User talk:RobSmih/Archive 10

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search


A quick hello

Hello Rob!

I am a new user to Conservapedia and wanted to engage in the community more and saw you were a regular user. I hope I am using your talk page correctly so apologies if I am not. Would you have any advice on how I may improve my presence and reputation in this community?

Many thanks,

Alexis Toburn.

I need a research assistant. What are your areas of specialty or interest? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 21:42, 15 July 2019 (EDT)

quick note

The Conservapedia article on the Soviet Union ranks pretty well at the the search engines of Google, Yahoo and Bing. I spruced up the Soviet Union article via some pictures and now it ranks #5 at Google for the search term Soviet Union as can be seen HERE

Bottom line: Your Soviet Union and communism related material plus any future material you create in that genre will now have a bigger audience.

Lastly, I think it is best if we put aside our past differences and work more cooperatively in the future. Best wishes on your future editing. Conservative 16:45, 15 November 2011 (EST)


Nice to see you back--CamilleT 19:27, 15 November 2011 (EST)

Thanks! Rob Smith 15:59, 21 November 2011 (EST)

So, are you trying to whitewash Gingrich and his personal history? He's an adulterer several times over. --SharonW 18:58, 22 January 2012 (EST) Edited to add - every bit of what I added to the article was referenced. I thought we didn't censor truth? --SharonW 18:59, 22 January 2012 (EST)

No. Information needs to carefully vetted. There's a lot of lies and misinformation out there about Newt, his first wife being served with divorce papers on her deathbed being for instance. This material needs to be handles carefully. Rob Smith 19:01, 22 January 2012 (EST)
I didn't add anything to the article about "deathbed" papers. However you deleted everything - looks like a whitewash to me. --SharonW 19:05, 22 January 2012 (EST)
In fact - you were the one to add something in about the deathbed papers. SharonW 19:06, 22 January 2012 (EST)
You're right -- and the message is proceed with caution. For decades now liberals and MSM have published blatant lies about Gingrich. You need to show credentials your intentions are not the same. Rob Smith 19:09, 22 January 2012 (EST)
I need to show credentials? What kind of credentials are you looking for, Rob? --SharonW 19:18, 22 January 2012 (EST)
That you're not a God-hating commie out to destroy Newt Gingrich. Rob Smith 19:31, 22 January 2012 (EST)
Gingrich did that pretty well on his own, as far as I'm concerned. Everyone has hot buttons - Andy's is abortion, yours is communism, mine is adultery. Gingrich is a creep, and what he does in his personal life tells me a lot about him. --SharonW 19:35, 22 January 2012 (EST)

Also, quick question - why is it important to add that the Clintons had an "open" marriage but not to add that Gingrich had at least 2 affairs, and forced his first ex-wife to appeal to the courts for money in order to support their two children? Both are very telling about the individuals. --SharonW 19:24, 22 January 2012 (EST)

Should we include allegations Hilary is a lesbian? her formal and public denial during the 2008 Presidential contest doesn't mean it's necessarily untrue. Especially given the Clinton's record in matters of sex. Where should we draw the line? Rob Smith 19:31, 22 January 2012 (EST)
Court records aren't allegations, Rob, they're public records. Mrs. Gingrich filed for support because Gingrich didn't pay. What does that tell you about him? --SharonW 19:35, 22 January 2012 (EST)
I don't know, that she's vindictive? that she and her lawyer tried to embarrass and blackmail Gingrich? What do Gingric's daughters, for whom the support is intended, say about it now? Rob Smith 19:45, 22 January 2012 (EST)
Oh, good one, Rob. The soon-to-be-ex-wife is vindictive when her bills were two to three months past due because Gingrich didn't pay any support. What did the judge think - oh, wait, he agreed with her. So I can only think you approve of adultery. --SharonW 19:49, 22 January 2012 (EST)


No more edit-warring. Please provide evidence that what has been added is false before removing it. Thank you, babe. --SharonW 22:14, 22 January 2012 (EST)

Rugby World Cup comparison to Superbowl

User:ScottDG informed me that, according to you, a comparison to the Superbowl is important for the Rugby World Cup page. I think it's inaccurate and slightly misleading, but I'm unaware of the reasoning as to why it is important. Here's the discussion. Cheers.


I uploaded the poser pic at Conservapedia:Image_upload_requests --Jpatt 23:10, 27 January 2012 (EST)


Working hard? --Joaquín Martínez 19:12, 28 January 2012 (EST)

Yes. Thank you. Good to hear from you. Rob Smith 19:18, 28 January 2012 (EST)


Your gratuitous insulting behaviour might be tolerated on other sites, but lets keep the conversations civil here. You do not see me going around insulting your country do you? --DamianJohn 20:49, 28 January 2012 (EST)

Third World is not an insult. Rob Smith 16:19, 29 January 2012 (EST)
Yes it is. Don't get cute Rob. Can't you go about editing an encyclopaedia without hurling insults at everyone? Or is that beyond your capabilities? --DamianJohn 18:12, 29 January 2012 (EST)
If the term "Third World" is a pejorative, blame the United Nations, not me. Rob Smith 19:21, 29 January 2012 (EST)
No. I blame you Rob, because the word no longer has the meaning it used to have. Also, you could not say with a straight face that you were using the word in the anachronistic sense. In any case, even under the older sense of the word, New Zealand was a first world country. Every post you make you look more and more foolish. --DamianJohn 19:33, 29 January 2012 (EST)
New Zealand is a Superpower? don't think so; New Zealand's not even a member of NATO or the European Union. New Zealand may be among the developed nations, which could earn it Second World status, dependent upon the level of its foreign debt and trade surplus/ deficit. But even if it has a fairly decent living standard by world standards, adjustment must be made for its military and defense contributions to maintaining a stable international trading system. And if it spends .01% as Japan does of it's national income on defense, leaving American taxpayers to pick up the slack (and thus, suffer a lower standard of living) no way does New Zealand under any circumstances equal First World superpower status of the US. Rob Smith 19:56, 29 January 2012 (EST)
I know of no person, except you, who claims that first world means superpower. Even your cite doesn't argue for this. In fact your cite explicitly calls NZ a first world country. Now if you want to make up a definition for a term, at least have the decency to let everyone know that. I don't know if you are just trolling, or you seriously believe what you are saying, either way, I suggest you go have a long hard look at yourself in the mirror. I'm done with you. --DamianJohn 20:15, 29 January 2012 (EST)
Congratulations, welcome to the First World. You'll see, it's no big deal. Rob Smith 20:32, 29 January 2012 (EST)

I hear your country got the beginnings of a health-care system, I see America is rapidly approaching first-world status :), glad you could join us. Cmurphynz 05:37, 20 October 2012 (EDT)

Expansion of the universe

Yes, Rob, if you look at a star today, and then 500 years from now, you will notice a difference in distance of 500*rate of yearly expansion. RachelW 20:59, 30 January 2012 (EST)

The rate of expansion is about 73 km/s/Mpc. What that means is that for every megaparsec you are in distance from a point, you will be moving 73 km/s away from that point due to the expansion of the universe. So, 1 megaparsec away means you are moving 73 km/s, 2 megaparsecs away and its 146 km/s, and so on. For your reference, a megaparsec is about 3,261,636 light years, or 20 billion billion miles. This is why we don't really notice the expansion of the universe without high powered telescopes. Its a very small rate of expansion relative to the sizes involved. Hope this helps. RachelW 21:21, 30 January 2012 (EST)

It does. So the gravitationally bound objects likewise are moving with the expansion at the same rate? Is matter in the universe likewise expanding? Not to sound absurd, but am I actually becoming more obese as the universe expands? Rob Smith 22:01, 30 January 2012 (EST)

It is not the matter itself, expanding, but the space between it. Think about a lump of bread dough with raisins in it, as it rises in the oven. The raisins don't expand themselves, but if you stand on a raisin and look at the other raisins, you'll see them moving away from you, and the farther away they are, the faster they move.

The thing is, any two objects close enough to be bound gravitationally are not likely to be far enough away for the expansion to matter at all. Although, actually, since the rate of expansion is increasing, some scientists believe that in many many many billions of years in the future, the expansion may rip apart every atom in the universe. It's called the "Big Rip" theory, and yes, it is a little kooky. RachelW 22:13, 30 January 2012 (EST)

Oh, and as to the question of scale: You basically have to look at objects in other galaxies for the expansion to become noticeable. I won't see any expansion looking at stars in the Milky Way galaxy, but I will if I look at a star in a galaxy much farther away. And actually, the galaxy closest to us, Andromeda, is being drawn into our galaxy by gravity and so is not rushing away from us like most other galaxies are. RachelW 22:19, 30 January 2012 (EST)

Thank you. So I got it wrong, the theory states expansion is accelerating, not decreasing. Question: Will an observable object 13 billion lights year away be 13 + y billion lights years away in y billion years? Rob Smith 23:16, 30 January 2012 (EST)
Well, as we said before, for every 3.2 billion light years away you are, the speed increases by 73 km/s, or 45 miles per second. So, for an object 13 billion light years away, it will be traveling at about 180 miles per second relative to the earth, or 5.7 billion miles per year. So, in say, 1 billion years, that object will have traveled approximately 5.7 billion billion miles, or 970,000 light years, a change in distance of much less than one percent. RachelW 23:34, 30 January 2012 (EST)
Not quite. There's a bit of a compound interest effect involved. Every second another 73.8km gets added to the distance, and that's expanding as well. Over a few billion years that can add some real distance. --GeorgeLi 00:27, 31 January 2012 (EST)
The distance equation wouldn't be exactly linear, of course, but the change in distance really is so small that you can treat the speed as constant and it makes a very good approximation. RachelW 10:23, 31 January 2012 (EST)

Good work on Paul

I am very much liking what you are saying about St Paul. Very well put. Paul saw the light and stopped being a rule-obsessed Pharisee, yet people today try to turn him back into one. We shouldn't let them!--CPalmer 09:58, 23 February 2012 (EST)

That's right; User:Conservative is preaching a Gospel which basically says, "Ye must be circumcised and not be obese." Rob Smith 14:24, 23 February 2012 (EST)

You are unblocked

RobSmith, you are unblocked.

How about creating this project which could be featured on the main page: Conservapedia:Encyclopedia on Communism.

If you wanted and if this helps, this could serve as a template with any modifications you think are necessary: Conservapedia:Encyclopedia of Conservatism. Conservative 06:34, 25 May 2015 (EDT)

Welcome back!

So you were editing as "OscarO" nearly the whole time that you were blocked (all but 5 months)? Impressive. And it says something about the admins' ability to accurately identify sock accounts.

Anyway, you created an enormous amount of Venona material over at Ameriwiki. (Remember that?) There were approximately 3.847 gajillion articles, which I combined into one huge one because I was tired of seeing one of them come up every time I hit "random page". I assume you still have that material. If you don't have it, and you want it, I may be able to scrounge it up from when I exported the whole database before the site died. SamHB 22:03, 28 May 2015 (EDT)

yah yah, I was worried about that and would appreciate it. What happened to wikinet anyway?It died without fanfare and I lost tons of original creations. Rob Smith 00:01, 29 May 2015 (EDT)
I lost a lot too. When I saw that it was going away (long story) I exported the whole database; it's in an xml file, as I recall. I'm not familiar with xml extraction, but it was the best I could do. It's on one of my disks, I believe. I'll see what I can do, but it may take a while. SamHB 00:43, 29 May 2015 (EDT)
How many decent size articles are going to be recovered and put on CP? 05:25, 29 May 2015 (EDT)
I was simply offering this as a personal favor to Rob. I would do the same for SharonW or AlanE. Rob can put his material up if he chooses. If you are wondering whether I'm planning to bring over any of my own material, or anyone else's, the answer is no. It's a very long story, and I won't bore you with it, but essentially none of what I wrote for AW would be suitable for here, for various reasons—it's basically a difference of "vision". Also, what I wrote about science for AW used lots of pictures and diagrams, and I don't have upload rights. There have been a couple of very tiny exceptions, like what I wrote recently about Joseph Warren. I did that from memory. It's very interesting that he was the guy who "pushed the button" and made the decision to start the American Revolution, and I wanted that in the CP article. In any case, there was nothing about atheism and sailboats.  :-) SamHB 22:34, 29 May 2015 (EDT)
Yah virtually all of it is redundant. They're my original versions from WP, CP, and elsewhere. Rob Smith 00:02, 30 May 2015 (EDT)
Are you saying you don't need me to recover your AW material? I'll do it if you need me to, but it's something of a pain. So if you've saved it, or contributed it elsewhere, please use that. SamHB 00:12, 30 May 2015 (EDT)

Welcome back! --Joaquín Martínez 19:03, 31 May 2015 (EDT)

I sent you an email


I just sent you an email. Conservative 16:20, 10 June 2015 (EDT)

Had no idea this account was unblocked. Thanks. Have U seen my Global jihad essay? It's #16 on Google out of 2.4 million. Or my DAESH entry (well, not all mine) it has been in the top 6 of Google for one solid year now. Rob Smith (talk) 17:15, 23 March 2016 (EDT)
Glad you are getting some readers for your global jihad work. You put a lot of work into it. Same with the DAESH article.
As far as the title of the article "Essay: Global jihad", my guess is that people prefer articles and not essays. You would probably get more clicks if you didn't have the prefix "Essay".
My guess is that your article was too right wing for the website your wrote it for so you had to use the prefix essay.
I could be wrong though. I have had some popular web pages with the prefix essay that rank well for relevant terms at a search engine beginning with a G. :)
Anyways, take a look at my note below and I wish you all the best. Conservative (talk) 17:43, 24 April 2016 (EDT)

Conservapedia's web traffic is up

Conservapedia is one of the top 100,000 websites in the world as far as web traffic according to the web traffic tracking company Alexa,[1]

Thank you for all your contributions.

Conservapedia continues to receive millions of page views per month.Conservative (talk) 17:59, 19 April 2016 (EDT)

re: recent note to me


You wrote: "Accept my terms for returning...". I already recommended to the owner of CP that you be made a Sysop again. I set up the ball in front of net, now it's your job to spoke it over the net.

There is really nothing for me to accept. Only the owner of CP can reinstate your Sysop rights. Get in contact with the owner of CP and hammer something out.

I also suggest contacting Karajou. You want him to be for it and not against it.

I wish you the best in getting back your Sysop rights. Conservative (talk) 17:11, 24 April 2016 (EDT)

If you hit a wall when asking for your Sysop rights back, I suggest building up some goodwill with some new content at CP and then asking again. If necessary (and I don't think it would be necessary), keep repeating this cycle until your are a Sysop.
I really think it would be easy for your to get your Sysop rights again. You just need to put a little effort into it. Andy liked your content so I am confident things would work out. Conservative (talk) 17:28, 24 April 2016 (EDT)

Kept your content from being deleted.

There was an attempt to delete your Essay: New Ordeal content. I could see that you put a lot of work into it so I merely moved it so it would not be deleted.

I like the term "New Ordeal". It is clever. Conservative (talk) 23:26, 28 April 2016 (EDT)

Put this on Andy's talk page - work something out with Andy - RobS: Another reason why he should be an editor and subsequently be an admin. Something should be worked out

This was originally put on Talk:High_morale_of_Christendom, so as to get Cons's attention, and then moved here. SamHB (talk) 18:45, 1 May 2016 (EDT)
But it might interest you [that's Cons] to know that, back at Ameriwiki (you remember Ameriwiki? No? It's just as well) Rob wrote a gigantic number of articles about Communism in the 30's and 40's, and senator McCarthy, and FDR, and Venona, etc. etc. A biographical page for every person involved in that subject, and Rob is a walking encyclopedia of that. I believe there were hundreds of such pages. They swamped the "random page" thing. That is, when you clicked on "random page", you had a high probability of getting one. It made Ameriwiki look like an encyclopedia of Communism during the FDR administration, while I was trying to make it look like an encyclopedia of Americana and American history. (And mathematics too, of course.) Rob had put an enormous amount of effort into writing those articles, and I put an equally enormous amount of effort into combining them into sections of one huge page. Or several huge pages. Whatever. Rob and I communicated during this, and he appreciated the work I was doing. I assume he has saved all that stuff somewhere.
SamHB (talk) 00:26, 29 April 2016 (EDT)

If RobS has backups of his Ameriwiki articles, see if he wants to put them onto Conservapedia.

I may have a backup; I made an export of the whole web site, as a gigantic xml file, before Ameriwiki disappeared. I may have it on some disk somewhere. But I hope RobS has better things to do in 2016 than put that material up. SamHB (talk) 18:45, 1 May 2016 (EDT)

The middle/centrists appear to be dropping out of America politics somewhat and the far right/alt right and socialist wings appear to be growing. I am guessing there is some topical overlap between socialists and communists as there are anti-socialist communists, anti-communist socialists, etc. etc. etc.

In addition, communism articles and atheism articles at the same wiki is a great match. A good portion of people interested in atheism articles would also be interested in communism articles. The two areas are related as atheism was a central tenet of communism.

I do regret pushing for RobS to lose his admin status. Maybe he will decide to purse being an admin again. I know Andy liked his article contributions. Conservative (talk) 00:53, 29 April 2016 (EDT)

Winograd Commission (Democratic Party)

re: Winograd Commission (Democratic Party)

I made the change you requested. Sorry about my first attempt of "Winograd Commission (Wisconsin)". I did a favor for a friend last night and was up a bit late. I was a little groggy. Your suggestion made a lot more sense. Conservative (talk) 12:48, 15 May 2016 (EDT)

re: Hillary Clinton article

Given present demands on my time, I shouldn't have waded into the Hillary Clinton article and done it in a matter that minimized discussion.

If you want to revert the article to your last version, please do so.

Lastly, I don't see myself getting involved in any of the political oriented articles at Conservapedia in 2016 given my present priorities. Conservative (talk) 12:31, 21 May 2016 (EDT)

re: Hillary article

RobS, you can revert the Hillary Rodham Clinton article and then fill it in if you decide to be an active editor. I clearly said that.

Don't put back in the editorial warning in italics and the beginning of the article. See my talk page comments on this matter. Conservative (talk) 15:56, 22 May 2016 (EDT)

re: Hillary Clinton article - do whatever you want with the article

Do whatever you want with the Hillary Clinton article. I am not going to interfere again with any of your political content.

I will let the other admins/editors who are into politics more work with you on the political articles since they are more interested in politics than I am.

I am going to take a long break from the news and attend to other matters so I won't be doing any wiki content or oversight as far as political topics. Conservative (talk) 22:54, 22 May 2016 (EDT)

re: Detente

I am glad we are now in a period of detente.

Down the pike when I have more time at my disposal and should you remain an active editor, I will once again recommend you get your admin status back.

I have already changed Karajou's opinion so now he is in favor of it. And you are also closer down the field in terms of getting Andy to agree. Andy is a conservative lawyer and they tend to be a cautious lot, but I believe that if you are persistent that this will ultimately win the day. Conservative (talk) 17:03, 23 May 2016 (EDT)

re: You are farther down the proverbial football field and...

A standard football field (note the hash marks running horizontally down the field).

How you you like to make a play that would get you at the proverbial 99 yard line? Within inches of the full admin endzone.


I heard you are going to get picture upload rights as early as today. I asked for this to happen.

Question: How do you feel about get your Admin rights back, but agreeing to not edit the main page? That would put you on the proverbial 99 yard line. Within inches of crossing over the full Admin yard line and scoring a touchdown. I think if you were to agree to this, it could speed up the process of getting your full Admin rights back. Before you answer, consider this proverb "Inch by inch it's a inch. Mile by mile it's a trial".

It's time to make that play that gets you to the 99 yard line. Do it for the Gipper.

And remember, the prospect of eating a huge salami sausage at one sitting is a startling suggestion to most people. So let's not startle the conservative and cautious lawyer who owns this website. But who can resist salami slices? I think it's time for you to be one salami slice away from being a full Admin. Agreed? Conservative (talk) 17:56, 24 May 2016 (EDT)

(User rights log); 22:29 . . Aschlafly (Talk | contribs | block) changed group membership for User:RobSmith from Block, SkipCaptcha, edit, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO and nsTeam2_talkRW to Block, SkipCaptcha, edit, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW and Upload ‎(account promoted)
10 yards further down the field! It's time to make the play that gets you to the 99 yard line. Agreed? Conservative (talk) 18:33, 24 May 2016 (EDT)
Sounds like a winner. If I find any good news items or headlines (and I have some good sources), I'll put on mainpage talk.
FYI, I'm sitting right outside (about 150 ft) from a big Trump rally & counterprotest as we speak; two days ago Bernie Sanders was at this same location. The counterprotest is about half the size of the Sanders rally, and the Trump rally is about 3 times the size the Sanders rally was. Also, Bill Clinton is in across town right now, fighting a rear-guard action trying to hold on to what the Hillary people got; Trump's getting top billing in all local media, and Bill is pretty much ignored. RobS aka Nobs01Enter if you Dare! 90/10 Awaits: Beware! 19:47, 24 May 2016 (EDT)
Trump crowd is increasing, and he's not due to speak for another hour & 10 mins. Trump crowd is approaching the same size Obama drew in 2008, and is made up of people of all ages, races and sexes. Anti-Trump crowd is basically the same rioters we've had here during police shooting protests & Occupy Wall Street. It should be noted, I live in the most Hispanic state in the Union where Hispanics outnumber whites, natives etc. RobS aka Nobs01Enter if you Dare! 90/10 Awaits: Beware! 19:52, 24 May 2016 (EDT)

I will try to move this forward. I do have one request though.

Someone whined about your promotion and mentioned a previous block you received from Karajou. I looked through the blog log and a lot of people blocked you in the past. Let's turn the page as far as you locking horns with people when you can avoid doing so.

I might be able to get this done today as far as this proposal. I will be busy this week, but don't see a delay as a no. Conservative (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2016 (EDT)

Please check your email. Conservative (talk) 20:47, 24 May 2016 (EDT)
Page move would be handy; for example [Hillary Clinton Exploratory Campaign Committee]] should be moved to [Hillary Clinton 2008 Exploratory Committee]. RobS aka Nobs01Enter if you Dare! 90/10 Awaits: Beware! 01:00, 25 May 2016 (EDT)
Update: Trump rally erupts in violence. [2] RobS aka Nobs01Enter if you Dare! 90/10 Awaits: Beware! 01:04, 25 May 2016 (EDT)
Please check your email. Conservative (talk) 22:55, 25 May 2016 (EDT)

Something about a conflict with GerryV

I came across this: [3] in Recent Changes. I know nothing of what the issue is about. But I wonder if you could contact this person and straighten it out. SamHB (talk) 01:26, 27 May 2016 (EDT)

I just made a pledge to avoid conflict, so sorry pal. You're (and the user account you advocating for) are on your own. RobS#NeverHillary 11:25, 27 May 2016 (EDT)

Picture change Hillary Clinton article

I changed the picture for the main Hillary Clinton article. I didn't want you to lose fence sitters because they clicked off a page with an ugly picture or quickly surmised by the previous ugly picture that the article was not going to be fair-minded.

Just laying out the facts should dissuade reasonable people to not to vote for her. Conservative (talk) 15:18, 28 May 2016 (EDT)

I thought it was a pretty good likeness. RobS#NeverHillary 16:30, 28 May 2016 (EDT)

Hillary and the Children's Defense Fund

If you haven't done so already, I think you should do some material on Hillary Clinton and the Children's Defense Fund. Here is some potential material:

I think that is one of her talking points to bolster her image. Conservative (talk) 12:40, 30 May 2016 (EDT)

Incinerating 17 children at Waco covered that; I had planned to put refutations of the CDF of her garbage talking points on the subpage while expanding her abuse of women & child directly in the bio. RobS#NeverHillary 12:49, 30 May 2016 (EDT)
This issue is somewhat related to the Clinton Foundation claiming their donations go to fight hunger, poverty, and AIDS. So the question is, who dominates? do we allow the Clinton's to set the agenda and dictate what goes into her bio by having to refute her fraudulent window dressing and talking points, or does the article go straight forward to facts. RobS#NeverHillary 12:52, 30 May 2016 (EDT)

Resource for free web pics/graphics and put a suggestion on Andy's talk page about you being given additional editor privileges

Resource for free web pics: Free web pics and graphics.

I just put a comment on Andy talk page about you gaining more editor privileges. Conservative (talk) 17:51, 3 June 2016 (EDT)

re: Page move and page lock

I just sent Andy a request via email to give you page move and page lock rights.

I don't enough about the Wikimedia software to know if that requires you to be an Admin. Conservative (talk) 21:45, 3 June 2016 (EDT)

When are we gonna see any progress on this? RobS#NeverHillary 16:04, 15 June 2016 (EDT)

re: getting you admin privileges

Getting you admin privileges is taking longer than I expected.

I hope you loading pictures which are not in according with either being public domain or uploadable as per the license terms of the picture is not slowing things down. You need to stop doing this if you want to expedite getting yourself Admin privileges. I think you are making my tasks harder due to this matter. There are so many pictures that you could upload that you are free to upload and I think you are possibly hampering your ability to be an Admin. See: Public Domain pictures and pictures with generous copyright provisions and free clip art

I think I may not be able to work on the matter of helping you be an admin for several months. Maybe not until 2017. But I do intend to get back to this matter (if you stop uploading pictures not in accordance with Conservapedia's uploading policy. See: Copyright), but hopefully my assistance will not be needed as you will already be an Admin. Conservative (talk) 12:26, 4 June 2016 (EDT)

No problem. Are you saying I should check those sites you provided and replace what is there already, then ask for deletion, etc.? RobS#NeverHillary 12:38, 4 June 2016 (EDT)
I am about to attend to another matter. To expedite things due to my deadlines, I will delete the pictures that you don't have the rights to have uploaded. You can take care of any leftover cleanup. Conservative (talk) 12:46, 4 June 2016 (EDT)
I fixed thuings. Please don't upload pictures unless they are public domain or you can meet the criteria for uploading as per their license rights such as Creative Commons non-Commercial/attribution photos. There are a ton of pictures available and here are some of them: Public Domain pictures and pictures with generous copyright provisions and free clip art Conservative (talk) 13:21, 4 June 2016 (EDT)

A suggestion to getting you to be Admin sooner

I think if you work with the users in the conversation here and Andy to have a better picture upload process, you would be a problem solver.

I think being a problem solver might help you be an admin faster. Conservative (talk) 13:30, 4 June 2016 (EDT)

re: User:JayHarper

re: User:JayHarper

He was a parodist. I deleted a few of his articles. If you have time, please go through some of his past edits. Conservative (talk) 20:12, 9 June 2016 (EDT)

I tried to fix a few but all I get is [Internal Server Error]. RobS#NeverHillary 22:12, 9 June 2016 (EDT)

Please read the email I sent you....

Please read the email I just sent you. It has to do with your efforts to be a Sysop again. Conservative (talk) 14:57, 18 June 2016 (EDT)

"Move" privileges added to account

I added "move" privileges to your account. Congratulations!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:32, 19 June 2016 (EDT)

Added "protect" privileges also.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:40, 19 June 2016 (EDT)

Please check your email

I sent you an email. Please let me know if you got it. Conservative (talk) 21:12, 17 July 2016 (EDT)

Two matters


Two things:

1. Please check your email.

2. Please create these articles:

I think this election is going to be close. I know some people are predicting a landslide for Trump and it may happen, but I still think it is going to be close.

Thanks for all your efforts on creating Hillary Clinton content. I think millennials are going to be a factor in this election. So keep the Hillary content coming! Conservative (talk) 02:57, 17 September 2016 (EDT)

Hillary Clinton - suggested articles


You might want to create these articles since there is a lot of public interest in these topics:

Conservative (talk) 17:41, 5 November 2016 (EDT)

I mentioned you on main page right for your work on the Hillary Clinton related articles

I mentioned you on main page right for your work on the Hillary Clinton related articles.

I wrote: "Kudos to User: RobSmith for all Conservapedia Hillary Clinton article content he created before the 2016 U.S. presidential election. User: RobSmith created multiple articles related to Hillary Clinton." Conservative (talk) 18:20, 9 November 2016 (EST)

Thank you. After 20 years, we've finally developed the historical narratives about both Clintons that will stand forevet. No one can or will dismiss it as partisan or fringe conspiracy theories.RobS#NeverHillary 09:39, 11 November 2016 (EST)

Hate speech

Dear Rob, Americans make a distinction between hate crime laws and hate speech codes. Does this apply in Europe as well? I realize that civil code countries have a different legal structure than common law countries, so perhaps our distinctions do not carry over very well over there. Thanks, JDano (talk) 12:18, 12 January 2017 (EST)

Yes, I think this bares looking into. Coincidentally, I was just reading how American Civil Rights law made certain things a crime, but US law distinguishes between civil and criminal offenses. Maybe we need a lawyer to straighten both questions out. RobSMake Exxon Great Again 12:33, 12 January 2017 (EST)
Rob, I am a lawyer, and assumed that you were too. JDano (talk) 13:25, 12 January 2017 (EST)
No, but I think like a lawyer in evidence gathering for historical reseaech. The rules of evidence are basically the same for making an argument on facts. RobSMake Exxon Great Again 13:31, 12 January 2017 (EST)

Trump achievements

If you or anyone else notices that I have omitted or passed over any accomplishments from Donald Trump achievements, feel free to add them. I'm just mentioning this because with President Trump's massive activity, it's hard to keep up. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:08, 28 January 2017 (EST)

Traffic tip for European migrant crisis article

If you want traffic to your European migrant crisis article, I would create the articles below:

I hope that helps. Conservative (talk) 14:36, 29 January 2017 (EST)


You helped make THIS happen.

I have never seen a non-profit website go from below 100,000 rank to nearly a 50,000 Alexa ranking in about a year. And Andy payed zero dollars for content creation/social mediamarketing/email marketing/SEO during this period. In fact, Andy generally has a dislike of social media as you probably know.

And there is no sign of a nearing web traffic plateau. My guess is that Trump supporters/Trump era and the resulting political waves significantly explains the boost in traffic. It was great that you were involved in the Hillary Clinton content before the election. Trump supporters seem very loyal so the traffic boost could be long lasting. It also seems like there is a reawakening of right-wing politics/nationalism that will be long lasting. And right-wing populism and "best of the public" go together like peanut butter and jelly. :)

Thanks again for your efforts. Conservative (talk) 17:19, 13 February 2017 (EST)

Quick project

Dear Rob: Our state articles list the members of Congress from each state, but they have not be updated for 2016. If five editors could update 10 states each, we would be done quickly. Could you please take a look at Conservapedia:Community Portal#Political directory? Thanks in advance, JDano (talk) 16:09, 15 February 2017 (EST)

European migrant crisis is featured atop main page left

I featured the European migrant crisis atop main page left. Conservative (talk) 16:04, 6 March 2017 (EST)

Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Hell RobS, please check cite-9 on Debbie Wasserman Schultz. --1990'sguy (talk) 09:36, 31 March 2017 (EDT)

re: range block

Did Karajou and I wind up removing the range block from the geographic area that you were concerned about? Please look at the recent changes which reflect the range blocks that I removed.

Also, I removed range blocks from other areas as well.

Thanks for letting me know about this matter. I am glad I could be of help. Conservative (talk) 06:28, 9 April 2017 (EDT)

Here is a summary:

(Block log); 09:44 . . Conservative (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked (Talk) ‎(removing as per email)

(Block log); 09:43 . . Conservative (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked (Talk) ‎(removing as per email)

(Block log); 09:43 . . Conservative (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked (Talk) ‎(removing as per email)

(Block log); 09:43 . . Conservative (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked (Talk) ‎(removing as per email)

(Block log); 09:42 . . Conservative (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked (Talk) ‎(removing as per email)

(Block log); 09:42 . . Conservative (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked (Talk) ‎(removing as per email)

(Block log); 09:42 . . Conservative (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked (Talk) ‎(removing as per email)

(Block log); 09:42 . . Conservative (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked (Talk) ‎(removing as per email)

(Block log); 09:41 . . Conservative (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked (Talk) ‎(removing as per email)

(Block log); 09:41 . . Conservative (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked (Talk) ‎(removing as per email)

(Block log); 09:41 . . Conservative (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked (Talk) ‎(removing as per email)

(Block log); 09:05 . . Conservative (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked (Talk) ‎(removing as per email)

(Block log); 09:04 . . Conservative (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked (Talk) ‎(removing as per email)

(Block log); 09:04 . . Conservative (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked (Talk) ‎(removing as per email)

(Block log); 09:03 . . Conservative (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked (Talk) ‎(removing as per email)

(Block log); 09:03 . . Conservative (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked (Talk) ‎(removing as per email)

(Block log); 09:03 . . Conservative (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked (Talk) ‎(removing as per email)

(Block log); 09:02 . . Conservative (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked (Talk) ‎ (Block log); 09:02 . . Conservative (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked (Talk) ‎(removing as per email)

(Block log); 09:02 . . Conservative (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked (Talk) ‎(removing as per email)

(Block log); 09:01 . . Conservative (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked (Talk) ‎(removing as per email)

(Block log); 09:01 . . Conservative (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked (Talk) ‎(removing as per email)

(Block log); 09:01 . . Conservative (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked (Talk) ‎(removing as per email)

(Block log); 09:00 . . Conservative (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked (Talk) ‎(removing as per email)

(Block log); 09:00 . . Karajou (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked (Talk) ‎(user request)

(Block log); 09:00 . . Conservative (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked (Talk) ‎(removing as per email)

(Block log); 09:00 . . Conservative (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked (Talk) ‎(removing as per email)

A few proposed article renames and template change

Since you have move privileges for articles and I can't do these myself at this point, there are a few articles here that need to be renamed and updated:

I also redirected the Atlanta Thrashers article to the Winnipeg Jets article since the team changed its name with its move to Winnipeg in 2011. Since I also can't edit the NHL teams template either, that template also needs to be updated to change Atlanta to Winnipeg and Phoenix to Arizona in light of those changes in the past few years. Northwest (talk) 19:51, 28 April 2017 (EDT)

I don't have Protect priveleges so I can't do the Templates, but the moves are done. RobSThe coup plotters won, for now 20:08, 28 April 2017 (EDT)

Mistaken edit?

Is there a reason for this edit, in which you removed a massive amount of information? --1990'sguy (talk) 21:14, 6 May 2017 (EDT)

Which edit?RobSThe coup plotters won, for now 21:23, 6 May 2017 (EDT)
Oops! This edit. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:24, 6 May 2017 (EDT)
No. Looks like an error. Thanks!RobSThe coup plotters won, for now 21:25, 6 May 2017 (EDT)

I see you are making multiple of these edits, but are these mistaken by any chance?[4][5][6][7][8][9] --1990'sguy (talk) 16:51, 7 May 2017 (EDT)

Collating the 2 timelines gets confusing once in a while, one lays out broadly Obama et al crimes, the second more specifically​ breaches of international law. Cyber intrusions and abuse of intelligence agencies overlap both.
Benghazigate relates more to foreign aspects, so Hillary's emails really are a foreign policy scandal not a domestic scandal.
As long as there's no big removals from Obamagate timeline, should be okay. RobSThe coup plotters won, for now 17:06, 7 May 2017 (EDT)

User: Karajou sent me and others an email saying he didn't like CP's article on liberalism. So...

User: Karajou sent me and others an email saying he didn't like CP's article on liberalism.

The article needs major improvements.

I am not going to work on it due to time restraints. I spent a lot of time improving the liberal article.

I would use the same approach used with the liberal article. Clearly delineate liberalism from socialism/fascism because they are very substantially different (for example, Sweden vs. Communist China vs. Nazi Germany). But mention how the gap between the ideologies has narrowed in the United States. I don't keep up with European politics to know the situation there as far as the gap other than knowing that China has become more capitalistic. European countries commonly have more major political parties in a country so the situation is more difficult to keep tabs on. Conservative (talk) 16:43, 9 May 2017 (EDT)

We'll have to delineate American liberalism from historic liberalism. Contemporary liberalism has already been separated from classical liberalism. Now we just hsve to divide American liberalism as its own peculiar brand from European liberalism and the rest of the world, and leave it to editors outside the US to reconcile the differances.
Confusions stems from the fact that the US, in its post-WWII nation building phase often presented its brand of liberalism to the rest of the world as the standard which they modeled after and followed. But American liberalism always was a poor caricature of European Marxist and socialist movements that never gained a proper footing (not until Obama, at least, but even now Obama himself favors US Imperialism over the rot he preached to get into office. So I'm not certain you can call Obama transitional. And there are other cracks in the liberal foundation). I'm seriously inclined to approach American liberal less as an ideology and more as a mental or societal disorder. RobSThe coup plotters won, for now 16:58, 9 May 2017 (EDT)
I would work on the liberalism article. But also create 2-3 sub-articles: American liberalism and Western liberalism and European liberalism. The American liberalism article is just a one sentence stub article.
I suggest a Western liberalism article due to the Canadians, Australia, NZ, and South Africa. Conservative (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2017 (EDT)
Since the Brits and Canadians have the most influence in the Anglosphere on the USA, you might want to create a British liberalism article and a Canadian liberalism article too.
Its too bad all this wasn't done before given that CP is a political website. I was largely focused on atheism which is a dying ideology. This had an indirect relation to liberalism given the prominence of the secular left on liberal/leftist politics. Conservative (talk) 18:17, 9 May 2017 (EDT)
Speaking about how the Left is becoming more sympathetic to communism, see this: the California State Assembly passed a bill to allow communists to openly work in government positions --1990'sguy (talk) 18:29, 9 May 2017 (EDT)

Re: American liberalism article

I copied and pasted some of the liberal article into the American liberalism article.

Generally speaking, ideally you want the material in the section for main article linking to a sub-article to have substantially different content. In this case, you want the American liberalism article to have different content than the "American liberalism" section of the liberal article.

So if you want to reword and/or add material to the American liberalism article the would be excellent. Conservative (talk) 19:19, 9 May 2017 (EDT)

What in the world!?

United States Presidential Election, 2016 --> Please read the title of the article, and then the article's contents. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:26, 12 May 2017 (EDT)

If you want to move something and a redirect exists where you want to move the article so, please just ask Andy to delete the redirect. It seems it was a typo on your part, but it would be better if you didn't capitalize the "P" and "E". --1990'sguy (talk) 17:30, 12 May 2017 (EDT)
I'm trying to get it to fit into this Category for contiguity. I did a 6 instead of a 2, but I dont have deletion powers to fix my mistake. You ask Andy, he ignores my messages. RobSTrump now is fighting back against the coup plotters 17:36, 12 May 2017 (EDT)
I already did. Hopefully, he will fix the issue soon. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2017 (EDT)
Ok thanks. It would be so much easier to train people on proper naming conventions at the start, then to do all this running around at the end. RobSTrump now is fighting back against the coup plotters 17:42, 12 May 2017 (EDT)
I see that the 2020 presidential election article is created. However, the title is 2020 election. Would you please move that to United States presidential election, 2020? --1990'sguy (talk) 17:44, 12 May 2017 (EDT)
The "United States" and the comma are unnecessary and unhelpful to the titles. Very few people would include either, let alone both. Simply "Presidential Election 2020" would be far superior. This isn't Wikipedia, where verbosity is the norm. Conciseness is preferred here. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 18:28, 12 May 2017 (EDT)
That's what redirects are for. And "Presidential Election 2020" is not concise, because you have to create a redirect for internal links anyway. RobSTrump now is fighting back against the coup plotters 19:43, 12 May 2017 (EDT)
Andy, I do not think the "E" in your preferred title should be capitalized. When we do CP searches, the are case-sensitive, and most people probably would not capitalize the "E".
Secondly, Andy, every U.S. presidential election prior to 2012 has the title of "United States presidential election, XXXX". We need consistent titles for our presidential election articles. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:45, 12 May 2017 (EDT)
I could've done the redirect; the page needs to be deleted. The entire Category is chaotic, and grows moreso each day. RobSTrump now is fighting back against the coup plotters 19:19, 12 May 2017 (EDT)
I changed the redirect, so it does not need to be deleted. I'll message Andy regarding the category. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:24, 12 May 2017 (EDT)
It needs to be deleted so a page move can be done to its proper name. I think both 2012 and 2016 are screwed.
2008 and 2012 also have subcategory pages for all election related articles. But since every two years, nobody wants to develop or abide by naming conventions, most election articles are just scattered and lost. It is a lot of work to assemble them. Like photo uploads, it woukd be so much easier to categorize things properly when new page is created than all this redundant work later. RobSTrump now is fighting back against the coup plotters 19:36, 12 May 2017 (EDT)
No, it should not be moved there because the "P" and the "E" are capitalized. If you want to be consistent, you should move the articles to redirects that have them lower-case. If Andy will not approve of the name change, maybe another admin will? --1990'sguy (talk) 19:44, 12 May 2017 (EDT)
I agree, it should be lower case. Ask Conservative or Karajou. RobSTrump now is fighting back against the coup plotters 19:47, 12 May 2017 (EDT)

New Template

Hello. I'd just like to inform you that it would be greatly beneficial if you were to assist on working on the following newly created template; Template:Bible Cities

This template was created less than a week ago, and is an attempt to record all the biblical cities of the Old and New Testaments. It would be helpful if you, and other fellow editors at Conservapedia, were to assist in creating articles describing these biblical cities. If you are willing to start making some of these pages, but are not exactly sure how to approach the task, I'd suggest looking at Rhegium or Beeroth, two very (very) recent pages created by myself (Shaaraim is another good example) to get a good understanding at how this thing should be done. If you're willing to go above and beyond, take a look at the page Amphipolis, perhaps the best biblical city page to date. Just to note, this request is optional and you may help out on your own volition.Korvex

Move request

Could you please move Robert Penn Walker to Robert Penn Warren? I wrote the wrong name when making the article's title.--Nathan (talk) 10:11, 29 May 2017 (EDT)

There already is a Robert Penn Warren, so one or the other has to merged or deleted. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 14:46, 29 May 2017 (EDT)
Sorry; I should have seen that. I'll merge the two and put in a delete request for Walker.--Nathan (talk) 14:48, 29 May 2017 (EDT)

Obama's Religion

Please don't do this again. I've occasionally seen you do things like this in the past. We don't need this behavior. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:47, 2 June 2017 (EDT)

Whaa...? I'm just being tolerant and accepting of other people's culture and idioms. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 21:52, 2 June 2017 (EDT)
I don't think most people see it that way -- this is exactly what parodists and trolls, who want to destroy this site, do. Please take care not to act like one, even if unintentionally. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:01, 2 June 2017 (EDT)
I am certain many atheists, secularists, and Democrats all Praise God, Allah, or Satan or who or whatever that Obama is "former" President Obama. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 22:07, 2 June 2017 (EDT)
Maybe, but it seems to me that most liberals wish he were still president. Unlike Clinton, it seems that liberals actually like Obama, rather than just supporting him to defeat the candidate they dislike more. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:12, 2 June 2017 (EDT)
I suspect the "Allah be praised" and the Benghazi bullet are both an attempt to pull my leg. Let's get back to serious work and set an example of clear writing and sound research/vetting of content. Thanks, JDano (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2017 (EDT)
The Benghazi lies cast a shadow over any "meaningful context" you're trying to pull out of the UN speech. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 22:35, 2 June 2017 (EDT)

Can you check your email

Can you please check your mail? It is important. Conservative (talk) 10:53, 3 June 2017 (EDT)

Might have to resend. Haven't received anything. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 10:58, 3 June 2017 (EDT)
I will resend.Conservative (talk) 12:04, 3 June 2017 (EDT)

Here is the article

major vandalism happening now.

major vandalism happening now.

Essay request

RobS, it looks like a lot of work was done on the Conservative vs. liberal article. Could you please write an essay on Essay: Liberal vs. conservative? Conservative (talk) 06:46, 4 June 2017 (EDT)

The Conservative vs. liberal article is just starting to gain traction in terms of viewership. For example, it ranks 26th for the search "Conservative vs. liberal". I would like it to gain a higher readership and increase its search engine rankings.

Could you please create these article which are important topics:

It would be great if Conservapedia did a better job of educating the public on these topics. And since Google rewards websites which are expert websites, I am sure you will increase the web visibility of the Conservative vs. liberal article. Conservative (talk) 17:33, 5 June 2017 (EDT)

Info: Conservative vs. liberal divorce rates:
That is a really good article. Conservative (talk) 18:06, 5 June 2017 (EDT)
Explosion of conservative news sites: Conservative (talk) 21:17, 5 June 2017 (EDT)

DHS, Russia, and the DNC

I see you did not add yet the Obama Administration's lack of effort in combating Russian involvement prior to the 2016 election,[10] the DNC's rejection of DHS help for their hacking,[11][12] Jeh Johnson's statement that no evidence existed of Russian collusion with the Trump Administration,[13] and a Senate probe into Loretta Lynch.[14] to the Obamagate timeline article or the other articles you maintain. Are these appropriate things to add? --1990'sguy (talk) 14:23, 23 June 2017 (EDT)

Oh definitely. Feel free if you like. I suspect there's much more to add as a result of these recent hearings. I just don't wanna see Obamagate get confused or overrun with Trump-Russia allegations, which is the ultimate path members of the intelligence committees of both parties, and the special council, will use to cover-up NSA abuses in the Obama era.
The Russian election involvement ultimately will need to be treated elsewhere in several other articles as part of ongoing modern cyber and electronic warfare. The 2016 allegations are the results of technical achievements, and not a political conspiracy. This is what needs to be clarified in all articles.
The recent ship collision off Japan, for example, appears to be the result of North Korean, Chinese, or Russian (or perhaps sharing and cooperation among them) ability to electronically interfere with US Naval vessels guidance systems. This is being investigated. And this electronic warfare has more to do with a priority cyber intrusion than any media or DNC misinformation over the past year. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 15:37, 23 June 2017 (EDT)

Fake news article

You have edited/commented on the fake news article in the past. What is your opinion on these edits I recently made? [15][16][17] --1990'sguy (talk) 12:58, 25 June 2017 (EDT)

On this one, "the mainstream media itself publishes and promotes fake news stories" I'd suggest getting a cite from the White House Press Office if possible; I support removing McCain - he's a Deep State operator, only confuses things, is a dottering old fool, and nobody cares anymore; and the other section can go to.
Aside, Trump the TV producer appears to be toying with the press (if he wasn't distracted by legal & legislative problems it would be more obvious). The recent covefef flap, for instance, could be:
  • 1. a simple typo at 3am by a guy suffering from jet lag;
  • 2. a calculated attempt to measure Google Trends in the immediate minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, years, after:
  • 3 a combination of the two.

The rules of reporting definitely have changed, and Trump is taking internet to the next level beyond what Howard Dean & Barack Obama did. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 15:16, 25 June 2017 (EDT)

Thanks. Do you have any specific suggestions on which cite we should use? --1990'sguy (talk) 15:19, 25 June 2017 (EDT)
It could a transcript from his Feb 16 or 17 press conference where he cited CNN specifically, a general statement from Spicer indicting all would be better, or something from Kellyanne Conway on broadcast cable. I'll do a quick search and see if I can come up with something. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 15:27, 25 June 2017 (EDT)
What do you think of this one? May 30 seems to be the date the issue came to a head, and everybody knows VOA is the USG' official propaganda mouthpiece, it can't be accused of being simply one-sided voice of the White House, and we're not showing favoritism to a msm source or blog. As long as it fits the relative context in mainspace.

RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 15:37, 25 June 2017 (EDT)
I liked the article and added it. Thanks! I think VOA is a relatively good source to use, particularly for this. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:39, 26 June 2017 (EDT)

Re: Trump

I think Donald Trump is going to get stuck with the blame for the economic bubble created by the Obama administration and the Federal Reserve.[18]

In addition, TrumpCare probably will not work because it is keeping the "precondition clause" of ObamaCare due to its popularity. People will often not buy health insurance until they are sick. So the health care system will not be viable. Car insurance companies could not be profitable if people could buy their car insurance after their car accident in order to replace their car. Conservative (talk) 22:11, 11 July 2017 (EDT)

How about Ann Coulter's idea that people ought to be able to buy any kind of health insurance they want?
  • Congress doesn’t repeal Obamacare! Instead, Congress passes a law, pursuant to its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce, that says: “In America, it shall be legal to sell health insurance on the free market. This law supersedes all other laws, taxes, mandates, coverage requirements, regulations or prohibitions, state or federal.” [19]
I'm pragmatic. I just want to get what I need, at a reasonable price, if someone will provide it. --Ed Poor Talk 08:33, 23 July 2017 (EDT)

Expansion of right-wing material on the internet

I know Twitter bans and shadow bans right-wingers.

I haven't looked at the latter two items, but right-wingers gaining momentum on the internet is an interesting development. With nationalism gaining ground in Europe and 21st century desecularization occurring, the trend is bound to continue. Conservative (talk)

Dont be so quick to think this is a success. I see way too much of this sort of thing. Look at this closely: 16 YEAR OLD AMERICAN GIRL BEATEN AND BURNED ALIVE BY MUSLIM IMMIGRANT. WOULD YOU SUPPORT TRUMP IF HE DEPORT ALL THE MUSLIMS? But what are the facts here? Yes, a Guatamalan is an American. No, there is no evidence whatsoever the person who torched this girl is a Muslim. Thirdly, what does Trump have to do with this headline? So Facebook gets inundated with this liberal/Leftist Soros-inspired Deep State trollery, and counts the number of 'Likes' as racist Trump supporters. I view this explosion of alleged conservative sites as a real problem unless some sort of self-regulation and oversight is developed, and less a direct reflection of traffic demands by viewers.
In the link I provided, a 16 year old Guatamalan gangbanger and her two male accomplices raided a neighboring village and shot a 68 year old man, probably to get money for drugs. The villagers drive the two males off, and burned the girl (a teenage prostitute who lured the elderly man) alive. A local village gangbanger burnt her alive in the village square in front of the entire village, including children. The killer was not a Muslim. This video has nothing to do with the Muslims. So it is about Central American teenage gangs and drug violence.
There is way way way too much of these sort of links on the internet. Conservatives and Trump supporters need to proceed with caution immediately. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 10:58, 13 July 2017 (EDT)
First, if you go to the Muslim websites in English, often their web marketing is crude (poor web design, no email opt-ins, etc. etc.).
The core problem of the West is its need for Christian revival. If the West saw Christian revival a number of good things would happen such as: the sub-replacement fertility problem would be solved; the Protestant work ethic would occur and a number of other benefits would start occurring (See: Atheism and fertility rates and Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism and Protestant cultural legacies and Christianity statistics).
At the very least, the West has to be more disciplined and hardworking. Singapore transformed itself from a stagnant British colony to being a first class economy though hard work, discipline and having more thoughtful policies. Granted, Singapore did have some good effects from their contact with the West (see: Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism).
A country can't sustain a high level of immigrants who have low productivity and who are troublesome. To do so is an invitation for forcible relocation and/or civil war and/or ethnic cleansing. History is replete with this sort of thing (for example, Reconquista).
Multiculturalism has failed in many countries that have tried it such as France/Germany/Sweden. But there are places which have avoided ethnic/religious conflict over a sustained amount of time such as: Singapore; to a less extent the Philippines as there is conflict due to Muslims; USA, Hawaii, etc. But in the USA ethnic (and the attendant cultural differences. Even in European cultures there are significant cultural legacy differences such as the English cultural legacy of small government and the German cultural legacy of a larger government) are gaining steam in terms of tension/conflict.
John Wesley's preaching is widely credited with causing England to avoid a revolution like France had. Perhaps if evangelicalism continues to grow among Hispanics that will prevent much conflict ahead for the USA. And the USA may learn from Europe's Muslim troubles and keep the percentage of Muslims in the USA low. Conservative (talk) 15:19, 13 July 2017 (EDT)


I sent you one yesterday, and I am writing to you here to verify that it was me. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:38, 18 August 2017 (EDT)

Actually, I received an automated email, twice, that my email to you was not delivered for some technical reason. Please try emailing me -- maybe that will work. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:59, 19 August 2017 (EDT)
Yah, I've had trouble synchronising email with my new device. Still working on it. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 23:54, 25 August 2017 (EDT)
OK. Please send me an email as soon as you can. --1990'sguy (talk) 09:47, 26 August 2017 (EDT)
Email sent. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:54, 26 August 2017 (EDT)

I sent you another one. I would appreciate a response even if you cannot/don't want to do those things. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:12, 3 September 2017 (EDT)

Re: 2020 presidential election

Please look at this article: Who's going to win the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination? PredictIt takes a guess.

Given your significant base of knowledge on leftism, it would be great if you started working on the Bernie Sanders article.

Given Sanders have these advantages: his ability to cause large crowds in 2016, diehard/enthusiastic supporters and ability to raise funds; I would think Sanders is going to win the Democratic nomination. Warren is his leading contender and she is a joke as far as being a strong national candidate. Conservative (talk)

Personally, I think it is more important to expand the articles on Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren. They articles are much less detailed, and I think they have a bigger shot in 2020, as seen by media coverage (Harris more than Warren). --1990'sguy (talk) 09:17, 11 September 2017 (EDT)
Harris has already gained the support of Clinton donors and Sanders backers. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 14:58, 11 September 2017 (EDT)
I have not been following the Democrats very closely. Thanks for the feedback. Conservative (talk) 15:32, 11 September 2017 (EDT)


Consider making a Uraniumgate article.Conservative (talk) 05:08, 26 October 2017 (EDT)

Uranium One bribery scandal

I featured your Uranium One bribery scandal article on main page left. Conservative (talk) 06:56, 3 November 2017 (EDT)

Thanks. It's turning out to be much. much larger than I feared. Eventually there may be two separate articles, Uraniumgate (the Mueller & Rosenstein scandal) and the Clinton bribery scandal. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 07:01, 3 November 2017 (EDT)

Right-wing populism

I have another article suggestion: Right-wing populism. Conservative (talk) 11:12, 25 November 2017 (EST)

Articles of the year: 2017 - your article is being featured on the main page (left side)

Keep up the good work.Conservative (talk)

Barack Obama

Hello Rob, thanks for your work in creating and expanding your articles about the ongoing political scandals involving Obama/Clinton/FBI/etc. When you get the time, would you please add some of that info (Project Cassandra, FISA warrant, FBI corruption, etc.) to the Barack Obama article? --1990'sguy (talk) 23:20, 13 January 2018 (EST)

Sounds like a great idea. Things are finally coming together into a coherent narrative, We'll have a fuller picture next week when IG report (1.2 million documents) start leaking out. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 23:25, 13 January 2018 (EST)

Article improvements

Thanks for creating these articles, which I made some improvements to:

Any good pictures for these articles? --1990'sguy (talk) 12:49, 15 January 2018 (EST)

Something is wrong with my uploads; it's been coming up as "file is empty". RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 20:15, 15 January 2018 (EST)
Because of a bug, the image upload function is disabled. Please save the links to any images you want to upload, both for the articles I linked above and the Obama Administration article, and then I will let you know when Andy fixes the bug. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:01, 21 January 2018 (EST)
Thanks.RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 20:02, 21 January 2018 (EST)
It's been fixed. Feel free to upload anything, assuming it doesn't violate copyright law. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:01, 25 January 2018 (EST)

Updated email address

I've updated my email address through my user page. Sorry if I've missed any messages over the last several months. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 21:18, 19 March 2018 (EDT)

Would you please send me an email? I can't find your new address. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:49, 15 August 2018 (EDT)


The category was used a bit excessively, but the categorization is based on a person's political positions -- the fact that they were entrenched in a political party organization is irrelevant. Both Bushes, Bob Dole, and most of the people you're removing the tags are quite liberal (neither Bush even voted for Trump, and the Elder Bush voted for Clinton). --1990'sguy (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2018 (EDT)

That doesn't matter. If the Republican party nominated Bob Dole as its standard barer, Bob Dole is a Republican, not a RINO. That's how democracy works. Furthermore, what is a Republican today is not the same as twenty years ago - or even two years ago. A Republican is determined by their voting constituency, not by what voters in a neighboring constituency think. And their overall voting record on the national level. Too many of these alleged 'RINO's have a 90% record of voting with the national party. We are not a party that goosesteps to a fuhrer. If a member votes 1 in 10 against the party, that is not an ideological failing of the member - its a reflection of practical political realities among voters at the district and state level. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 15:48, 16 April 2018 (EDT)
I agree that the category was used a bit too excessively, as I already said. I don't think someone like Jan Brewer, Chuck Grassley, or Pat Toomey should be labeled a RINO. However, saying that anybody who's entrenched in the party organization cannot be a RINO is simply ridiculous. Bob Dole, to my understanding, is a Republican who holds many liberal positions that put him solidly to the Left of the party base -- that's the definition of a RINO. The fact that many RINOs were elected has more to do with being well funded and giving voters a good impression of themselves. There's also the belief among conservatives that we need to pick someone more liberal than ourselves because they can win the general election -- the fact that Republican voters have chosen RINOs usually isn't for ideological reasons. Also, some RINOs lie about their positions -- remember how Bush I campaigned in 1988 as an arch-conservative who even wanted to bring back school prayer and ban abortion? Those were just words, and the base (for good reason) fell for it. Today, he supports most of the Democrat agenda and voted for Hillary Clinton. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:00, 16 April 2018 (EDT)
RINOs specifically come from New England, where the GOP organizations are nonexistent, and are Democrat reformers who are banished from corrupt Democrat machines. The only way William Weld, Chris Christie, Mitt Romney, Michael Bloomberg (or for that matter Donald Trump) and a host of others ever got elected to anything in New England is with Democrat votes, running as reformers against corrupt Democrat machines. It has little to do with ideology on a national level. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 16:09, 16 April 2018 (EDT)
The idea of a Kansas or Nebraska RINO is ludicrous. Its like an Eskimo trying to get a sun tan. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 16:14, 16 April 2018 (EDT)
There are a lot more RINOs in red states than you realize. Look at Texas Speaker of the House Joe Straus, who is a Republican but who is far to the Left of essentially every other Republican and blocks much of the conservative agenda there. In fact, he's elected speaker because the Democrats vote for him in order to prevent a more conservative speaker. Also, look at the ~14 GOP Senators from red states who voted against Trump's immigration plan despite the strong support for those reforms in their states. And isn't Romney (who you just admitted to being a RINO) about to become the GOP Senate nominee in Utah? To say that it's impossible to get RINOs in red states is ridiculous, since ideology usually isn't the deciding factor in the primaries -- perceived personal character and finances (along with lying about their positions, like Bush and McCain did) is more important. I can believe the "Democrat reformer" thing, but RINOs are not limited to the Northeast, nor are they limited to "Democrat reformers". --1990'sguy (talk) 16:29, 16 April 2018 (EDT)

Let's examine Bob Dole, for example, who voted against the Medicare Act of 1962 and gave him solid economic conservative credentials. By 1996 when the party's democratically elected delegates made him their party standard barer, he wished he hadn't voted against Medicare. Even if he did write the tax increase bill in 1982 that Reagan signed, that didn't make him a RINO. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 16:21, 16 April 2018 (EDT)

Dole became more liberal as his career progressed: [20] --1990'sguy (talk) 16:29, 16 April 2018 (EDT)
So what is the argument? The dead Kansas voters who voted Republican in 1962 and who were in a minority nationally, get to determine who is and isn't a RINO nationally in 2018? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 16:33, 16 April 2018 (EDT)
The argument is that one is a RINO if they are more liberal than the party as a whole (including, and especially, the base). Dole was conservative in the 1960s, but he became more moderate as time went on, even as the GOP base became more conservative. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:39, 16 April 2018 (EDT)
Nah. You're redefining RINO. It's a term GOP congressional leaders applied to New England Republicans to explain to other members why New England Republicans didn't follow party discipline. "He's from New York" = RINO. The press picked it up.
In 1912, Teddy Roosevelt ran against the GOP, and Franklin Roosevelt ran as a Democrat for the NY legislature. No New Yorker since the founding of the Civil Service in 1882 will swear off the Roosevelts, so the NY GOP became RINOs after 1912. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 17:31, 16 April 2018 (EDT)
No, I'm using the common definition that almost everybody thinks of when they use the word "RINO". Your definition either is a purely academic term that few people use, or it's a defunct term. The divide between New England GOP officials and the rest of the party isn't so great. Take the fact that Susan Collin's greatest allies are Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and John McCain of Arizona. Maine's governor is actually quite conservative, along with its only Republican Representative. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:30, 16 April 2018 (EDT)
The GOP decides what a Republican is and isn't at any point in time. This is constantly changing. A Republican voter today differs from a Republican of voter of 2008, 2010, 2012, and 2014. The next Congress will consist of Republicans with different views of the majority today. You are confusing Republican with conservative; while conservative values and principles generally are consist decade to decade, conservativism does not define what a Republican is - voters themselves define what it is to be a Republican. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 19:40, 16 April 2018 (EDT)
Best example - the Republicans themselves voted to keep Obamacare and reject their own platform and promises. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 19:42, 16 April 2018 (EDT)
And the GOP saving Obamacare is part of Trumpism. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 19:43, 16 April 2018 (EDT)
True that things change over time, but most people have equated conservatism with the Republican Party (and vice versa for the Democrats) for several decades already, including the Republican base.
Specifically regarding your ObamaCare example, we kept ObamaCare because of a small number of mushy RINOs (none of whom actually supported Trump) who couldn't stand up for their agenda. The base was outraged -- including Trump and his most hardcore supporters. You're confusing a small number of the party's elected officials with the vast majority of its members and voters. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:47, 16 April 2018 (EDT)
Yes and no. In 1993, Don't ask don't tell was progressive and tolerant; within 15 years it was homophobic and bigoted. Just as conservatives and Republicans have embraced Medicare, Social Security, Obamacare and the welfare state. Both parties have their conservative and liberal wings. Under Obama, the Democrat party lurched to the left and moderates defected to the GOP. This made the GOP more mainstream & moderate, less conservative and monolithic, and the Democrats more extreme. In the past presidential election, Hillary was the right-wing conservative candidate and Trump the left-wing liberal. Bottom line - you can't define the GOP as monolithically conservative based on what a segment of believers in a geographic region or time era think is Republican. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 19:58, 16 April 2018 (EDT)
Yes, I know that both parties have had conservative and liberal wings for some time, but most people have considered the GOP the "conservative party" and the Dems the "left-wing party" for some time already, even before the Dems really shifted to the far-left. And while consistent GOP voters are shifting to the Left along with the culture (one of my biggest criticisms of conservatives today is that most of us don't try to change the culture in a conservative direction), they still are quite conservative as a whole. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:05, 16 April 2018 (EDT)
New York was the primary point of entry for immigrants up to about the 1960s, was the largest state in the Union since the nations founding (today its #3). The Civil War was Republican vs Democrat, but by 1912 the NY GOP rejected its identification with the victors and joined with the Rebels in dominating the Civil Service, a new, more "progressive" spoils system of professional career bureaucrats. Unlike Southern Democrats, they didn't have segregated lunch counters and lynchings - they didn't need to cause Black's were a minority in virtually most voting precincts. Meanwhile their Southern brethren in the Civil Service suppressed black voter registration where blacks could potentially form a majority. Democrat reformers in the Northeast had to join the GOP to get elected, cause Democrat machine politics squashed reformers. These are the RINOs - New England Democrats who appealed to Democrat voters for reform based on local issues and when they arrived in Washington had little in common with other Free Soil Republicans, and supported expansion of the Democrat-controlled civil service bureaucracy in the federal government. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 20:25, 16 April 2018 (EDT)
Yes, that's the defunct definition of what it meant to be a RINO -- though the definition's changed to mean registered Republicans, including entrenched party officials from red states, who are more liberal than the conservative base. However, it is true that modern RINOs still support expanding the administrative state. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:07, 16 April 2018 (EDT)

Although the Democrats lost the Civil War, they've come to dominate the federal government through the Civil Service Commission after Reconstruction. And why shouldn't they? Unlike the spoils system dependent on election outcomes, they've maintained their role as a protected class of career professionals leeching off the federal treasury and their fellow citizens, who can't be fired, regardless of the outcome of a Civil War or election. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 20:48, 16 April 2018 (EDT)

Yes, the Trump Administration needs to be more aggressive in rooting those people out. Hopefully, Bolton isn't finished cleaning up the NSC. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:07, 16 April 2018 (EDT)
You'll never get them out. Democrats are lazy leeches feeding off their fellow citizens and the US treasury in a job they can never be fired from no matter how corrupt or incompetent, while Republicans work in the real world and support them and their cockamamie ideas to create more government spending to justify more Democrat leeches and civil service jobs. This is the only difference between the parties. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 23:25, 16 April 2018 (EDT)

Example in point --> The government pays for, sponsors, and uses government workers in a 'Needle exchange' program to hand out syringes to junkies. The junkies shoot dope in the city park and toss the needles in the grass. Children step on the dirty needles given out courtesy of the government. What's the government solution to the health hazard they created? Rent space for a shoot-up gallery, kinda like old fashion opium dens or a blood bank, hosted by government workers where the junky can sit in an easy chair and shoot up with his government-provided syringe or Medicare-provided opioid. Voila. Unemployment his further reduced. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 23:43, 16 April 2018 (EDT)

Michael Cohen

Read the life of Trump attorney Michael Cohen, a quintessential NY RINO. Cohen voted for Obama, worked to elect Dukakis, and only registered as a Republican after Trump was inaugurated to get a position with RNC fundraisers. Previously, he was a two time unsuccessful candidate against the Democrat machine. According to WP:

"Cohen volunteered for the 1988 presidential campaign of Michael Dukakis,[4] was an intern for Congressman Joe Moakley,[6] and voted for Barack Obama in 2008, though he later became disappointed with Obama.[4]
"In 2003 he unsuccessfully ran as a Republican for the New York City Council from the Fourth Council District (a Manhattan district).[17] Cohen received 4,205 votes, and was defeated by Democratic candidate Eva S. Moskowitz, who received 13,745 votes.[18] In 2010, Cohen briefly campaigned for a seat in the New York State Senate.[1][6] He was a registered Democrat until he officially registered as a Republican on March 9, 2017.[19][20]....
" On April 3, 2017, Cohen was appointed a National Deputy Finance Chairman of the Republican National Committee.[28][29] ..."

This is a classic picture of a RINO - a Northeasterner who can't gain traction in the local Democrat machine and is forced to register and run as a Republican, to fulfill his political ambition. It's purely a local phenomena, and does not translate to other regions of the country. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 19:18, 17 April 2018 (EDT)

If it were "purely a local phenomena", what do you make of RINOs like TX Speaker of the House Joe Straus, former CA governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, or NV governor Brian Sandoval? There are many Republican officials outside the Northeast who are significantly more left-wing than the people who comprise their own party's base. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:43, 21 April 2018 (EDT)
Again, you are confusing "Republican" with "conservative". The GOP is a big tent. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 14:47, 21 April 2018 (EDT)
The GOP has been associated with conservatism for decades already, just as the Democrats have been associated with left-wing politics, even as liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats regularly ran for office. However, the parties are now significantly more polarized, and the fact still remains that the leaders I mentioned are much more liberal than regular Republican voters in their states/constituencies. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:52, 21 April 2018 (EDT)
All politics is local. The GOP national party is an amalgam of local parties. With the resignation of Boehner, election of Ryan as Speaker, and election of Trump it should be pretty obvious the GOP can't agree what it is. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 15:00, 21 April 2018 (EDT)
I agree that politics is local (though I wouldn't use "all"), but the local GOP parties agree on the vast majority of things, especially now that the uber-liberal Republicans have left the party. The 2016 election actually showed the disconnect between the party base (regular people who vote GOP) and the party elite (the people in the upper levels of the party). The vast majority of states went to either Trump or Cruz (who both voiced very conservative views, especially on social issues and national security), but D.C. went solidly for Rubio and Kasich. The problem with the House Speaker elections is that the party base cannot vote in them -- the results would be quite different if we could. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:08, 21 April 2018 (EDT)
"the disconnect between the party base (regular people who vote GOP) and the party elite (the people in the upper levels of the party)"
Sounds like a socialist conspiracy theory. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 15:16, 21 April 2018 (EDT)
Sounds more like common sense to regular Republican voters. We heard so much from the MSM about how so many Republicans were leaving the GOP because of Trump ([21][22][23][24][25]), but on November 8, Trump won 90% of Republicans according to exit polls (Clinton won 7%), just 3% less than Romney (Obama won 6% of Republicans in 2012, for comparison). --1990'sguy (talk) 15:26, 21 April 2018 (EDT)
If Trump lost a few traditional GOP voters, it was offset by an influx and net gain of ex-Democrats, making Trump's GOP coalition less conservative, and more of a traditional moderate big tent. It's not an ideological shift - millions of moderates and liberals waking up one morning and becoming a replacement population of conservatives for other conservatives who bolted the GOP. It is the dynamics of coalition politics. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 18:11, 10 July 2018 (EDT)


RICHARD SPENCER!!! RICHARD SPENCER, while not a neo-nazi is a white nationalist... NOT ROBERT... RICHARD B SPENCER... OK RICHARD! --Kingdamian1 (talk) 17:57, 28 April 2018 (EDT)

Oops, sorry. Common mistake. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 17:58, 28 April 2018 (EDT)
That's ok... But before writing condescending things about my knowledge, you might check what you are seeing... Haven't you heard of Richard Spencer? He is allegedly the guy that came up with the term Alt-Right. Since you have an article about Alt-Right here, I thought it makes sense to have one about Richard Spencer, also Spencer is sort of an important person today. Well at least among the white nationalist movements. --Kingdamian1 (talk) 18:04, 28 April 2018 (EDT)
Yah. There's just a lot of links from discussion boards throughout the internet attributing the work of Robert B. Spencer to Richard B. Spencer, usually inbound to wikipedia. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 18:14, 28 April 2018 (EDT)

requested article: Trumponomics

Article request: Trumponomics. It would be a nice complementary article to our Obamunism article. Conservative (talk) 18:40, 5 August 2018 (EDT)

MAGAnomics is the official term; Trumponomics would be a redirect. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 18:46, 5 August 2018 (EDT)

Glenn Simpson

Is there a reason for this edit? --1990'sguy (talk) 22:12, 12 August 2018 (EDT)

Yes, it was redundant to the rewrite above (which soon will have the same subhead), information in footnotes, and pages now available thru links. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 22:18, 12 August 2018 (EDT)
OK, thanks. I asked because it was a lot of info. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:19, 12 August 2018 (EDT)
The Fusion GPS subhead is about to be pared down, too. Then the article will focus on Simpson's collusion with Russia, make room for new information, and what's not retained is available thru blue links. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 22:42, 12 August 2018 (EDT)


You've done a lot of work on the Collusion article recently -- is this an example of media collusion? --1990'sguy (talk) 11:50, 13 August 2018 (EDT)

Oh yes, definitely. Collusion is basically private conversations. The collusion article eventually needs to be divided into subsections, something like Business collusion (e.g. Big Tech v Alex Jones), Anti-Trust collusion (Standard Oil & the Rockefellers, using non-profit entities to hide profit making assets, which is illegal), and Political collusion, of which there are many examples. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 12:02, 13 August 2018 (EDT)
Collusion is what goes on all day, every day, in the White House and Pentagon - private conversations. Look at the entry on the Obamagate timeline for May 16, 2016. Comey colluded at the White House all morning, and in the afternoon the computer in Strzok's office (according to Strzok's sworn testimony) colluded with Strzok and an informal group of unknown others to drop the felonious charges of gross negligence, for which Hillary was facing 10 years, and insert the language Obama suggesested on 60 Minutes of "careless" when he did not interfere in an ongoing law enforcement investigation, sources say. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 12:16, 13 August 2018 (EDT)


You might be interested in this article: City of Chemnitz protests of 2018 --1990'sguy (talk) 21:34, 8 September 2018 (EDT)

Yes, thanks! I've been following it closely from eyeeitness accounts on yourube. "The begining of the Reconquista."RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 21:46, 8 September 2018 (EDT)

Re: Left-wing violence in the Trump era

Why remove the names of the left-wing perpetrators of violence against conservatives from the descriptions in the article, as well as whatever consequences the punks in question may have paid for their actions? It needs to be shown who they are and what price they may have paid in order to publicly shame them for their actions. Northwest (talk) 18:56, 21 October 2018 (EDT)

Sometimes less is more. We need to create a readable, coherent narrative. For example, a gay man was assaulted, a woman was assaulted, a Hasidic Jew was assaulted. This attacks the very underlying validity of identity politics. When notable persons are cited, simply report the incident. It shouldn't read like a police blotter. It's not our job to walk back their comments, or to give a final disposition of the case, that they were arrested or deleted a tweet, etc., at least not until we see genuine repentance over time. If someone wants details, for example "Joe Blow of Staten Island was arrested", we've provided a link.
Also, we're getting too many non-violent events, such as threats, insults, sick joke, etc. The page is entitled violence, actual acts of violence. If it's simply stupid words or sick jokes by celebraties, it doesn't really belong here, unless it is an actual call by a notable Leftist to incivility and violence toward others.RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 19:13, 21 October 2018 (EDT)


Maybe we should renew our focus on what's going on in Ukraine? It might enact martial law, after the Russian Navy captured three Ukranian navy ships: [26] --1990'sguy (talk) 21:02, 25 November 2018 (EST)

Yes. And Mike Cernovich provided an excellent starting point: Trump critics attack him over the US border invasion, but in the Ukraine suddenly borders matter. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 21:06, 25 November 2018 (EST)
And the issue of Ukraine should not be detached from (1) the issue of open borders which Russia wants with Ukraine, but the Magnitsky Act is designed to prevent; (2} Hillary, Obama, and progressive fascists support for the fascist regime of Ukraine; (3) the fact UK intelligence (not Russia) meddled in the 2016 election and was an attack on American democracy; (4) Putin is exposing the weakness of NATO; it will be the freeloading UK NATO lobby, and their US allies (Lindsey Graham? now that McCain is gone) screamming for bloodshed to defend the sacred sovereign right under international law to defend the principle of inviolability of borders (e.g. Poland 1939, Kuwait 1991, etc). RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 21:22, 25 November 2018 (EST)

Jerome Corsi

You responded with gibberish on your edit summary at 2018 Conservative of the Year. What Jerome Corsi said was not funny. And we're the ones who have to pay for him allowing full play of his imagination in admitting a crime. And that a Senate Committee is being uncooperative in their investigation into abuse doesn't justify what he said either; in fact it helps them maintain that posture. VargasMilan (talk) 00:27, 18 December 2018 (EST)

Hey, we're conservatives. Media lying about us goes with the turf. We're not Democrats, we don't believe everything we read in the papers. You got any evidence or proof for anything you allege? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 00:43, 18 December 2018 (EST)
Facts are, Mueller just got smacked with a $350 million lawsuit, both professionally and personally. Knowing Mueller and how he operates, you think he's going to take it lying down? He'll do anything to try and prove Corsi's reputation isn't worth $350 million. I'm not buying it. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 00:48, 18 December 2018 (EST)
Here's how the game works: Corsi was set up by this Stickler guy working for Mueller. Mueller calls in Corsi and threatens to blackmail him. Corsi refuses, knowing Mueller had made him look like a fool with Stickler. Corsi files a lawsuit, knowing the Stickler smear is going to come out. Corsi beats Mueller to the punch, leaking the Stickler smear to sympathetic media Now when Mueller plays his trump card and tries to indict Cosri on a fundraising scam, in very Clintonesque fashion it's (1) "old news," (2) an admission Mueller has nothing on Cordy telated to Stone, WikiLeaks, or Russia, (3) most importantly, looks like retaliation for the Corsi's filing; (4) Mueller won't have a sympathetic media in the Daily Caller, which already is investigating Mueller tactics. I could go on with more, but that's enuff to chew on. This is a Grand Master chess match between Mueller and Corsi. Watch and learn. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 01:29, 18 December 2018 (EST)
Edit conflict: Each time you ask me to provide more information the scandal spreads. I linked to the Daily Caller, Tucker Carlson's website. Tucker Carlson has one of the largest conservative accounts on Twitter (2.4 million followers), and this year added 950,000 new followers, a 67% increase. The author of the article said that Corsi just finished writing a big book and included a quote of him picturing himself and a colleague committing perjury and saying he wouldn't care if that were to happen or had happened. VargasMilan (talk) 01:34, 18 December 2018 (EST)
What's that got to do with anything? Corsi was set up, like Flynn & Papadopolous. Corsi was offered a deal, like Cohen. Unlike Cohen, Corsi is innocent. Unlike Flynn & Papadopoulos, he's not pleading guilty to crimes he didn't commit. Do you notice a pattern here? Your only cites are anti-Mueller cites. They're being fed (as they have for years) by Corsi's operatives. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 01:40, 18 December 2018 (EST)
You're not even reading the article. It was an interview of Corsi himself! VargasMilan (talk) 01:47, 18 December 2018 (EST)


IOWs, your Daily Caller and Carlson cites look more like Mueller hit pieces, like National Security Advisor Flynn colluding with our NATO ally Turkey, which is the best Mueller could come up with today. I've been following Corsi for years. I'm a student of Corsi. I know all the dog whistles. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 01:51, 18 December 2018 (EST)
So what's happened since Obama protected the guy who tried to overthrow our Turkish NATO ally? What's happened since Susan Rice, Sally Yates and company destroyed Flynn? Turkey bought a missile defense system from *gasp* Russia! Who does Turkey need to defend themselves from with a Russian missile defense system? Who's responsible for destroying the NATO alliance? Who committed treason? Obama? Rice? Yates? Mueller? All these facts are on the table. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 02:04, 18 December 2018 (EST)
You never even went to the website! It's not Tucker Carlson's blog; he has a staff of writers! Corsi was interviewed by Aaron Zelinsky, a Mueller prosecutor, and Corsi included the interview in his new book from which the reporter for the Daily Caller quoted. Getting this information piece by piece is not a pursuit worthy of your intellect. VargasMilan (talk) 02:07, 18 December 2018 (EST)
I had all that information before it appeared in any of those cites. You don't seem to understand the fundamental issues. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 02:13, 18 December 2018 (EST)
Corsi himself leaked the negative information about himself. It blunted Mueller's attack. And Corsi filed a suit against Mueller first. Anything Mueller files now looks like a counter suit, and proves Mueller's on a fishing expedition far removed from Russia. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 02:18, 18 December 2018 (EST)
IOWs, digest what you are reading. Corsi himself has laid bare to the Daily Caller, and in his book, EVERYTHING that happened in his meeting with Zelinsky. Corsi made the decision to go public with the Stickler information when he filed suit against Mueller, cause that's all Mueller had. That's the basis of Corsi's lawsuit. Mueller, Zelinsky, and Rhee threatened Corsi with Stickler. Mueller asked Corsi to lie. Now that Stickler is out there, Mueller has nothing to threaten Corsi with. And Zelinsky and Rhee have to perjure themselves to deny the evidence. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 02:39, 18 December 2018 (EST)
Corsi claimed he provided Stone with a cover story to escape the prosecutor's clutches. What's preventing Mueller from charging Stone now, since Corsi himself explained in detail what the cover story covered up. I can see shooting yourself in the foot as a last resort to blunt an attack by being already shot, but just because a friend presented a cover story you came up with in Congressional testimony, why would it mean the friend is immune from being reimplicated by Mueller in his federal prosecutions after you reveal what was being covered up, i.e. Stone's link to Russia by way of Julian Assange's DNC document dump before the 2016 election? VargasMilan (talk) 03:26, 18 December 2018 (EST)
Mueller has no case. Mueller can't prove WikiLeaks is a KGB front. Mueller can't prove the Russians hscked the DNC. Podesta emails are not government documents. Hillary Clinton and the DNC are not the United States government. If Mueller had any evidence of anything against Stone or Corsi, he would have used it. Instead, he tried to blackmail Corsi with Stickler to lie about Stone, to blackmail Stone to lie about Trump, as he has done in the Flynn, Papadopolous, Manafort, and Cohen cases. Do you see a pattern here? Now that the Stickler/Zelinsky/Rhee story is out there, Mueller has to lie to defeat Corsi's case. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 04:12, 18 December 2018 (EST)
Corsi. who will have his day in court, alleges Mueller had damning evidence against Corsi. Corsi has laid the damning evidence out for the world to see. That does not excuse Mueller's crimes. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 04:22, 18 December 2018 (EST)
How do you think John Dean became the hero of Watergate? The Special Counsel had damning evidence against Dean - he's the guy that ordered the break-in. The SC threatened him with a long prison sentence or rat out the boss. When they couldn't prove Nixon ordered it (it wad Dean's own idea and he did it without telling the boss) they had to settle on Nixon authorizing hush money to the burglers after Dean informed Nixon of Dean's own screw up. Nixon took the fall for his crony's incompetence, that's the tale (and tragedy) of Watergate. Nixon was loyal to the troops.
Democrats today worship a criminal who abused his office, divided the country, and destroyed a president to save his own arse. He's a Democrat hero. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 04:37, 18 December 2018 (EST)
Ann Coulter wrote that John Dean came up with the Nixon "enemies list", which gave everybody a laugh about paranoid Nixon, but that in reality it was not only compiled by John Dean, but it was neither requested nor reviewed by Nixon. VargasMilan (talk) 06:19, 18 December 2018 (EST)
An example composing when requested to sing. Also, of the longevity of a fake news leak intended to smear. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 06:30, 18 December 2018 (EST)


Let's take the case of Cohen, a Democrat well known in the New York legal community as a shyster lawyer. The fact Cohen had Trump as a client for many years was enough in the legal community to raise eyebrows about Trump. The fact Cohen never held sny official position in the campaign, or the transition, or the administration meant he couldn't withstand journalist's scrutiny or government disclosure requirements and background checks. Everybody knew this. The New York legal community, and feds who hate Trump, then threw him out of the legal profession, permanently. That's the whole story here. Why they didn't do it until after Trump was elected is an ethical question only they can answer. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 04:57, 18 December 2018 (EST)

RobS your observations are an embarrassment of riches. You obviously have a deeper understanding of the political system than any of us unless someone is holding out. You've brought me to the point of excusing Corsi. When I think of all these Deep State agents, I don't know how our public trust in our law enforcement and intelligence agencies will be restored, as you say must be done, but you seem to think it will involve dismissing numerous cases and investigations, while I fear a number of guilty parties will go free by them collectively being thought to be too big to fail like in the bank bail-outs of 2008-9.
I would suspect you can't be too pleased by seeing the user talk orange light that appears at the top of the page to summon you for answers after a while, so if it would please you, let me know so we can have a change of venue if you have more to add. My reading comprehension of what you're saying is pretty good, but I will need to resort to re-reading it to complete my education in these political ideas through picturing how the pieces fit into the whole. VargasMilan (talk) 06:19, 18 December 2018 (EST)
Let's go to the next level, briefly. New York was the largest state in the United from its founding up to about the late 1960s, and the New York media market is a thing unto itself. The seat of American media really is New York, not Hollywood or DC. National broadcasts originating in NY have to be careful not to confuse the national audience with hometown happenings.
Since the Civil War, we've only had 4 presidents from America's biggest city - