User talk:LSimons

You know the Select bla bla bla committee is all going to be Merged and Redirected to Pelosi Panel, don't you? Why wast your time over there? RobS^{Free Kyle!} 22:48, July 27, 2021 (EDT)

Sigh... If you insist. The thing is, your page doesn't even name the actual committee. Your pet name for the committee is cute and all, but I'd like to think an educational resource could at least get the basic facts correct. By the way, this committee is an on-going concern, you may want to consider using the word, 'is', instead of 'was' when describing the partisan witch hunt.--LSimons (talk) 22:56, July 27, 2021 (EDT)

Well, that's the way history will remember it. Even Joe Biden doesn't support it. It will be remembered like the Church Committee, the Tydings Committee, or the HUAC hearings. RobS^{Free Kyle!} 03:14, July 28, 2021 (EDT)

Let's take the Benghazi hearings, for example, conducted by Trey Gowdy. The hearings themselves were part of the cover-up of Obama, John Brennan, and Hillary Clinton's transfer of captured weapon stockpiles from Benghazi to groups that became the Islamic State. Gowdy knew it. So did Pompeo who was on the committee. So did Mike Flynn, who told Trump all about it. But Gowdy only focused on killing Hillary's 2016 election chances, and not impeaching Obama who was still in office, or removing Brennan, who survived long enough to destroy Mike Flynn so Flynn couldn't do anything about it.

So, these hearings, like the Mueller investigation are part of the cover-up. As the Warren Commission and dozens of other hearings and investigations since (or actually, before). RobS^{Free Kyle!} 03:23, July 28, 2021 (EDT)

What do you think our Ambassador was doing in Benghazi at that time, that got himself killed? He was rounding up captured MANPADS and loading them on ships and airplanes to our al Qaeda allies (Jake Sullivan's words) in Turkey preparing to invade Syria and Iraq. Only no one on the panel ever asked that question. What difference does it make? RobS^{Free Kyle!} 03:27, July 28, 2021 (EDT)

Your alternate view of history is amazing, as is your Gish Gallop. I can’t compete with a conspiracy crazed CP admin and his minions. Have at it.--LSimons (talk) 09:09, July 28, 2021 (EDT)

Thanks. Will do. RobS^{Free Kyle!} 10:02, July 28, 2021 (EDT)

Re: American Thinker

What Dominion Voting Systems did to protect itself by smearing those who correctly accused the company of facilitating vote fraud (with evidence to back up the accusations) and resorting to lawfare against its accusers to attempt to silence them is nothing short of unethical (at the very least) as well as an attempt to simultaneously excuse, justify and deny its criminal behavior. Making excuses for Dominion's criminal actions is tantamount to supporting said actions and, by extension, supporting crime as well, which falls right into the realm of liberal POV. Northwest (talk) 21:10, March 26, 2022 (EDT)

At least 86 judges, nominated by Democrats and Republicans, including President Donald Trump, from the lowest level state courts to the U.S. Supreme Court, rejected lawsuits filed by Trump and his supporters contesting the election result. Yet here you are brazenly insisting Dominion is exercising criminal behavior. I am not making excuses for the mythical criminal actions you are directing at Dominion. If you are correct, why didn’t Trump and his lawyers succeed at any of their lawsuits? I’d like an answer to my question. Is it alright if I post an edit to the American Thinker article that comes exclusively from their website? Or would that be ‘liberal POV’?--LSimons (talk) 23:26, March 26, 2022 (EDT)

First off, it wasn't necessary to post the same answer on both your user talk page and mine.

Second, all of those judges in question either willingly sided with the Democrats, were bought off by them or were intimidated by them into rejecting Trump's lawsuits because of one thing and one thing only - the Democrats, being the power-mad elitists and criminals they are and have been since 1828, wanted Trump out of the way because he stood in their way of consolidating absolute power and control over the American public and the elimination of the Constitution which limits the Democrats' power and abuse thereof - and there is nothing "mythical" about the truth regarding Dominion and its criminal actions (which, again, are well-documented despite your flimsy claims otherwise), and denying that you're making excuses for that company (as well as continuing to make dismissive excuses for them and brushing off the fact that you're trying to impose liberal POV on this site) does not make what you say true either. Northwest (talk) 23:40, March 26, 2022 (EDT)

You’re telling me judges appointed by Trump, a self-admitted stable genius, the smartest man in the room, a man who hires the best people, could have possibly made a mistake and appointed wimps who were willing to accept bribes? How could Trump make such an error? I’d really like you to tell me how this could happen. How is 1828 significant? Where does a tiny company like Dominion get all this power? How are they able to get a large media organization like Newsmax to grovel before them and issue an apology? What are these ‘well-documented’ criminal actions you’re crowing about? Where have I made ANY excuses for Dominion? I’ll ask again, may I post an edit to the American Thinker article that comes exclusively from their website? I realize I have asked many questions, but none of them are rhetorical, I’d like answers. --LSimons (talk) 00:22, March 27, 2022 (EDT)

If you have to reply to my post with such intentionally rhetorical questions even when you know what the answers really are, it's evident that you just don't want to get it and you'd rather remain in blissful ignorance of the truth like other liberals do. Northwest (talk) 00:33, March 27, 2022 (EDT)

Nope, I didn’t ask a single rhetorical question. I find it amusing that you are simply making all these grand proclamations without any evidence whatsoever. It’s like you’re declaring: everything I say is correct, how dare you question my undeniable facts! This is how it works ma’am, I’m not about to take anyone’s word when they make utterly fantastic claims without providing a shred of evidence. Now then, if you have no objection, I’d like to edit the American Thinker article with a statement directly from their own website. Unless you strenuously object, I will do so tomorrow morning. Goodnight.--LSimons (talk) 00:49, March 27, 2022 (EDT)

