcting a blog which is irrelevant to our work with other churches, other faiths and young people, I should spend my time making a difference. So, Conservative, the last word is yours. It would be a sin for me to continue arguing with you. Rafael 12:03, 26 December 2012 (EST)

Robert Bork

In case you hadn't seen it, Robert Bork has died at the age of 85 [24]. Maybe this death will be given front page recognition. RonnieCole 12:52, 19 December 2012 (EST)

Robert Bork was a great man, and his name is in the Best New Conservative Words. But this website is not an obituary section of a newspaper.--Andy Schlafly 12:57, 19 December 2012 (EST)
I understand that, but many other people have received main page recognition upon their passing. After all, the right side of the page says it covers what the MSM isn't and after a quick check of some MSM news sites this is the top story on none of them. RonnieCole 13:17, 19 December 2012 (EST)
I agree with RonnieCole. We should recognize the passing of influential conservatives. Although it is fine to have a few "shocking" items to grab readers' attention, current obituary items also draw reader attention. It would be best if we wrote a biographical article on CP and then linked to it. Sometimes the crop of current obituary articles makes writing a good biography article easier. This would both improve CP's coverage and would make the Main Page more interesting and inviting. Thanks, Wschact 00:01, 20 December 2012 (EST)

Lest we forget, as a Federal judge Robert Bork ruled that it was no breach of civil rights to require female employees to undergo sterilization to keep their jobs. Maybe some of us are okay with that, but I cannot think this is the general view. --TonySidaway 14:39, 20 December 2012 (EST)

Bob Bork was nominated by Reagan to the Supreme Court. He was derailed by Ted Kennedy (of Chappaquidick murder infamy), and because Reagan did not adequately promote Bork's nomination. As a consequence the closet-liberal Dave Souter was wormed into the High Court. Think back a bit further to Gerald Ford appointing the most Liberal justice of all time, Stevens, to the Court. Remember that closet-liberal Gerald Ford had railed for decades "Impeach Justice Douglas" --with billboards and bumper stickers. Gerald Ford entire career was in promoting himself as a 'staunch conservative'. But when his own time came --and he was tragically inserted as President (where John Connally had actually been Dick Nixon's choice), then Gerald Ford chose a hyper-liberal Stevens to the High Court. Remember too that it was Nixon blunder appointees who turned out to be Liberals who legalized Abortion.

"Tweeting" Hate

It is truly disgusting. I am curious though, why no mention of the hate spewing from Fox News calling the death of Sen. Daniel Iouye a "blessing", "one down many more to go", "step forward for America", "one less liberal", etc. etc. etc. --JDrag 16:25, 19 December 2012 (EST)

And you do have direct evidence of this? Karajou 16:54, 19 December 2012 (EST)
[25] Try that link. Most of them are still there. --JDrag 17:05, 19 December 2012 (EST)
First, the reporter who write the story did not say anything against him. Second, the hate is restricted to the comments section, and that can be divided into two groups. Group 1 are the liberals, and once more there is hate coming from their mouths against the "vast right-wingers," ad nauseum, which is very, very typical of that side of the fence. Group 2 are those that side with Republicans or conservatives, and what you call hate coming from that side of the fence is directed against an individual sitting in public office for too long. Daniel Inouye took way too much money from the American people; he supported massive amounts of pork-barrel spending; he sided with Obamacare; he sided with Democrats who demanded additional spending; he refused to sign any piece of legislation which demanded the Congress live within their means like the rest of America has to do. When people like that are in public office for way too long, they have go to go.
If that is hatred, JDrag, then make the most of it. Karajou 17:22, 19 December 2012 (EST)
" directed against an individual sitting in public office for too long." So that justifies thanking God that he is dead? Comments sections and reactions and tweets are amongst the same type. The "hate" coming from your Group 1, is mostly disgust for the awful reactions towards a heroes' death. Listing things you did not like about his tenure in public service does not justify pleasure in his death. --JDrag 18:21, 19 December 2012 (EST)
And where is there a pleasure by anyone from my side of the fence celebrating his death? Is what you call "hate" from the right really hate against an individual, or is it anger against an individual's policies? Perhaps it is the left who cannot stand the fact that we are against the pet-projects championed by people like Inouye at our expense. He did not represent myself or anyone else outside Hawaii, yet he voted to strip away our money so his party could go on a spending spree without accountability. That is called taxation without representation.
There's also something you forget about yourself, and liberalism in general: it's the "do-as-I-say-and-not-as-I-do" attitude, and the idiotic racism that goes with it. Daniel Inouye joined the United States Army in 1943, knowing full-well that friends and family were held captive in U.S. Government authorized "relocation camps". Why? The government didn't like Japanese-Americans at the time. Who put them there? Franklin Delano Roosevelt. What political party was he? Democrat.
Which political party did Inouye join? Democrat.
JDrag, don't come here spouting your holier-than-thou righteous liberal attitude. You will fail every time. Karajou 18:51, 19 December 2012 (EST)
I apologize if I came off as "holier-than-thou." An article on the front points out hate from the left, I merely pointed out hate from the right. Maybe we were raised differently but after someone dies, saying "one less liberal", is a despicable stance to have. I'm not sure why you are rattling off attacks directed towards liberals. Just because I pointed out that both sides spout hate does not mean I am liberal. One does not have to be blind to their own party, to truly be a member of it. To answer your question.. the pleasure is coming from those in the article I linked. If you don't call posting that you are glad someone is dead, hate, than I guess I don't know what hate is. --JDrag 19:52, 19 December 2012 (EST)

Headline Phrasing

"Conservative Tim Scott becomes the only black in the U.S. Senate ... and he is Republican"... really? the only black? Why are we using language from 50 years ago? JRegden 00:38, 20 December 2012 (EST)

This is actually a non-issue; while I use the term African-American, there is debate within that community as to which term is more appropriate. Gallup poll on the subject--IDuan 01:53, 20 December 2012 (EST)
Perhaps it would have been better to use "a black man," but that is not politically incorrect; the AP Style book actually teaches us to use "black" instead of "African-American" in these situations. -- Jeff W. LauttamusDiscussion 16:28, 22 December 2012 (EST)

Formal Proposal to Establish a Main Page Committee

Perhaps editors have missed my proposal because it did not have a separate section heading, but I formally propose that a three-person committee be established to maintain the Main Page including responding to suggestions made on this page. Andy would appoint members of the Committee and each member would serve for nine months. Initial terms would be staggered so that a new person would be appointed at the end of each calendar quarter (March 31, June 30, October 31 and December 31.) No person would be reappointed until all of the qualified interested volunteers had a chance to serve once. All three Committee members would have responsibility for both sides of the Main Page. If the three members disagree, any issue would be settled by majority vote of the three. I believe this proposal would prevent volunteer burnout and would reinforce that the Main Page is a part of the collaborative effort here at CP. I would encourage all active editors, including Andy, to respond below to this proposal. Thanks, Wschact 14:11, 20 December 2012 (EST)

I agree, but I feel that the panel should be democratically voted, on franchised users (ie, users here for more than 3 months, and with more than 100 edits, for example). Otherwise, the panel could just be an extension of autocracy. brenden 15:30, 20 December 2012 (EST)

Federal debt under Obama

The right side of the Main Page says, "Obama’s Now Borrowed More Than All Presidents from Washington to W." The referenced article says:

At the close of business on Jan. 20, 2009, when President Barack Obama was inaugurated, the national debt stood at $10,626,877,048,913.08, according to the Treasury. At the close of business this Thursday, it stood at $16,323,083,449,604.98. That means the debt has increased $5,696,206,400,691.90 during Obama’s presidency.

If the main page is saying that Obama borrowed more money than all prior Presidents combined, that can't be true because Obama's $5.6 trillion is less than the $10.6 trillion in place when he started. Perhaps the Main Page should say "Obama's Now Borrowed More Than Any Other President from Washington to W." because Obama's debt is now higher than W's. Thanks, Wschact 14:34, 20 December 2012 (EST)

"Blizzard blasts upper Midwest." Global warming???

Considering that it's a few days before Christmas and it hasn't snowed yet or even dipped much below freezing, yeah, I'd say "global warming." [personal attack removed]. MattyD 15:22, 20 December 2012 (EST)

Video game discussion

[26] User:SJCootware 15:28, 20 December 2012 (EST)

Interesting article. The fact that the link between video game playing and real world violence might be a correlative rather than causative is hardly a revelation though surely. National Review is a bit of a discredited neo-con rag these days isn't it? I doubt this article's points will get the attention they deserve. --DamianJohn 17:33, 20 December 2012 (EST)
This is a tough one. I personally don't think there's a link between video games and violence in adults. I recently edited the video game article to reflect that popular Youtube Christian Shockofgod (who is frequently cited on this site) is an avid FPS video game player. And he seems to be a normal, socially well-adjusted, bible-believing Christian. This site's owner seemed to disagree and reverted my edit within minutes. --DonnyC 20:17, 20 December 2012 (EST)
DamianJohn's observation about how the National Review is mostly neoconservative rather than conservative is spot on, and shows a great deal of political insight by DamianJohn. The Fox News Channel is not likely to criticize video games much either.
As to my reversion of Donny's edit, the Youtube Christian is not cited here for his expertise about the effect of video games. The Norwegian massacre demonstrates that adults can be destroyed by playing violent video games just as kids can be.--Andy Schlafly 21:39, 20 December 2012 (EST)
If having more actual firearms makes us safer doesn't it follow that having more violent video games should also have the same effect? CastorPollox 00:58, 21 December 2012 (EST)
Unlike atheists who play Grand Theft Auto, Shockofgod only plays video games where good triumphs over evil. For example, he plays WolfenStein and battles Nazi evolutionary racists. Schutzstaffel! Mein Leben! Conservative 08:23, 21 December 2012 (EST)
Mr. Schlafly, you're correct, Shockofgod isn't an "expert" on video games. Just like the perpetrators of the Norwegian and Sandy Hook shootings would not be classified as video game experts either. I included him as a counterexample to your hypothesis that violent video games negatively impact the mental health of those who play them. --DonnyC 12:44, 21 December 2012 (EST)
But that is not a meaningful counterexample to a tendency of an activity to cause harm. There may be a few smokers who live to be 100 years old, but they are not counterexamples to the fact that smoking is a very harmful activity.--Andy Schlafly 12:54, 21 December 2012 (EST)
OK, let me try this then... South Koreans spend far more time and money playing video games than America does. South Korea has painfully strict gun control. South Korea doesn't suffer from an epidemic of mass shootings. --DonnyC 13:30, 21 December 2012 (EST)
If I might contribute to this discussion, not only do I agree with DonnyC regarding South Korea, I've played Grand Theft Auto games (in the past, quit because I no longer cared to play them), and while I'll happily admit it portrays many acts of violence and depravity and allows the player to perform many of the same, I never had the slightest urge to reenact any of the events depicted onscreen in real life and I am frankly horrified at the idea anyone would. Further, I believe violent video games are possibly correlative to individuals with violent tendencies, but according to the Bible, one chooses to do evil in spite of knowledge of what is good, so while it is almost certainly a bad influence on those who are inclined towards violence, I don't believe video games or anything else can be blamed for the choice to kill, as again, the Bible says that all must be accountable for their own sins. PatrickMarion 13:58, 21 December 2012 (EST)PatrickMarion
Activities themselves can tend to promote good or evil. Gambling, for example, is prohibited in most areas of the country because it tends to promote evil, degrade the players, and overall bring the worst in people. Violent video games are even worse in some respects.--Andy Schlafly 21:29, 21 December 2012 (EST)
That's a good point Mr.Schlafly, but as you said, it promotes, but does not forcibly compel an action against one's own will. Also, on the point of gambling, it's interesting you bring that up, as I remember that after death and resurrection of Jesus, before the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, the disciples "cast lots" to decide who would take the place of the late Judas Iscariot. Casting lots refers a game of chance (i.e. - a gamble), but in this case, the activity itself was neutral, as the outcome could have been good or bad. In this case, the outcome was good, so the activity led to a positive. I personally find gambling (as in, for money) is distasteful for similar reasons to yourself, but I have flipped a coin to make a decision or two in my time (once to decide what brand of potato chips I wanted to buy), and I would not consider that form of gambling (i.e. - deciding an action by casting my lot on a "heads" or "tails" decision) to be an act promoting evil. PatrickMarion 21:40, 21 December 2012 (EST)PatrickMarion

"it's snowing in the Midwest"

Let the NOAA draw you a picture. Full report here. MattyD 15:49, 21 December 2012 (EST)

MattyD, global warming skepticism climbs during tough economic times.[27] Sorry Charlie, when a U.S. and global recession hits which shouldn't be too far away,[28] global warming hysteria is going to take a back seat and jobs, jobs, jobs is going to rise in importance in American's minds and in the minds of many people in the world. Even the liberal leaning United Nations thinks there are significant risk of the global economy going into recession. [29] Conservative 16:15, 21 December 2012 (EST)
By the way, many of the protestors in Occupy Wall Street movement were leftist pro-global warming alarmists. The Occupy Wall Street protests had 7 cases of hypothermia. [30] You have yet to show that the benefits of a warmer planet outweigh the costs. Please show us that the “Medieval Warm Period” from about 1,000 A.D. to 1,250 A.D. was not a time of greater prosperity and abundance than its previous period. Conservative 17:02, 21 December 2012 (EST)

Maybe the burden of proof should be on you, Conservative... since EVERYBODY agrees that global warming - may it be the cause of whatever - is a bad thing for us.Philipp

Philipp, the burden of proof is now on you to show us that EVERYBODY agrees global warming is bad for us. Karajou 17:51, 21 December 2012 (EST)
Although I do not agree with their old earth views, this Stanford University website article says warmer is richer when it comes to global temperatures and points out the Medieval Warm Period was great for Europe: Warmer is richer - Economic history Conservative 18:35, 21 December 2012 (EST)

If everyone supposedly opposes global warming, then why do so many people move to Florida? Cold weather is far more dangerous than warm weather is.--Andy Schlafly 19:47, 21 December 2012 (EST)

Wow. Did you learn to reason like that at Princeton or Harvard? I'm guessing Harvard. MattyD 10:46, 22 December 2012 (EST)
Temperatures above 35 degrees can be quite harmful to human health as well and you can't just put on more layers like you can in cold weather Dvergne 21:06, 21 December 2012 (EST)
Conservative, is your position that global warming is not occurring? Or that it is occurring to our benefit? Your argument isn't very coherent in this section. And the burden of proof does fall on those arguing that global warming exists Phillip, no matter how many people believe it. They are claiming that something exists and it is up to them to provide evidence, just as the burden of proof is on theists in the creation debate. Maybe they have provided enough evidence, maybe not, but my point is that the burden of proof is on them.--JasonKL 00:04, 22 December 2012 (EST)
Jason, setting aside the age of the earth issue, why do you have a problem with what this article indicates: Warmer is richer - Economic history? Is you complaint about my alleged incoherency due to you being too lazy stubborn/close- minded to read the article? I have found that often the facts don't matter to liberals and so they are reluctant to examine evidence contrary to their views. Conservative 00:30, 22 December 2012 (EST)
Where did the assumption that I am liberal come from? Or that i have a problem with the article? I pretty much took your side on the second half of my post, the first half was merely pointing out that if global warming doesn't exist, it can't be occurring to our benefit. Your point about the occupy protesters suffering from hypothermia suggests that you are providing that as evidence that global warming doesn't exist. Your next few comments suggest global warming might be beneficial to our economy. In the context that these comments were posted in, you are contradicting yourself--JasonKL 01:09, 22 December 2012 (EST)

JasonKL, this topic doesn't interest me as I am not worried about global warming and I don't think it proponents are going to gain much more political traction in light of the economy. It was a mistake for me to interject. Conservative 04:59, 22 December 2012 (EST)

Social Media Integration

I have read from quite a number of sources that integrating social media links and the like into a site is the best way to increase viewership/sales/readership. Anyway I did a bit of searching on google and found that there are mediawiki extensions that allow for social media integration so people can tweet links to various pages they like, use reddit links, post the links on facebook and digg the links as well. I found a mediawiki extension called: Extension:AddThis ( that allows for a number of different social medias to be included all at once. I was wondering if this could be installed into this website ? Dvergne 21:44, 21 December 2012 (EST)

That sounds like a great idea. Unfortunately, I don't think the site's owner is a big fan of social media. On the subject of extensions... I also noticed that some wikis allow you to embed videos directly into articles. Now, that would be a great feature to install. --DonnyC 22:05, 21 December 2012 (EST)
Social media is a euphemism for gossip, which is contrary to the principles on which this website was founded. Our unique visitor traffic is growing 20-30% annually without being distracted by social media. We're here to teach and to learn. I'm not sure what social media's goals are, but it's not education.--Andy Schlafly 22:20, 21 December 2012 (EST)
I think you hit the nail on the head. Social media is nothing but a distraction (and a complete waste of time IMHO). Especially to school-aged children trying to learn. On the other hand, a few carefully selected videos or sound files can be very educational. I know when I was kid watching animated Bible stories was a lot more appealing to me than reading the difficult to understand (at that age) Holy Bible. Adding the ability to embed videos is something you might really want to think about Andy. --DonnyC 22:35, 21 December 2012 (EST)
I agree that a large percentage of the social media traffic is gossip and the like, however debate and other such desirable things also form a large chunk of the social media traffic. The extension I recommended is basically just a way for people to tell others that they like what they have read so they "share" that article to their friends and followers, who will also probably come and read it. 20 to 30% YOY growth is pretty good although social media integration could easily double it if it is implemented correctly. TerryH's news and opinion site seems to have pretty decent social media integration so a comment from him about it would be much appreciated as it seems the articles there get a reasonable number of "sharings". Dvergne 22:43, 21 December 2012 (EST)
I just searched conservapedia and twitter in google and the first result was the twitter account of User:Jpatt who is tweeting stuff that appears on this site and has quite a good following. A comment from him would also be much appreciated. Dvergne 22:48, 21 December 2012 (EST)
Speaking of Twitter, it could be used by Conservapedia as an alternative "Recent Changes" viewer, which would be especially useful if the actual Recent Changes pages cannot be viewed due to technical difficulties. Also, another Twitter feed could be opened up to provide updates on new content of interest to conservatives and members of Conservapedia, which would be educational and informative. I understand your feelings about social media, Mr.Schlafly, but it is used by lots and lots of people (including a member of this wiki as stated above), and while the medium itself is not evil (it's merely software, much like MediaWiki), how it is used is another story, and if it could be used for a good purpose (i.e. - promoting Conservapedia and it's viewpoints), then perhaps a tool many use for ill could be used for good instead. PatrickMarion 23:06, 21 December 2012 (EST)PatrickMarion
A comment from User:Conservative would also be much appreciated as it seems that this user knows quite a few people in the blogosphere. Dvergne 05:15, 22 December 2012 (EST)

There is good evidence supporting that Wikipedia has manipulated Digg and other social media. Would CP be playing into their hands if we installed the integration feature? Would the popularity of various CP features and pages be made more plain and subject to misinterpretation? Wschact 20:27, 22 December 2012 (EST)

As I said before, integrating video from external sites poses a security risk, which could result in the leaking of sensitive information about Conservapedia/Conservapedians. For social media, it might be appropriate to create some social media outlets, but for a purely technical purpose (Ie a twitter RC feed, a tech blog, etc). brenden 22:28, 22 December 2012 (EST)

Female athletes of the year

I'm surprised you take that award seriously given that Michael Phelps was awarded the male prize. RyanFT 18:38, 22 December 2012 (EST)

Hah, it turns out he went to a public school too!! RyanFT 18:59, 22 December 2012 (EST)
The mainstream media say they are pro-women but when it comes to coverage if sports in which women participate in, their coverage is pretty shocking if it exists at all! Dvergne 19:07, 22 December 2012 (EST)
Yes, just look at the coverage that the United States press gives to netball. Wschact 20:29, 22 December 2012 (EST)
Netball, historically, has been covered fairly well by public television here Down Under. However, it is a sport where top - um - dog has nearly always been Australia or New Zealand. AlanE 20:42, 22 December 2012 (EST)
With respect to coverage I think that comes down to the fact that male athletes can generally run faster and hit harder than their female counterparts. As such it is "more exciting" to watch, therefore more people watch it and care about it, therefore it gets more coverage and the athletes are better paid. It's a social thing, not a media thing, and I'm not saying it's fair, it just is as it is. RyanFT 21:11, 22 December 2012 (EST)

Dead on, Ryan. Always has been, always will be (at least until mud-wrestling reaches the Olympics.) Some sports are fairly equal - gymnastics, tennis, swimming and the track athletics for instance - but we can't get away from the fact that the fellas do it better, faster, higher, sweatier; and make for better television. It is also affected by whether your country has a chance of winning. (What would have happened if America had reached the final four of the Rugby World Cup?) AlanE 21:34, 22 December 2012 (EST)

I would say america must be pinching players and coaches from other countries. Dvergne 00:34, 23 December 2012 (EST)
If the Olympics include women basketball teams, and spectators find basketball more action-packed than netball, is the only reason to promote netball that a few officials have their careers/livelihoods depending on it? Why not just start an Australian Women Professional Basketball League and the talented women netball players can easily make the switch? It would give Australian and New Zealand a chance at Olympic medals and world recognition. It would reward athleticism and talent. It would kill off the Victorian notion that it is "unladylike" to run, jump, work up an elevated heart rate, and sweat. Wschact 08:44, 23 December 2012 (EST)
Some girls prefer netball - simple as that. Their schools have teams and they continue from there. As far as Australian women's basketball teams are concerned - we have our own "Women's National Basketball League". Australia's "Opals" have been ranked in the top three in the world for years. Bronze in London because we ran into the Yanks in the semis. Silver in Beijing. And if you follow the US WNBA at all you would be aware of Lauren Jackson. Cheers AlanE 14:18, 23 December 2012 (EST)
Occasionally you get people saying that we put too much emphasis on women's netball which is a very minor sport in the big scheme of things, with really only NZ and AUS any good at it. They say we should switch our empahasis to women's basketball instead because it is a bigger sport worldwide. Personally I think that is bunk because we have a rich netball tradition and why should we care what others think? Do Aussies in Melbourne care that AFL is a minor sport, or US care that they are basically the only ones who care about NFL? No they don't, and they shouldn't. Having played a bit of mixed netball, and my fair share of basketball, I can honestly say that I enjoy playing netball more than basketball, although basketball would get the edge in terms of a spectator sport. The fact that players can only move in designated zones in netball makes it a real team game, if there is one weak link in the team, it is hard to compete. IMO opinion this compares unfavourably with basketball, particularly in the lower levels, where one or two 'stars' can carry a team, even if the rest are weak. As grades get better this effect probably lessens, but at the end of the day sport should be primarily about enjoyment, fitness and learning life skills rather than winning gold medals/entertaining couch potatoes. In an case this is all academic, I can't see girls stopping to play netball any time soon, there is a 24 court complex just 5 minutes from my house and it is pandemonium getting around on Saturday morning during winter. --DamianJohn 19:12, 23 December 2012 (EST)
Well said, Damian! AlanE 21:29, 23 December 2012 (EST)

NHL player's union.

You don't know what you're talking about, Schlafly. This is a strategic move on the part of the players to facilitate filing an anti-trust lawsuit against the owners. Both the NBA and the NFL unions threatened a similar move during their recent labor disputes, and that helped force owners to make a deal. Nobody important is saying that this is about the players not wanting to have a labor union and collective bargaining. It's a legalistic thing. Did you not read any labor law at Harvard? MattyD 17:32, 23 December 2012 (EST)

Your link confirms that the NHL players are likely better off without a union ... as are many other workers. The decline of unions is one of the biggest stories of 2012.--Andy Schlafly 18:11, 23 December 2012 (EST)
Whatever you say, Schlafly. MattyD 20:24, 23 December 2012 (EST)
Mr. Schlafly temporarily dissolving by filing a "disclaimer of interest" is a fairly common union tactic during stalled collective bargaining talks. The NBA players pulled this maneuver last year and reformed their union less than 2 weeks later. Dissolving the union opens the players up to legal options that are not possible under arbitration. --DonnyC 19:16, 23 December 2012 (EST)

Mitt Romney didn't have desire to be president

Romney didn't want to be president This is why a candidate like Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum should have been picked in the republican primaries as now the world is stuck with Barack Hussien Obama and his failed and rubbish policies. Dvergne 20:01, 23 December 2012 (EST)

Where original story was apparently fromDvergne 20:03, 23 December 2012 (EST)

10 reasons why 2013 will be a BAD year for Darwinism

These days we not only should look into the future, but try to reflect on the things which have passed. So, what did the Question evolution! campaign achieve in 2012? (Hard data would be preferable) --AugustO 02:17, 24 December 2012 (EST)

Real Reason Behind Sandy Hook

I would like to say that while I agree there were almost certainly some evil influence at work in the soul of Adam Lanza that encouraged him to murder innocents, I have to disagree with several points with of the article linked on the main page:

Mankind, Foster says, always looks for excuses “outside himself,” but he never wants to face the “demons in his own soul.”

Okay, fair enough, I can agree with that, for the most part. Aside from brainwashing and insanity, I'm a firm believer that good and evil are conscious moral choices oneself is ultimately responsible for, so unless Adam Lanza was brainwashed or truly unable to form rational thought (neither of which I believe were the case), he knew full well what he was doing.

“If Lanza’s mass murder of innocents is given a pass, what about the thousands of Nazis who killed six million Jews? Did all of them have autism too? Or is the Holocaust not prima facie evidence of the very existence of evil?” Foster asked.

This is a fallacious comparison argument. It's saying that if people believe one horrific massacre can be excused on grounds of autism, an even greater massacre can be excused by the same logic, which does a poor job of conveying a rational conservative argument. Even the autistic can know right from wrong, and autism has never been an accepted legal defense in a court of law in regards to determining the accountability of someone for their actions, at least to my knowledge. It's also playing on a hot button topic like the Holocaust and practically daring anyone to disagree with the rest of viewpoint expressed, since almost anyone but a racist and/or a holocaust denier would argue the point from an emotional standpoint. As for me, the Holocaust was an undeniably evil act, and so were the actions of Adam Lanza, but neither event was given a pass on grounds of mental illness to this point, and autism would never be an acceptable excuse for either act of evil to any rational person with even the slightest knowledge of right and wrong.

As police seek a motive, the London Daily Mail reported Dec. 19 that a former classmate claimed Lanza “worshipped the devil and had an online page dedicated to Satan.”

Fine. If we can see the webpage created by Lanza and it indeed glorifies Satan, then this is good evidence. Otherwise, it's unsubstantiated hearsay.

It’s the root cause we need to get to, and that’s the brokenness of humanity. The only way evil can be restrained is by God and the teaching of religious and Judeo-Christian values.”

In an article posted at, Movieguide Publisher Ted Baehr wrote that by removing God, the Bible, the Ten Commandments, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit from society, including the mass media and the schools, “We are raising generations of people with no faith in God or Jesus and, hence, no moral conscience and no self-control.”

Two problems with this. First, private schools and home schools are not run by the state or federal government, so they have no restriction on religious instruction. Public schools are run by the state and funded federally, and according to the original drafting of the Constitution, the church and state are to be separate, and compelling Judeo-Christian values be taught in a public school regardless of the religious choices of the individual students or their parents (or the teachers and faculty for that matter) is a circumvention of that original intent of the Constitution, and I don't believe that forcing public schools to violate the Constitution is legally or morally lawful. Second, what about other religions or non religious people who still adhere to most conservative beliefs? Are they unsavable simply because they don't believe in the Judeo-Christian tradition despite otherwise supporting conservative beliefs?

“It’s not just (Lanza’s) heart; it’s not this one man – Adam – that we should be looking at,” Foster says. “It should be ourselves. What do we allow our children to sit in when we send them to a public school that doesn’t teach them moral principles? What kind of character do we have as a people, not just looking at Connecticut, when we allow a government to steal our wealth and money and allow babies by the millions to die in abortion, and when we allow the basic moral precepts of Christian civilization to be destroyed in a couple of generations?

Agree with the intent, disagree on some of the points. I object to schools being forced to violate the original intent of the Constitution just to make any one religion happy, regardless of their beliefs. I do agree with the point on abortion and the government, but the part about Christian civilization dying, that's just incendiary rhetoric. Besides, if America was an inherently Christian civilization, then why does it have freedom of religious expression as a basic right, even for that which is not Christian as long as it does not violate anyone else's personal liberties nor break any other state or federal laws, a right which has existed since the passing of the Constitution?

"Young earth creationists are happier than atheists during Christmas."

The item in question links to a blog post. The sources "cited" in the blog post [31], [32], [33] appear to have nothing to do with creationism or evolution. This is why citing blog posts for items on our main page is not the wisest proposition. GregG 10:08, 24 December 2012 (EST)

The author of the blog in question erroneously treats the terms "religious", "Christian" and "Young Earth Creationist" as being synonymous on a fairly regular basis. --DonnyC 15:12, 24 December 2012 (EST)
Greg, you are going to have to show that there is no connection between Darwinism and agnosticism/atheism/materialism. Since Charles Darwin was an agnostic/atheist that is going to be difficult for you. Also, the public schools teach a materialilistic type of evolutionism.
In addition, I can show that evolutionism spawned Evolutionary racism, Social Darwinism and eugenics, but you can't show me what joyous songs or joy Darwinism has spawned.
Furthermore, you don't have any real convictions about your Darwinism or you would have accepted the debate offer to debate the 15 questions and have your evolutionistic complaints broadcast to thousands of people. You are merely a whiner. Conservative 15:31, 24 December 2012 (EST)
Donny, untrue. Evolutionism and atheism are both religions. See: Atheism is a religion and Darwinism is a religion Conservative 15:34, 24 December 2012 (EST)
I was hoping that this sort of thing would be given a break over the season of goodwill. C'mon Cons.- tell us how you are going to enjoy Christmas. It's getting on for eight on Christmas morning here and all the family are up and happy and enjoying ourselves as we prepare for the Day - love and laughter - never had a Christmas here that wasn't joyous. AlanE 15:53, 24 December 2012 (EST)

And a joyous Christmas to all! AlanE 15:53, 24 December 2012 (EST)

In response to Conservative:
  1. The burden of proof is on the person who makes the assertion "[y]oung earth creationists are happier than atheists during Christmas." Neither the author of the blog post nor User:Conservative (to the extent that these are not the same person) has met this proof, as I demonstrated above. Therefore, the story should be removed from our main page until such proof is provided.
  2. This is irrelevant and ridiculous (like asking how many joyous songs mathematics has spawned). I can assure you that the Bible has been used to support a wide variety of positions that are no longer consistent with today's moral understanding (slavery, segregation, bans on interracial marriage), but this doesn't discredit the truths about our faith that the Bible teaches us. Likewise, the truth of whether evolution has occurred has absolutely nothing to do with how some people use (or abuse) evolutionary theory.
  3. To be honest, there are far more important things to me than having a complete understanding of how life came to be: these things include mathematics (which I am studying at graduate school) and my Catholic faith. Even if a debate hosted in the chatroom of one of the participants could be fair, I don't see how it would be very productive, as my formal training in biology is limited to two years of high school education (the second of which was an AP course). Further, Shock and I both agree that God is the ultimate author of everything. Finally, despite the fact that they are not well-posed and in some cases have nothing to do with the theory of evolution, the questions have been answered to my satisfaction both on this wiki and elsewhere: [34], [35] [36] and [37], and [38].
GregG 16:32, 24 December 2012 (EST)

GregG, this is yet another example of your [ad hominem attack removed], liberal brand of Catholicism inspiring mere whining instead of cogent thought.


1. The article in question cites resources (see related articles section) which clearly demonstrate that a leading young earth creationist website does defend the true meaning of Christianity.[39] In addition, it cites a study which indicates the those who believe in the true meaning of Christmas are happier. Atheists are not advocates of the true meaning of Christmas. This is an example of you being illogical and engaging in the fallacy of exclusion.

2. You are obviously in denial that Darwinism has clearly inspired misery. You don't see too many followers of Social Darwinism ringing bells for Salvation Army donations. See also: Evolutionary racism and Social effects of the theory of evolution

3. You excuse that you don't have time to understand the creation vs. evolution issue is uncompelling. You are an insincere evolutionist poser if there ever was one. You seem to have plenty of time to whine about criticism of Darwinism. Conservative 21:23, 24 December 2012 (EST)

I'm not a YEC, but I'm pretty happy. Merry Christmas, everybody :D brenden 22:38, 24 December 2012 (EST)

Brenden, anecdotal Darwinist claims from homosexuals are not compelling as Darwinists have not shown themselves to be trustworthy. For example, Charles Darwin claimed to be a theist 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, but he was actually a materialist (which is a type of atheist) at the time according to his private journals. See: Atheism and deception.

In addition, the Gospel of Matthew declares: "For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark."(Matthew 24:38). In short, there is a way which seemeth right to a man but in the end it leads to destruction. (Proverbs 14:12). No doubt there were unrepentant and at ease homosexuals in Sodom before fire and brimstone rained down on that city. Conservative 00:06, 25 December 2012 (EST)

Really??? The "creationist Noah"? Wow. NOAH was a simple man, selected by god to do what he wanted, HE HAD NO IDEA HOW THE THINGS HE WAS TO TRANSPORT CAME ABOUT. Even if you believe in this metaphore literally you cant claim that Noah was a creationist. Philipp 19:44, 27 December 2012 (EST)

Your statement is utter nonsense, Philipp. The Bible records that Noah had a conversation with God about the coming flood, the ark, the animals, and so on. Noah knew exactly who God was; Noah knew who his ancestors were, and knew they were created by God. If Noah knew all that, that makes him a creationist. Karajou 20:03, 27 December 2012 (EST)

Dawkins Tweets About Sex Abuse "Those people who think sexual abuse is a black-or-white, all-or-none category are incapable of clear, logical thought."

He gets berated for his own illogic. Merry Christmas, all! ZetaSonic 23:16, 24 December 2012 (EST)

Richard Dawkins is the one who is incapable of clear logic as he is a promoter of both atheism and evolution! Dvergne 09:43, 26 December 2012 (EST)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas to my fellow Conservapedians! May we all honor the birth of the Christ today. DMorris 08:36, 25 December 2012 (EST)

The Pope

'...the liberal media criticize the Pope even at this special time by saying he is "elderly" and "frail"' - He is elderly, and he looked very frail last night. Why should people not say so? BryanF 09:41, 25 December 2012 (EST)

And Joe Biden is an old man too ... but no liberal paper ran a headline saying how old he looked next to Paul Ryan in their debate.--Andy Schlafly 14:38, 25 December 2012 (EST)
Benedict XVI is also 15 years older than Vice President Biden, too. GregG 18:21, 25 December 2012 (EST)
So the media should not refer to the Pope as elderly because they did not say that about Biden? Is that your logic? BryanF 22:36, 25 December 2012 (EST)
The fact that the Pope is elderly should not be the lead headline in an article about his Christmas Mass. The liberal media never treat liberals that way. Ever seen this headline: "elderly Nancy Pelosi insists on keeping her leadership position"???--Andy Schlafly 01:52, 26 December 2012 (EST)
Mr. Schlafly, I can only assume that the article has been changed since your original post. As it reads now, the words "elderly" and "frail" do not appear anywhere in the headline. In any event, I don't ever remember seeing such a disparaging headline about Nancy Pelosi... but, I do remember the time that NBC News' Luke Russert challenged Pelosi on her age, and her leadership position within the Democratic party leadership [40] [41] [42].--DonnyC 12:50, 26 December 2012 (EST)

The "headline" didn't say he was frail or elderly. The article mentioned it. It also said he "never hesitated" and "his homily was a firm call..." Isn't the fact that a "liberal" newspaper put out an article about Christianity, Christmas and the Pope worthy of praise? We always talk about Christianity being taken out of society - seems like something we should be happy about given the time of year. Merry Christmas! Knoefel

The Pope is nearly 86 years old, and he did not look well at Christmas Mass. That is newsworthy because the health of the Pope is of concern to over a billion Catholics worldwide. In contrast, the Vice President is just 70 and appears to be in good health, and Rep. Pelosi is almost 73 and also appears to be in good health. Their age and health status are not newsworthy at this time. Not everything is conservative versus liberal. There are other considerations in determining what gets covered by the media. BryanF 17:44, 26 December 2012 (EST)

Jesus vs. Richard Dawkins - Jesus is the winnaman!

Richard Dawkins pic.jpg

Richard Dawkins, it doesn't pay to be naughty during Christmas! Jesus smites you again! Repent and be saved![43]

2013 is going to be even worse for evolutionism![44] Don't say creationists didn't tell you so when it happens! Conservative 23:35, 26 December 2012 (EST)

Nice article, I'm sure that the web traffic to dawkin's site will soon drop to such a level that it will be too low to accurately document! Dvergne 01:54, 27 December 2012 (EST)

Is this punishment for how the Obama Administration pushes the homosexual agenda on Russia?

No. As the article states, it's part of a ongoing tit-for-tat between the U.S. and Russia: The bill is retaliation for an American law that calls for sanctions against Russians deemed to be human rights violators and part of an increasingly confrontational stance by the Kremlin against the West. --AugustO 15:58, 27 December 2012 (EST)

AugustO I'd like to direct your attention to something known as Betteridge's law of headlines. The law states: "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no." --DonnyC 16:30, 27 December 2012 (EST)
When the Obama Administration says "deemed to be human rights violators," it can be liberal code words for "doesn't accept the homosexual agenda."--Andy Schlafly 18:05, 27 December 2012 (EST)
Mr. Schlafly, in this case the human rights violations in question apply to a very specific case and have nothing to do with the homosexual agenda. This move by Putin is in response to the U.S. passing the Magnitsky Act which requires sanctions against all parties "...responsible for the detention, abuse, or death of Sergei Magnitsky." --DonnyC 20:31, 27 December 2012 (EST)

The tough minded and traditional Russians will never accept homosexuality in the near term.

Even the atheist John Lennon recognized that Russian women and Eastern European women were a better option than engaging in male homosexuality:

"Well the Ukraine girls really knock me out They leave the west behind And Moscow girls make me sing and shout That Georgia's always on my my my my my my my my my mind

Oh, show me round your snow peaked Mountain way down south Take me to your daddy's farm Let me hear your balalaika's ringing out Come and keep your comrade warm I'm back in the USSR Hey, you don't know how lucky you are, boy Back in the USSR Oh, let me tell you honey." :) Conservative 21:12, 27 December 2012 (EST)

Pray, tell me, why is Russia still lagging behind the many countries that do support homosexuality, including the United States, Canada, much of the European Union, etc.brenden 16:54, 28 December 2012 (EST)
Actually, that was Sir Paul McCartney, not John Lennon. The song itself was just a play on the Beach Boy's California Girls. --JDrag 00:07, 28 December 2012 (EST)
That's interesting ... McCartney wasn't more original than the Beach Boys with that song? You're probably right.--Andy Schlafly 00:19, 28 December 2012 (EST)
Sir Paul had written it while away while the Beatles were in Rishikesh, India, learning Transcendental Meditation. Mike Love, from the Beach Boys, was with them and Sir Paul was inspired to write a Beach Boys parody. Mike Love had assisted him in making it sound more Beach Boys. In Sir Paul's own words,

"I wrote that as a kind of Beach Boys parody. And "Back in the USA" was a Chuck Berry song, so it kinda took off from there. I just liked the idea of Georgia girls and talking about places like the Ukraine as if they were California, you know? It was also hands across the water, which I'm still conscious of. 'Cause they like us out there, even though the bosses in the Kremlin may not. The kids from there do. And that to me is very important for the future of the race."

--JDrag 00:44, 28 December 2012 (EST)

And now Russia is more conservative than liberals "back in the USA." Perhaps God does have a sense of humor.--Andy Schlafly 21:27, 28 December 2012 (EST)
The atheist John Lennon performed Sir Paul McCartney's song without protest. :) Of course, that must mean that he approved of the song. :) Just admit it. The Beatles thought that Russian and Eastern European women were more far superior to male homosexuality. :) Conservative 16:31, 29 December 2012 (EST)


Felidae? --AugustO 17:52, 29 December 2012 (EST)

Thanks! --AugustO 18:26, 29 December 2012 (EST)

Abiogenic oil?

The main page currently covers a story promoting the hypothesis of abiogenic oil creation. This hypothesis isn't taken seriously anywhere in the world. It once was popular in the former Soviet Union, but even they gave up on it when it failed to provide any productive value. The organic origin of oil theory is widely accepted in and out of the oil industry namely for one reason... the theory accurately predicts where oil can be found. Now you can argue with the assumptions that geologist make about the age of the Earth and such, but it's hard to argue that they're not good at finding oil. --DonnyC 19:56, 29 December 2012 (EST)

I have noticed that whenever a person/liberal starts off an argument with "isn't taken seriously anywhere in the world. It once was popular", he generally doesn't have a sound argument. Generally speaking, people lead off an argument with the strongest punch. See: appeal to novelty fallacy and ad populum fallacy.
See also: Oil not always a ‘fossil fuel’ and The Canadian Oil Sands: a different story
Lastly, historically whole fields/industries followed practices which were later found to foolish or inferior due to human stubbornness.[45] It wasn't due to logical and evidence that they were slow to accept better methods. Conservative 22:42, 29 December 2012 (EST)

Where were you, Cons.

Flat bang in the middle of a major vandal attack you stick your head above the parapet for a second - (+5) - and disappear again. There were many of these raids that Judy and I with our junior status could not revert.

And may I use this forum to ask that Judy be given blocking rights. AlanE 22:49, 29 December 2012 (EST)
I tried to pitch in by reverting some edits but "skipcapchta" slowed me down too much. --DonnyC 23:25, 29 December 2012 (EST)
(Reverted edit by User:Conservapedia)
(I saw the edit you removed so will still say what I was going to say before you removed it):... which was... I will then expect you to put in the good word for Judy. Please. AlanE 00:56, 30 December 2012 (EST)
My apologies, I was gone as well. brenden 01:07, 30 December 2012 (EST)
yes Brenden; but you didn't turn up and duck away again, then explain yourself, then revert the explanation, then...whatever he is going to say next. You don't have to apologise any more than any other editor with ban rights who happened not to "be there" at the time. I just happened to be the one who turned up at the time. What I would like is for Judy, who I found with her back against a tree, swinging lustily (sorry Judy) against the foe, to be appropriately rewarded. On past experience, I cannot expect User:Conservative to back me on that. AlanE 01:27, 30 December 2012 (EST)

AlanE, that little vandal attack is nothing to worry about. We say that liberals are nothing more than racist, bigoted, intolerant, lying little thugs who declare to the public that it is their way or the highway, and whenever they do make a little vandal attack on us, they prove our point about them beyond a shadow of a doubt. Unfortunately for them, the general public is reading this as well and seeing just what kind of people they really are. So, we're showing the world what they are, and they are doing most of the work for us. I think that's great! Karajou 02:42, 30 December 2012 (EST)

The reason why liberals vandalize more is that they are low class people. It's that simple. Unlike Tea Party movement events where people do not trash the place and leave the place better than they find it, the Occupy Wall Street protestors left a ton of trash. Why? Because they are low class, trashy liberals. Liberals have ill-thought-out, disorganized and childish ideas and their outward actions reflect their inner thoughts. Hence, the trash. It is like a spoiled child whose room is a mess.
Now what do spoiled children do when they don't get their way. They throw temper tantrums. That's what the vandalism is - childish temper tantrums. Conservative 10:18, 30 December 2012 (EST)

G'morning all!... Cons. who were the two editors that turned back all they could of this last little assault on the site while waiting for the cavalry? An admitted evolutionist and a self-confessed liberal. Can you please try and cut down on the generalisations. AlanE 13:20, 30 December 2012 (EST)

Would the Duke have ever fretted about the oversighting of a wiki edit log? Never! The Bible believer Chuck Norris would never concern himself with a such a thing as well. The sad and ugly truth is that wiki nerds griping about the oversighting of a "pristine edit log" shows they lack machismo!
By the way, only wiki nerds fret about the oversighting of "a pristine" edit log. :) One thing for certain, John Wayne would never worry about such a thing! "The Duke" would realize that future historians would never be writing about an Admin oversighting at a wiki. Yes, my wiki editing friends, John Wayne would know the real action is the creation of magnificent articles adorned with excellent pictures and of course the masterful promotion of those articles so their message resounds throughout the world! Olé! Olé! Olé!  :) Conservative 18:32, 30 December 2012 (EST)
?AlanE 19:08, 30 December 2012 (EST)
AlanE, this message was directed to certain gentlemen (especially a certain obscure gentleman whose name begins with a S and ends with a d and was the side kick of a certain pesterfesting individual).
These gentlemen are still not notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article! Perhaps, if a certain gentleman whose name begins with a T were to write an excellent exercise science article, they could finally make it into Wikipedia! :) To my knowledge they still have yet to even create a stub article on this topic. Of course, the reason is obvious. They lack machismo! See: Sports performance: Religious faith vs. atheism. It is no coincidence that Chuck Norris and Tim Tebow are not evolutionists nor are they atheists!  :) Conservative 19:28, 30 December 2012 (EST)

Fiscal Cliff Headline

Joe Scarborough is left of RINO status. I would be skeptical calling him a Republican, let alone a conservative. The USA will be downgraded again thanks to the Fed that keeps printing money out of thin air. The cost of living will surely rise exponentially. Healthcare taxes are the Great Recession Part II. Higher taxes of the "Cliff", just a hiccup on the way down. --Jpatt 13:35, 31 December 2012 (EST)

Has Joe Scarborough moved to the Left? I'll drop "conservative" from describing him then.--Andy Schlafly 21:28, 31 December 2012 (EST)

Andy, please reconsider your "tax hikes" headline. You can see from the bill that there are many extensions of tax credits, AMT relief, and other provisions in the bill -- including a Congressional pay freeze. Thanks, Wschact 03:23, 2 January 2013 (EST)

From 2012 to 2013, there is a massive tax hike as required by the bill.--Andy Schlafly 11:06, 2 January 2013 (EST)
Your key words are "required by the bill". The CBO says that compared with the pre-existing laws, it will add $3 trillion to the deficit over 10 years. From that perspective, it is a tax cut relative to the laws that were on the books before it. There are things in the bill other than tax increases. Thanks, Wschact 11:22, 2 January 2013 (EST)
Like what? There is (1) no debt ceiling raised, (2) sequestration is kicked down the road 60 days to the next congress. The net result is an increase to top earners potentially threatening lower GDP , and repeal of the payroll tax holiday (a tax increase on middle class and working families). Obamacare tax increases passed by the Democrats in 111th Congress (2009-11) are yet to be implemented which likewise threatens more jobless and lower GDP output. Social Security remains unreformed. Obama got his tax increase; will see very shortly after there is more jobloss how palatable the cry for more taxes is. It was a jump off the fiscal cliff with a bunge cord. OscarO 14:19, 2 January 2013 (EST)

Sometimes, I think we should just audit Congress. ZetaSonic 02:24, 4 January 2013 (EST)

Happy New Year!

Toward the inevitable death of atheism. Praise Messiah!--ZetaSonic 00:30, 1 January 2013 (EST)

"Obamacare Dead on Arrival" -- very poor judgment in my opinion

I finished reading the third part of the blog post linked to on the main page. Although I disagree with Mr. Purpura, the author of the blog post, this last post has crossed the line. Whereas the first two parts contain legal argument that is not frivolous (although I am of the personal opinion that it lacks merit), this last part crosses the line in frivolous legal argument. What I find most outrageous is that he calls the judges that dismissed his challenge on standing grounds "cowardly and corrupt hoodlums in black robes" and "reprobates" and Barack Obama's presidency an "outlaw administration." I'm certainly no fan of Obama or PPACA, but I think it is far more prudent and a better use of our resources to make our case for a better solution to the health care problem, rather than engaging in sophomoric attacks that only serve to hurt Conservapedia's reputation. Please remove these blog posts from MPR. Thanks, GregG 20:07, 2 January 2013 (EST)

"Using your God given talents in 2013."

There should be a hyphen between "God" and "given." GregG 23:56, 2 January 2013 (EST)

Fixed it. Thanks for the suggesting the correction.--Andy Schlafly 00:50, 3 January 2013 (EST)

Problems with midterm

I'm sorry to disagree, but the midterm exam has some problems. First of all, the supposed example of checks and balances refers to one of the grossest violations of the checks and balances systems. Jackson usurped power by challenging the established principle of judiciary review. He violated the constitution as an abuse of his executive authority. Second, the third question is poorly phrased, and suggests that the only interpretation of the constitution is the one by federalists. Need I remind you that many prominent founding fathers were not Federalist, among them Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and James Monroe. Also, a bit of a quibble, but citizenship is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, the 15th only gives citizens the right to vote. So technically, it should probably either be worded as 14th and 15th Amendments or edited to say "the rights of citizens to vote." Finally, the practice of praying itself is not banned within public school. School-initiated or administrative led prayer is banned, but student led prayer is wholly appropriate (even the ACLU accepts this). TonyBonta 13:26, 4 January 2013 (EST)

Chavez & Castro

I'm willing to bet that Chavez & Castro are both alive (as of this writing) and that their deaths will be duly announced as were those of Lenin, Mao Zedong, Kim Il-sung and Ho Chi Minh. BryanF 16:41, 4 January 2013 (EST)

Take your bet elsewhere. Conservapedia only reports things that are true and verifiable, according to the First Conservapedia Commandment. It is not verifiable that Chavez and Castro are alive at this moment, therefore Conservapedia will report them as dead. --Randall7 17:34, 4 January 2013 (EST)
It's not verified that they are dead either. BryanF 17:37, 4 January 2013 (EST)
If Fidel Castro were really alive then the public would see and hear from him at the same time. But that hasn't happened since 2006, when he was severely ill.--Andy Schlafly 18:46, 4 January 2013 (EST)
I believe he has been seen in public since 2006. But anyway, why would the Cuban government hide his death when other cult-of-personality regimes did not do so? Even the thoroughly propagandized Cubans know that Fidel is not immortal. BryanF 18:48, 4 January 2013 (EST)
He's never been seen and heard in public at the same time, since 2006. That's because it's impossible for a stand-in to duplicate someone's appearance and voice. Likewise for Chavez since early December.
When there is no internal power struggle but there is a fear of loss in communist power, then communists make-believe that the dictator is still alive.--Andy Schlafly 18:57, 4 January 2013 (EST)
I would guess since communists/socialists deny the afterlife and immortality of the soul, admitting Castro was physically dead carries with it the irrefuttable scientific fact that Castro's spirit likewise is dead. And communists may have a problem with a simple, rational and logical argument such as this to keep the "spirit of revolution" and his legacy alive. OscarO 19:00, 4 January 2013 (EST)

Evidently, all of this, for some unknown reason, applies only to the Cuban Communists. I can't imagine that there is more of a fear of loss of Communist power in Cuba today that there was in Vietnam in 1969 when the country was involved in a war for its very survival. Also, Castro (and Chavez) may be alive but too ill to appear in public. BryanF 19:05, 4 January 2013 (EST)

Bryan, people can believe what they want. Medically, the odds of Castro still being alive are small. Politically, no communist ever gives up power voluntarily as Castro supposedly did. Logic dictates that the Castro family was better off by not disclosing Fidel's death, because then the Castro family could hold onto power. And communism is weaker in Cuba than in Vietnam.--Andy Schlafly 19:20, 4 January 2013 (EST)
Cuban politics are divided into three camps: (1) Castro "princelings", children of the first generation of revolutionaries who want to hang onto inherited privileges; (2) communist "reformers", advocates of Cuban Perestroika; (3) believers in democracy, the silent majority, (more aptly, the "silenced and terrified majority".) Of the three, the Princelings are the smallest and weakest with the most to lose. OscarO 19:33, 4 January 2013 (EST)
At the risk of being accused of "last-wordism", I'll end my input on this by saying, we shall see. BryanF 19:36, 4 January 2013 (EST)

Having done medical relief work in Central America, I will say that the Cuban healthcare system has a reputation (albeit paradoxically) among the best in the world. Cuba sends Cuban doctors (I've worked with them) to rural areas throughout Central America; they are as competent (if not moreso, because they have had to learn to work with relatively limited resources) as primary care physicians in the United States. In fact, I would say that the average Cuban receives far better care than an indigent American. The implication that Hugho Chavez must be dead because he sought treatment in Cuba is ridiculous; the highest quality of care in Cuba easily matches that available in the rest of the world.--JHunter 01:02, 5 January 2013 (EST)

According to Conservapedia, that's completely untrue. Wonders 15:49, 5 January 2013 (EST)
Yes indeed. We must understand that the lobotomies Cuba performs are, after all, socialist lobotomies. OscarO 22:28, 5 January 2013 (EST)

My sense is that the Castro's have always been criminal thugs. We may never know how many they murdered. If Dick Nixon had merely protested the election of 1960 (and overturned ILL and TX) then he would have quickly invaded and executed Castro. It was a staggering series of Kennedy blunders that almost got us all nuked in the early 1960s. But I believe that Hugo Chavez is actually more of a Simon Bolivar figure. And the foreign interests that have pillaged Venezuela for decades have found it useful to demonize Chavez and conflate him as being 'just another Castro'. I am pleased too that, in the last year, Chavez has been publicly 'thanking Christ' and making very robust Christian statements. I hope he does survive. But I would like to re-enter a free Christian Cuba and the Castro's gone.

CBO just released estimates on the "Fiscal Cliff" Deal

  • we estimate that this legislation will reduce revenues and increase spending by a total of nearly $4.0 trillion over the 2013-2022 period. [em added]

Right there is black and white. From the "non-partisan" Congressional Budget Office. Obama's scheme to tax the rich will REDUCE REVENUE. Never thought we'd see the day the CBO would say tax increases reduce revenues, or that Ronald Reagan, Jack Kemp, and Arthur Laffer were correct. This is Page One news. OscarO 20:26, 4 January 2013 (EST)

Read it carefully, or just read it. The figures are 'compared with existing legislation', i.e. compared with what would have happened had the Bush tax cuts been allowed to expire. Esseph 09:25, 5 January 2013 (EST)
So, what's your point? If the Bush tax cuts were allowed to expire (i.e., across the board tax increases), the non-partisan CBO estimates that revenues would decrease, a Reaganomic-supplyside-trickle down argument. OscarO 17:49, 5 January 2013 (EST)
Have you read that article in its entirety? It says the opposite of what you think it does. --DamianJohn 18:12, 5 January 2013 (EST)
  • Relative to the laws in place at the end of 2012, we estimate that this legislation will reduce revenues and increase spending by a total of nearly $4.0 trillion over the 2013-2022 period.
"The laws in place." Can't be anymore clear than that. OscarO 20:21, 5 January 2013 (EST)
You still haven't read it properly. In that section they are referring to the laws that were in place at the end of 2012 which would have imposed tax increases on everyone from 1 January 2013, not the tax system that was actually in place in December 2012. Here is what they say in the second paragraph: "why will the legislation increase deficits? Mostly because, under the laws previously in place, numerous tax provisions originally enacted in 2001, 2003, and 2009 would have expired. As a result, in 2013 personal income tax rates would have gone up for people at all income levels, the alternative minimum tax (AMT) would have applied to many more people, estate and gift taxes would have risen, and a number of other revenue-increasing changes in tax law would have taken effect." In comparison to those changes (at least according to the article), this deal will earn less revenue.
On the other hand, they have this to say "Instead of comparing legislation with the law that was in effect at the end of 2012, one might also compare it with the tax and spending policies that were in effect in 2012 (or, in the case of the AMT, in 2011). Many of those policies were scheduled to expire at the end of December—but suppose instead they had been continued. If so, revenues would have been noticeably less than they would have been under the laws scheduled to be in effect in 2013 and beyond."
So have another look at the article because it says the opposite of what you (somewhat bewilderingly) seem to be saying. --DamianJohn 21:07, 5 January 2013 (EST)
Read it several times. This is what it says: increasing taxes on the rich adds $4 trillion to the debt and reduces revenue. (And that is leaving aside the ambiguity where they say, CBO does not publish estimates for legislation relative to current policies and in the next sections states, In our August Update, we projected that, under the laws in effect at the time....) OscarO 22:19, 5 January 2013 (EST)
Here is a direct quote for you: "Relative to what would have occurred if most tax and spending policies that were in effect in 2012 were continued, this legislation will reduce budget deficits in coming years." I have absolutely no idea where you get the idea that it says increasing taxes on the rich adds $4 trillion to the debt and reduces revenue, which is probably because you are reading it wrong, but a quote from what you are looking at would be nice so that the English involved can be explained to you. SJCootware 10:56, 6 January 2013 (EST)
Fair enough. Go back to the first posting in this subsection with the external link: "we estimate that this legislation will reduce revenues and increase spending by a total of nearly $4.0 trillion over the 2013-2022 period". What did "this legislation" do? It (a) raised taxes on the rich, and it will (b) "reduce revenue" (their words). This is in keeping with the president's stated objective of raising taxes "for purposes of fairness", even if revenues go down. OscarO 13:48, 6 January 2013 (EST)
And the very beginning of that line says, "Relative to the laws in place at the end of 2012." The laws in place at the end of 2012 would have allowed the Bush tax rates to expire this year and for tax rates to increase for everyone which is why the CBO recognizes this law as reducing revenues. This statement about laws in place at the end of 2012 is in direct opposition to tax and spending policies that were in effect in 2012 which the document specifically states, "Relative to what would have occurred if most tax and spending policies that were in effect in 2012 were continued, this legislation will reduce budget deficits in coming years." SJCootware 18:30, 6 January 2013 (EST)
Who has problems with the English language now? The subject here is "reduce revenue", not "reduce deficits". Any deficit reduction is contingent upon spending restraint in the new legislation, but the CBO reports here that the tax increases in the new legislation will REDUCE REVENUE. Period. OscarO 08:24, 7 January 2013 (EST)
Your repeated error is What did "this legislation" do? It (a) raised taxes on the rich.... Because this legislation was passed after January 1, when the Bush tax cuts expired, it did not raise taxes. It lowered taxes (back to the Bush levels) for everyone except the new top bracket. If it hadn't been passed, everyone would have the higher, Clinton-era, rates right now. This legislation was a tax cut. That's why it reduces revenues. MelH 13:27, 7 January 2013 (EST)
That is not an error in any sense. The bill passed January 1, 2013 increased taxes on the rich while keeping intact all the lower rates at the same level. The brackets below the top rate all are projected to bring in the same amount of revenue in the new legislation as the CBO projected under the old law. OscarO 16:45, 7 January 2013 (EST)
I'll try once again, in case you really are interested in the truth. (This thread shows that at a minimum, you're resistant to it.) Had the bill not passed, we would stayed "over the fiscal cliff," which we went over at midnight 12/31/12. This is where all tax increases originated. Not only would the rich be paying more, but everyone else too. This would have raised a lot of revenue and was the law of the land as of 1/1/13 at the stroke of midnight. The 1/1/13 legislation did not do this. The 2011 sequester agreement put it into law.
The 1/1/13 legislation repealed the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, which had been gone since midnight the night before. Again, no legislation on 1/1/13 would have meant massive tax increase on everybody. The 1/1 legislation specifically prevented this for everyone but the new top bracket. With respect to not passing it, it was a huge tax cut relative to the new rates in effect since midnight.
That may seem like a technicality to you, but that is the technicality that the CBO is reporting on. If you still don't buy it, so be it. MelH 17:02, 7 January 2013 (EST)
Ok, show me the projected revenues from CBO had the tax cut expired for everyone, and will consider you've made a sound argument. OscarO 17:10, 7 January 2013 (EST)
It was showed to you about ten responses ago: "why will the legislation increase deficits? Mostly because, under the laws previously in place, numerous tax provisions originally enacted in 2001, 2003, and 2009 would have expired. As a result, in 2013 personal income tax rates would have gone up for people at all income levels, the alternative minimum tax (AMT) would have applied to many more people, estate and gift taxes would have risen, and a number of other revenue-increasing changes in tax law would have taken effect." MelH 18:58, 7 January 2013 (EST)

{outdent} Mel is correct. The AMT "fix" and the tax rates made permanent by the new law reduce revenues by $3.9 trillion over 2013-2022 compared with the existing law allowing the economy to "go over the cliff." The major reason why the people who voted for the bill were willing to increase the deficit was to avoid the recession that could result from leaving the higher taxes and other fiscal cliff elements in place. So, the next question is how to bring down the deficit (which is now $3.9 trillion larger.) Discretionary spending was cut in the Budget Control Act of 2011 both immediately and also through the sequester that starts in March 2013. So, the easy stuff is gone, leaving some tough work ahead. In the long term, the Congressional Budget Office has also said that the economy will grow slower under the new law than it would if all of the Bush tax cuts had been made permanent. So, some people will want more tax cuts after the economy picks up. Other people will want to postpone spending cuts until after the economy picks up. Either way, when the economy picks up, revenues will grow because more people will have higher incomes and the federal government will pay out less in unemployment benefits. Wschact 21:23, 7 January 2013 (EST)

That's a whole lot of assumptions. "Reduce anticipated revenue" is more accurate than "reduce revenue." CBO's revenue estimates from the early & mid 2000s were blown apart when 8 million workers lost their jobs in 2008 and stopped paying taxes entirely. CBO didn't forecast that recession, let alone the depth of it. Even now with job creation lagging population growth, there's no way to anticipate at what point (if ever) it will come in line again. Even before the Recession (as early as 2006) the Congressional Budget Office reported the national savings rate was insufficient to finance job creation (["domestic private investment", p.2 pdf). OscarO 23:52, 7 January 2013 (EST)
You are correct about the leeway in the prediction. CBO builds an econometric model forecast for the next ten years. They consider the impact that tax policy and government spending levels have on economic growth. They run the model reflecting all current laws as the "baseline." They then run the model again with the changes proposed by the bill and report the difference between the two models. Their models are as good as most others. But when McConnell says "I want a dollar of deficit reduction for every dollar of debt ceiling increase" he is equating a definite dollar reduction in current spending levels with the fuzzy number at the end of the CBO model. Everyone is hoping that the recession will end soon, which is already factored into the CBO model. That will make life easier for both Main Street and for the deficit hawks. Wschact 00:40, 8 January 2013 (EST)
So the baseline is extending the 2009 "temporary", "emergency stimulus" spending level by continuing resolution for another 10 years beyond the 4 years that the Senate has already been in non-compliance with the Budget Act. Is that a fair synopsis? OscarO 02:30, 8 January 2013 (EST)
No. The baseline takes each piece of legislation and models it literally. The Bush tax cuts end on December 31, 2012. The Iraq and Afghanistan spending drops on schedule. The 2% payroll tax break ends on December 31, 2012. The $1 trillion in spending reductions started in FY 2013 and the sequester cuts started on Jan 1, 2013. The AMT remained "unfixed" for the middle class effective Jan 1, 2012. The estate tax when up to 40% and the spouse flowthrough stopped. The resulting -0.5% drop in GNP then adversely affected tax receipts, but improved GNP growth in the later years. But the economy would otherwise rebound rapidly due to natural economic growth as it has for prior recessions. All temporary and emergency stimulus is assumed to not be extended based on current law so the deficit will be lower assuming that restraint. (Now that the Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 has passed, it will be included in all future baselines.)
The second part of your question points out a common misunderstanding about the Budget Act vs. appropriations. Federal spending has (for at least 100 years) been set by the appropriation bills (or continuing resolutions when Congress does not pass the appropriation bills in time). The Budget Act is mostly used to restrain the House and Senate appropriation committees. When each Committee works on its own, it comes up with an appropriation bill that is higher than its share of the budget, so the Budget Act provides a way to keep the total under control through special procedural rules and long term forecasts. If the House and the Senate don't want to cooperate, the Budget Act does not force them to do so. They only work together to avoid the prospect of a government shutdown that results from a failure of both houses to adopt the same appropriation. Until recently, the earmarks in each appropriation bill made it easy to get the votes to pass each appropriation bill (perhaps to the detriment of the taxpayer.) Wschact 10:24, 8 January 2013 (EST)
Ok. So there's some rosy scenario assumptions there about recovery & future growth before implementation of the PPACA (which baseline includes a refundable tax credit for 12 million voters who will get an IRS refund check in cash for about $9,000 - $12,000 more than the $3500 healthcare premiums they are mandated to pay). A vote to waive the Budget Act dispenses with the law entirely, which then reverts to continuing and concurrent resolutions. How can Backdoor spending authority impact discretionary spending? OscarO 13:40, 8 January 2013 (EST)
It can't. What sources do you have to support your claim that one particular vote to "waive the Budget Act" affects subsequent years, as you seem to assume? I will agree that the Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 was clearly passed with a number of procedural waivers, but it does not "revert" to the FY 2013 continuing resolution, it lowers spending below the CR level in order to fund a two month delay in the sequestration. Please read the bill. Thanks, Wschact 09:48, 13 January 2013 (EST)
This is simple: Susan Collins broke the filibuster to waive the budget Act; House & Senate Dems passed a budget which the president signed with a baseline spending trajectory of $3.5 trillion; with the Budget Act waived. spending has continued ever since with continuing resolutions that don't need the president's signature. OscarO 02:10, 14 January 2013 (EST)


Looks like cancer did what Sarkozy couldn't manage. MattyD 14:46, 5 January 2013 (EST)

Conservapedia Proven Right?

About what? The article links to a survey by Texas A&M that says there is no evidence video games contribute to mass homicides. So what are you right about?

- Knoefel

A growing consensus is recognizing the harm caused by violent video games - as proven by how the town is welcoming people throwing them out.--Andy Schlafly 20:08, 5 January 2013 (EST)
The popularity of a belief has no effect on whether or not something is true. This story does not prove conservapedia right, it just proves that there is a group of people that share your views.--JasonKL 22:38, 5 January 2013 (EST)

MPRight Hagel

Hagel did in fact vote with 78 other Democrats and Republicans to authorize the Iraq war. But his liberalism got the best of him and he changed his mind like so many other hypocrites and called the Iraq another Vietnam, voted for withdrawal, voted to defund the war.--Jpatt 13:42, 6 January 2013 (EST)

Interesting. I'll put in the Hagel entry. The headline still seems be correct as a headline, however - Hagel did vote against the Iraq War, just not initially.--Andy Schlafly 13:45, 6 January 2013 (EST)
Voting against the invasion of Iraq does not necessarily make one a liberal. MattyD 13:48, 6 January 2013 (EST)
Being an isolationist doesn't make one a fascist, either. OscarO 13:55, 6 January 2013 (EST)
Voting for then not sticking to your vote is liberal.--Jpatt 13:51, 6 January 2013 (EST)

No Al Gore fan but...

...What about this?


That article is nearly a month old. More importantly, it seems to be based on land thermometers rather than the more reliable sea and atmospheric thermometers.--Andy Schlafly 15:04, 6 January 2013 (EST)

What difference does it make that it's a month old? It's an article predicting that 2012 will be the warmest on record in the United States based on the previous 11 months. As it said, December would have to be unprecedentedly cold for it not to be the warmest on record. I'm sure the NOAA is gathering December's data and we'll find out that it's true.

As to what kind of thermometers they use, no where in the article does it mention land thermometers. It "seems" like it? Based on what? I'm fairly certain the NOAA, as scientists, use the same kind of thermometer to compare one year to the next.


If it doesn't matter how the temperatures are measured, then why bother with measuring them at all? Scientific method does hinge on how the temperatures are taken, and pro-global-warming-alarmist stories typically use the unreliable land thermometers rather than the more reliable sea and atmospheric measures.
Regardless, even if the U.S. did warm, other areas of the world have not. And the U.S. did not dangerously warm. Most people prefer warmer climates.--Andy Schlafly 15:30, 6 January 2013 (EST)
Not this warm Andy... every time you bring up a cold snap somewhere I look around for a corresponding heatwave and invariably find one within the minute. This time I didn't have to even look! My little corner of the world experienced its hottest day since records began on Friday - it followed the highest ever minimum on Thursday night. Further afield, check out the rest of the continent - this isn't a month ago, it's now.
And God may or may not have a sense of humour but He showed his love of cricket by waiting until a Test Match finished before making Sydney join the rest of the country in baking. :-) AlanE 15:36, 6 January 2013 (EST)
God definitely has a sense of humour. Have you seen the Black Caps lately? --DamianJohn 15:41, 6 January 2013 (EST) Yes Damian - but I was too polite to mention it.AlanE 15:49, 6 January 2013 (EST)
Andy - most like a bit of warmth but not this - this is part of my little corner of the world after the fire went through there three days ago. As of last night there were still up to 100 people missing. AlanE 15:50, 6 January 2013 (EST)

Hey it's winter. But global warming was supposed to make cold temperatures a thing of the past. Warmest year info does not take into effect new data nor were any correction made to past data proven faulty. How about this, most snow coverage ever recorded in December [46] I laugh at those who try to equate "it winter, it's gonna be cold." Simplistic humor that doesn't take into effect IPCC projections nor Al Gore's fairy speak. --Jpatt 15:58, 6 January 2013 (EST)

Hey it's summer here in my half of the world. No one has ever said cold temperatures were a thing of the past. People are dying from the heat here in my country at the moment but I know that in a few months time I will see snow on my way to town. For every "record cold" there is a "record heat" somewhere else - that was my point. Both claims are simplistic. I was just balancing one with the other - and doing it from a personal viewpoint because I have friends forced to evacuate the fire-ravaged area east of here. AlanE 16:23, 6 January 2013 (EST)
"No one has ever said cold temperatures were a thing of the past." The excuses are plentiful but I bet I can find more examples Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms. [47]--Jpatt 17:55, 6 January 2013 (EST)
Jpatt, sounds logical to me. Like More summer rain will decrease the chance of drought. "Milder winter temperatures " is not the same as saying "Cold temperatures are a thing of the past." WE had a relatively mild winter but it was still darn cold a few times. AlanE 18:47, 6 January 2013 (EST)

In response to Andy above: I didn't say it doesn't matter how temperatures are measured. I couldn't tell you what kind of thermometers they use, because the article doesn't say. What's important is that they are measured consistently, which I'm sure the NOAA does. What I did point out is that you assumed they use land thermometers. Curiously, you didn't make the same assumption about the China article. By your logic, if the data shows warming, it must be a land thermometer; if it shows cooling, it must be a sea or atmospheric thermometer.

What does "dangerously warm" even mean? Does Atlantic City have to be completely underwater for you to consider it dangerous? And people's preference for warm climates has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion.


Liberals are fooling themselves if they think Americans care a lot about global warming/climate change because they are caring less and less as can be seen graphically HERE. More and more people are worried about an eventual global economic collapse as can be seen HERE About a year ago, 1 in 3 Americans had economic collapse as one of their top 3 worries.[48] An MIT study indicated a global economic collapse happening before 2030.[49]
Global warming alarmism has very poor prospects in terms of capturing the public at large's imagination. Skepticism of global warming alarmism increases with a bad economy.[50]
Global climate warming alarmism is one of the Pickett's Charges of liberalism. It is an exercise in futility. Conservative 08:45, 7 January 2013 (EST)
The public is fickle. For example, Obama approval ratings have pulled dead even now with the NRA, although his disapproval ratings are higher, even after Sandy Hook. But I think you're right; Obama's given up on cap n' trade and other global warming bullroar cause the public is sick of it. So now he thinks he can rally an opposition Congress against the NRA. More wasted effort. OscarO 18:32, 7 January 2013 (EST)


His coach did him a disservice by letting him play and injuring himself... But not playing Tim Tebow with a broken rib is some kind of liberal bias?--RobertDW 20:34, 7 January 2013 (EST)

Yes, because a broken rib is a nothing, having no career implications. A knee injury can destroy a player's entire career.--Andy Schlafly 20:37, 7 January 2013 (EST)
I don't see how it's logical to put a guy with a broken rib worth millions of dollars into an environment where 300+ pound guys are charging at him and trying to tackle him to the ground. There's no political basis for that decision. It's just completely illogical to play a quarterback with a broken rib.--RobertDW 20:42, 7 January 2013 (EST)
You don't address the very different career implications of the two types of injuries. Have ever heard of a broken rib ending an athlete's career???--Andy Schlafly 20:49, 7 January 2013 (EST)
I'm not sure, but it doesn't seem that implausible. Do you think it would be smart to put a quarterback with a broken rib on an NFL field? One sack, one trip, one twist, and his career could easily be over and cause him serious health implications. A broken rib is not something you want between your heart/lungs and several gigantic men pumped full of adrenaline trying to take you to the ground. The sheer force of a hit could easily turn his hairline fracture into splintered shards of bone.--RobertDW 20:59, 7 January 2013 (EST)
Competing with an injured knee is a lot more risky than competing with an injured rib due to the fact that the knee is far more fragile and can take a lot longer to heal. Dvergne 21:57, 7 January 2013 (EST)
As a long time rugby player who has had both a broken rib and a busted knee, I can testify that playing a contact sport with either is a bit dubious. You are right that it is easier to see someone playing with a broken rib, but only marginally. If Tebow was a star player who simply had to play then no doubt he would have, but as I understand it, he is not particularly good. It is very plausible that you wouldn't play an injured average player over an uninjured average player; but you might play an injured star over an uninjured average player. --DamianJohn 22:14, 7 January 2013 (EST)

D. You know that's wrong. Like Damian I have played Rugby - albeit only at school, but it made me aware of the impacts. But I have had a broken rib in an industrial accident, damaged the webbing when hit by a surfboard and "done" both shoulders and an elbow at various times. You should know as a FNQer that a knee reconstruction is common for players in both forms of Rugby. What is more dangerous is a punctured lung from a fractured rib. And of all the injuries I have sustained, the ribs were the most painful. You can stop walking but it's damn hard not to breathe! Some great hairy jock colliding with your chest as you're stretching to throw does not bear thinking about. AlanE 00:45, 8 January 2013 (EST)

Why are atheistic parts of the Nation so lousy in college sports?

You mean the campus of one of the leading Roman Catholic institutions of higher learning in the world? MattyD 11:52, 8 January 2013 (EST)

No, a football team that makes it to the college national championship is obviously not a lousy team. Being #2 (or 3 or 4 or 5) in the nation is not a poor achievement.--Andy Schlafly 13:22, 8 January 2013 (EST)
Alright, then, let's look at the final football rankings, right here. 1. Alabama; 2. Oregon; 3. Ohio State; 4. Notre Dame; 5. Georgia. So we have 4 public/secular atheistic universities and one private/religious school. Two from the South, two from the Midwest, one from the Pacific Northwest. So where are the underperforming atheist parts of the country? MattyD 13:34, 8 January 2013 (EST)

Deer Population rising

The MPR article about rising deer population in Mississippi takes a small regional story and leaps to some political conclusions about government regulation and 'tree huggers', despite the fact that neither are mentioned by the quoted article. The truth is more complex, unsurprisingly, as in California, Colorado, Oregon, Utah, North Dakota, Montana and Wyoming, mule deer populations are half what they were in the 1970s. The reasons are many, complex and interwoven, and research is ongoing. Wonders 13:10, 8 January 2013 (EST)

Needless "liberal complexity" where none is needed! When are liberals finally going to understand that the most elegant solutions are often the simplest. Another case of liberals failing to understand intelligent design! There too many deer in Mississippi because hunters are not killing enough of them! Mississippi needs: more deer hunters and/or deer hunters with better skills and/or a special extension of the deer hunting season! Conservative 04:35, 9 January 2013 (EST)
LOL...Yes, you darn liberals and your attempts at understanding the complexity of life! Don't you know life is super duper simple which is why we can simply say, "God dun it" and close the science book. OBVIOUSLY hunters are the only environmental factor that affects deer population....see how "elegant and simple that is? Why muddy the water with a more complete understanding than that.1977Wingman 11:25, 9 January 2013 (EST)

Population of Earth

The logic of the piece in question is rather lacking. First of all, the point about industrialized nations: while the populations did indeed stabilize, they only got to be as massive as they did (Europe growing by millions, United States growing by millions) as a result of the lower infant mortality rate that was provided by advancements in western technology and medicine. It is only as a nation becomes fully industrialized that the birth rate starts to fall off. Agricultural nations do indeed lead the way in population expansion, but only when they have the food and care to provide for their citizens. Now, as for the steady rate of population growth, again, the article doesn't take all the facts into account. The population has been "reset" by documented disasters such as the Toba Incident or the Clovis Comet. Finally, addressing the cavemen, the article makes the erroneous assumption that all cavepeople would A) bury their dead with valuable objects that wouldn't disintegrate and B) that grave-robbing is not a thing. It provides zero evidence that the millions of cave people who lived and died short lives were all buried with tools. In fact, considering the short life span and poor conditions of these people, it would probably mean that most people weren't buried with lots of treausures that would stand the test of time. Finally, as for the aborigines...have you people read about the history of Australia? The place went from larger than life fauna and trees to deserts over the course of a few thousand years! There are some that argue that the Aborigines themselves brought on this disaster. At any rate, there was mass upheaval on the island and this article seems to fall into the trap of thinking that nothing interrupts constant birth rates or that birth rates are constant, rather than geometric. SaulShinichi 01:41, 9 January 2013 (EST)

Saul, few people are going to read your wall of text. I know I certainly didn't. Consider using paragraphs which is something you may not have been taught in your public school. See also: Liberal wordiness. I hope this suggestion is of assistance to you as you clearly need assistance! Conservative 02:03, 9 January 2013 (EST)
If you think of my reply as a "wall of text," I must question your ability to function in day to day society. My original post is 307 words long, the average reading rate for comprehension is 200 or so words per minute. If you are unable to concentrate on a text for a minute and thirty seconds, I'm surprised you are able to even operate a keyboard. Perhaps, rather than taking pride in not reading posts that you deem too long, it would behoof you to learn how to apply yourself. However, in the spirit of generosity, I will break down my paltry 307 words down for further reading ease:
The logic of the piece in question is rather lacking. First of all, the point about industrialized nations: while the populations did indeed stabilize, they only got to be as massive as they did (Europe growing by millions, United States growing by millions) as a result of the lower infant mortality rate that was provided by advancements in western technology and medicine. It is only as a nation becomes fully industrialized that the birth rate starts to fall off. Agricultural nations do indeed lead the way in population expansion, but only when they have the food and care to provide for their citizens.
Now, as for the steady rate of population growth, again, the article doesn't take all the facts into account. The population has been "reset" by documented disasters such as the Toba Incident or the Clovis Comet. Finally, addressing the cavemen, the article makes the erroneous assumption that all cavepeople would A) bury their dead with valuable objects that wouldn't disintegrate and B) that grave-robbing is not a thing. It provides zero evidence that the millions of cave people who lived and died short lives were all buried with tools. In fact, considering the short life span and poor conditions of these people, it would probably mean that most people weren't buried with lots of treausures that would stand the test of time.
Finally, as for the aborigines...have you people read about the history of Australia? The place went from larger than life fauna and trees to deserts over the course of a few thousand years! There are some that argue that the Aborigines themselves brought on this disaster. At any rate, there was mass upheaval on the island and this article seems to fall into the trap of thinking that nothing interrupts constant birth rates or that birth rates are constant, rather than geometric.
Hope this helps, and please do try and learn how to concentrate for longer than 2 minutes. SaulShinichi 02:11, 9 January 2013 (EST)
Saul, Saul, why do you kick against the goads of someone trying to help you with your formatting? You clearly needed some help and in your subsequent post, you all but acknowledged this fact via your improved formatting on your second post. Please now try to work on your liberal wordiness!  :) Others may have read your subsequent post in its entirety, but I certainly did not! :) Conservative 03:02, 9 January 2013 (EST)
Saul, you say: 'The population has been "reset" by documented disasters such as the Toba Incident or the Clovis Comet.' Both of these putative events are supposed to have occurred many thousands of years before the earth was created, contradicting the Genesis story. Denial of the Bible is frowned upon here. --Esseph 09:46, 9 January 2013 (EST)
Crimestop. That is all. --JohanZ 14:02, 9 January 2013 (EST)

"keep left side links to internal entries at the top for now"

All's Well That Ends Well... But could the world famous painting be put above the list of "Popular articles at Conservapedia":

  • it is an internal link
  • otherwise the main-page is just a wall of text on the average monitor

--AugustO 11:58, 9 January 2013 (EST)

This is all a matter of personal taste and web design skills. I would place the world famous painting either immediately above or below the internal links. I would remove the other graphics from that column - the grim reaper, the calendar, the broken castle, because they have been there too long and look unprofessional. Thanks, Wschact 12:07, 9 January 2013 (EST)

Djw0071 / Bolding on the mainpage

Quick question regarding the bold text in the title of the story. What is the point of having can bolded ? It doesn't look that good and makes the front page of this brilliant site look unprofessional. I think their should be a standard or charter created for bolding on the mainpage as this sort of thing seems to happen quite often, with the main offenders being User:TerryH and User:Conservative. Dvergne 04:55, 10 January 2013 (EST)

I did some bolding for main page right as far as the beginning part of each entry for two reasons. First, I thought it set apart the entries from each other like the lines under each entry. The second reason was TRADITION!. You may ask, "Who started this tradition?". I don't know. :)
Anyways Jesus warned about blindly following the traditions of men when it comes to religion. I think this is a good principle as far as life in general. So I am open to not bolding. I will try not bolding in the future and see if I like it. Plus, if you want to try to change this practice on the main page that would not bother me. Ask Andy, Karajou, TerryH and JPatt about it. Conservative 05:27, 10 January 2013 (EST)
The YouTube Christian Djw0071 asks evolutionists: "Can evolution explain mind?"
According to which tradition was the first word of the second sentence put in bold font? --AugustO 05:49, 10 January 2013 (EST)
My point exactly User:AugustO! It does look a bit odd doesn't it. I'm not meaning to nitpick or anything but it is something I have noticed for a while and that is kind of annoying. Dvergne 06:09, 10 January 2013 (EST)
Must say I was a bit disappointed by the video as well, as naturalistic explanations of consciousness (for instance by Daniel Dennett and others) are quite thought-provoking. But this video doesn't go anywhere near them. Apparently, the answer to the question "Can evolutionists explain mind?" is "I dunno, but Genesis 1:27." --Esseph 09:11, 10 January 2013 (EST)

"Conservative" seems a bit too eager to promote this one YouTube contributor. Perhaps Djw0071 is him? BryanF 09:20, 10 January 2013 (EST)

At the end of the video I found a link to a series of much more comprehensive accounts, in an extended interview with the neuroscientist David J Linden. Starting here: --Esseph 09:39, 10 January 2013 (EST)
So one must ask, why does the anonymous YouTube hack have a page here while the credentialed scientist does not? BryanF 09:42, 10 January 2013 (EST)
CPOV, I guess. I don't think Djw0071 and Conservative are the same person; the latter has certain traits that make his writing very easy to identify. --Esseph 10:22, 10 January 2013 (EST)
Oh, and there is a David Linden page now :) --Esseph 11:02, 10 January 2013 (EST)

BryanF, re: credentialed scientists

Credentialed by whom? Liberal academia?

An American study found that forty-five percent of students achieved no significant improvement in their critical thinking, reasoning or writing skills during their first two years of college. After four years, 36 percent displayed no significant increases in these so-called "higher order" thinking skills.[51]

See also: Professor values and Political correctness

I hope that helps clarify things. Conservative 03:18, 12 January 2013 (EST)

Not really. The study to which you refer indicates that a minority of undergraduates do not do well at college. It does not discredit the entire academic world. And bear in mind that the survey was conducted by a member of the same academic world: a sociologist at New York University, no less. Sociology and New York: red flags, as it were, for liberal bias which should disqualify the survey from serious consideration by any conservative worthy of the name.
Certainly the survey cannot possibly have anything to say about the credentials of a professor of neuroscience, with two bestselling books and a slew of peer-reviewed articles to his name. --Esseph 09:53, 14 January 2013 (EST)
Esseph, you wrote: "The study to which you refer indicates that a minority of undergraduates do not do well at college."
Of course, you fail to point out that it is a LARGE minority. An American study found that forty-five percent of students achieved no significant improvement in their critical thinking, reasoning or writing skills during their first two years of college. After four years, 36 percent displayed no significant increases in these so-called "higher order" thinking skills.[52]
An hardworking, homeschooled young person who is entrepreneurial can outearn many college recent graduates. 53% of college graduates are either unemployed or working a job which requires no college education.[53] 60% of college graduates can't find work in their field.[54] Conservative 11:03, 14 January 2013 (EST)
Well, I didn't point those things out because you already had, and there was no need to repeat them. The New York University study may indicate that some undergraduate students are not very bright, or that the colleges they attend are not very good at teaching them. On the available evidence there's no way of knowing which. But you have not made it clear what that study (or indeed, the earning power of homeschooled children) has to do with the credentials of the professor of neuroscience at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland. --Esseph 14:20, 14 January 2013 (EST)

Your probably right and the high joblessness rate of recent college grads is probably due to employers underestimating their intellectual prowess and certainly not due to the incompetence of liberal academia.  :) Conservative 14:55, 14 January 2013 (EST)

I agree with you up to your first 'and'. :) --Esseph 15:28, 14 January 2013 (EST)

Mark Twain

Twain's phrase is presently mangled on MPR. d__d takes away from its powerful message. Damned is not a cuss word and we should not censor. If unacceptable, remove it entirely.--Jpatt 21:01, 10 January 2013 (EST)

I agree. Censoring such a famous saying by such a distinguished author (regardless of our personal views of him) is a bit silly and it would be better not to reference the saying at all than to pussyfoot around with it. --DamianJohn 22:05, 10 January 2013 (EST)
I also agree with JPatt. If your going to censor it why put it there in the first place ? Dvergne 04:03, 11 January 2013 (EST)
Good point. Too bad Mr. Hurlbut probably won't even see this, since apparently he comes to Conservapedia almost exclusively to link to posts on his blog or to occasionally update Atlas Shrugged-related articles. Being that he is a Conservapedia Sysop, it would be nice if he were more active outside of Template:Mainpageright. --Randall7 08:53, 12 January 2013 (EST)
This all ignores the fact that Benjamin Disraeli, not Mark Twain, is the one who came up with that expression... Thuischlfl 14:33, 14 January 2013 (EST)

The USA is the least healthy nation in the developed world.

Seems like living in a more liberal country like Sweden or Canada is better for one's health. MattyD 23:46, 10 January 2013 (EST)

The results of 24 years of Liberals and Neo-Cons in the White House? --DamianJohn 00:41, 11 January 2013 (EST)
Could be. Or possibly the result of having a healthcare industry whose priority is profits rather than cures; or a food industry that adds HFCS to everything. --Esseph 08:25, 11 January 2013 (EST)
So having liberals in the White House makes the nation less healthy, but having socialists in the halls of power in Sweden and Norway makes the nation healthier? MattyD 10:29, 11 January 2013 (EST)

On May 5, 2011 the Swedish news website The Local reported in an article entitled Swedish women hit harder by STD rise:

“Gonorrhoea and syphilis are making a comeback in Sweden, with the number of reported cases among young women soaring by nearly 60 percent in 2010.

According to new statistics from the Swedish Institute for Communicable Disease Control (Smittskyddsinstitutet), there was a 38 percent rise in reported cases of the two diseases among Swedes in general.

Worst hit, however, are young women between 15 and 24, where the number of cases increased by 57 percent."

For more information please see: Sexual immorality and Sweden and Bestiality and Sweden

I hope that helps. Conservative 10:36, 11 January 2013 (EST)

Also, see Swedish Minister of Agriculture on bestiality and A video mocking the Swedish Minister of Agriculture on bestiality and LifeSiteNews - Bestiality on the rise in Sweden Conservative 10:44, 11 January 2013 (EST)
Doesn't really help, no. Just makes one wonder why Swedes are healthier than Americans, despite all the bestiality and STDs. --Esseph 10:56, 11 January 2013 (EST)

American RINOS and Democrats should stop advocating subsidizing corn starch (corn sweeteners).[55]Conservative 11:06, 11 January 2013 (EST)

Yes, that would help. --Esseph 11:41, 11 January 2013 (EST)

Denver Broncos

With Tim Tebow at quarterback, Denver won a playoff game. With Peyton Manning at quarterback, not so much.--Jpatt 20:53, 12 January 2013 (EST)

Good news tip. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly 23:04, 12 January 2013 (EST)

And Manning cost Denver a WHOLE lot more money. My guess is Tim Tebow will go north to Canada. Football is still too dangerous and I'd like to see any smart young man get in, get the money, and get OUT before he gets beat up too much.

Numerous issues with the "Christian creationism vs. Islamic creationism" story

I think this news item should be removed as the blog post that it links to contains numerous statistical inaccuracies and errors. For example comparing the web traffic data for two different websites and using a different web metric site for each is pointless as from what I understand quantcast and alexa use wildly different methods to obtain their results and rankings. Since neither they or the blog post have published or included the methods used to obtain this data I think it is highly inappropriate for this type of comparison to be used. Another point of fact that is completely overlooked by this blog post by authors unknown is the availability and accessibility to the internet citizens in most muslim majority countries face. I very much doubt an Islamic Creationist family in places such as rural Pakistan, Afghanistan, Indonesia or Iraq would have access to the internet at all. These people would have never used or even seen a webpage in their life. Since it fails to properly outline the full set of facts and information needed to write such a story (and such figures would would have been quite readily available to the author/s), I believe this story should be removed as it fails to uphold the standards of truth and verifiability set out in such things as the conservapedia commandments Dvergne 21:53, 12 January 2013 (EST)

I think you're probably wasting keystrokes. Despite never producing any new or noteworthy content, items from this blog are regularly featured prominently all over the main page. The only plausible explanation I can think of is that Mr. Schlafly has some sort of special advertising deal worked out with the blog in question. Which makes sense, because it obviously takes a fair amount of money to keep Conservapedia running, and unlike Wikipedia, this site isn't always patting down it's users for donations. So if he wants to make a few extra bucks by renting out pixel space to some blog that nobody reads, that's his business. --DonnyC 22:19, 12 January 2013 (EST)
A few things: 1) The drop in Adnan Oktar's website traffic was large and over an extended period of time according to Alexa which is one of the leading companies for measuring web traffic. No reason was given by Dvergne why Alexa is not able to detect large drops in web traffic over an extended period of time. 2) According to Quantcast they directly measure the web traffic of via an embedded code on their web traffic. 3) The contention that nobody reads the blog was not demonstrated nor was the contention that there is any renting going on. The renting allegation is gossip at best. 4) The fallacy of exclusion is being used. For example, the data from Goldman and others was not mentioned. Conservative 10:19, 13 January 2013 (EST)

"California hit by big freeze with temperatures as low as 12 degrees."

And record warm temperatures in much of the Midwest yesterday. MattyD 15:07, 13 January 2013 (EST)

And the fires are still burning throughout much of Australia. AlanE 16:27, 13 January 2013 (EST)
It's not a crisis of global warming that Democrats predicted a decade ago.--Andy Schlafly 17:58, 13 January 2013 (EST)
Unprecedented forest fires in Australia; the Mississippi River is at record low levels; a record-hot year and historic drought. It's exactly the crisis that was predicted. Go back to watching football. Everything will be okay. MattyD 18:18, 13 January 2013 (EST)
Global warming predicted more water, not less. In the 1970s, Democrats predicted global cooling; a decade ago Democrats insisted there was a global warming crisis. Neither occurred.--Andy Schlafly 18:45, 13 January 2013 (EST)
So the record warm years/droughts/massive fires/low water levels referred to above didn't happen? MattyD 18:52, 13 January 2013 (EST)
Why are you bothering with this MattyD? There is no point. --DamianJohn 19:47, 13 January 2013 (EST)

I'm confused, Mr. Schlafly. What part about cold weather in winter is new to you? It's January. It is supposed to be cold. Meanwhile, it was fifty degrees in the Midwest this week - in what is generally one of the coldest months of the year. The past year was the warmest on record; we had a record drought in almost two thirds of the country; the Mississippi is drying up; large swaths of Australia are on fire.

But it was cold in January.JaPo 19:57, 13 January 2013 (EST)

The past year was not the warmest on record. The research was completed using land thermometers which are inherently inaccurate. Atmospheric and ocean thermometers are much more reliable. TysonW 20:06, 13 January 2013 (EST)

What evidence do you have to support your assertion that the countless measurements made to demonstrate that 2012 was the warmest year on record were all done by land thermometers? Do you have any? Or are you just saying that because it is a common (but inaccurate) talking point? Furthermore, when a piece of instrumentation is inaccurate, it is inaccurate in all directions. In other words, in addition to showing inaccurately warm temperatures, we would also have examples of the thermometers giving readings that are too cold. Why has this not happened? Are the land thermometers in on the liberal conspiracy, as well? JaPo 21:33, 13 January 2013 (EST)
  • [[