Denying that you asked rhetorical questions when you clearly did doesn't make what you say true either - and if anyone's making grand proclamations without any legitimate evidence here (as well as doing exactly what you're accusing me of), that would be you. So far, you've done nothing but display a variety of liberal traits (including lying, denial, projection, condescension, imposition of liberal POV at this site's expense and know-it-all-ism) - and incidentally, American Thinker was forced to make a false retraction of an article it made clear was the truth because it caved to lawfare action from Dominion and you do yourself no favors to deny the truth like you've been doing the entire time you've been editing here. Northwest (talk) 01:02, March 27, 2022 (EDT)

There's a difference between the company facilitating vote fraud and the machines the company provided facilitating vote fraud. The main issue here, now, is that the company is a foreign company. And that the company is privately held, and unlike a publicly held company, does not have to comply with public disclosure laws of financial records. RobS^{Let's Go Brandon!} 02:58, April 5, 2022 (EDT)

Re: Wind turbine article

You need to stop adding info to the Wind turbine article that pushes pro-wind turbine liberal propaganda (especially regarding your use of sources from government websites that push the use of wind turbines while glossing over the damage done by them over time, as the article itself notes). Northwest (talk) 23:46, March 30, 2022 (EDT)

Your pro-wind turbine liberal propaganda in the Wind turbine article has been removed again. Don't continue disregarding warnings to do what you want by forcing liberal POVs on that article or other articles here. Northwest (talk) 02:19, March 31, 2022 (EDT)

What I was going to say before an edit conflict prevented me from posting this the first time at Andy's talk page:

Based on your reaction, LSimons, if anyone here is being abusive and ranting and raving right now in response to what I pointed out, that would be you (which also fits an aspect of the liberal psyche you just displayed right there). I should also note regarding the information which you call "Trump administration data" - as has been well-documented, the Trump administration was infiltrated by undercover liberals who covertly sought to sabotage that administration because they wanted to see him fail because of their hatred and jealousy toward him and their refusal to give him credit where it was due, so it would go without saying that said information from the government sites you sourced from would've been written by liberal environmentalist hacks pushing the environmentalist agenda. Incidentally, you were actually blocked for edit warring for your insistence on continuing to revert edits on the Wind turbine article to your preferred propaganda edit of that article, so your argument has no ground to stand on.

One other thing to note: Look at the top left corner at the top of this page. This site is exactly as the label says - Conservapedia. Unlike Wikipedia, we don't push or adhere to a so-called "neutral point of view" (which is a misnomer on WP because that site actually pushes a liberal/leftist POV while pretending to use a NPOV) and we don't claim to be neutral. If you can't accept that, that's on you and you alone. Northwest (talk) 02:25, April 5, 2022 (EDT)

The EIA is more of an example of regulatory capture, akin to what Robert Kennedy says about the FDA being captured by Big Pharma. "Liberals" infiltrated and controlled the agency long before Trump was ever elected. And the point is, EIA is not "captured" by the oil and gas or coal industries. RobS^{Let's Go Brandon!} 03:05, April 5, 2022 (EDT)

EIA is "captured" by trade and lobbying groups of which companies like Solyndra are members. Solyndra, you will recall, got $500 million in start up money from the federal government, turned around and donated to the Democratic Party of California, and went bankrupt. Reverting and hiding information on EIA is a disservice to our readers. RobS^{Let's Go Brandon!} 03:18, April 5, 2022 (EDT)

Who are these liberals that ‘infiltrated and controlled the agency long before Trump was ever elected’? I’m not just going to take your word. If I were to say the EIA was infiltrated by conservatives, I’m sure you’d want more than just my word. If I shouldn’t reference the EIA for information on energy statistics, do you have a recommendation? Solyndra also donated to the GOP, why are you hiding this information? [1] I’d also like to point out the DOE loan program is showing a profit despite the well-publicized bankruptcies. [2]--LSimons (talk) 10:01, April 5, 2022 (EDT)

Wow. What can you tell me about CFPB, and why it was created? RobS^{Let's Go Brandon!} 15:59, April 5, 2022 (EDT)

Not sure why you said ‘wow’ or why you want my opinion on the CFPB. I supported creation of the CFPB to provide advocacy and protect consumers from unscrupulous payday lenders and predatory banks. The financial industry is in dire need of government regulation, since as a whole, they are failing rather miserably at regulating themselves. Thank-you for providing a link to the CP CFPB article. It is in need of updates. The first link is not active. The official function of the CFPB is not defined. The Rahm Emanuel quote is unsupported as a critique of the CFPB, etc.--LSimons (talk) 22:41, April 5, 2022 (EDT)

The official function appears to be to scam the US Treasury for Democrats. RobS^{Let's Go Brandon!} 22:49, April 5, 2022 (EDT)

Then why, pray tell, doesn’t the article have a decent reference for this alleged fact? Are you saying the US Treasury was scammed for the Democrats during the Trump years also? If someone with absolutely zero knowledge of the CFPB were to go to this article, they wouldn’t have the slightest clue as to the bureau’s function. I know you can do better.--LSimons (talk) 23:29, April 5, 2022 (EDT)

Wednesday?

"met with lawmakers on Wednesday to discuss gun laws"? I don't get it. It makes no encyclopedic sense. Thanks. RobS^{Zelensky didn't kill himself} 10:52, December 27, 2023 (EST)

Using 'Wednesday' is a little redundant. Might be best to mention on the talk page of the article? --LSimons (talk) 16:25, December 27, 2023 (EST)

(It's in the link I provided). Don't worry. I fixed it. Please remember we're an encyclopedia, and don't get lazy and just do a cut n paste, okay? RobS^{Zelensky didn't kill himself} 16:34, December 27, 2023 (EST)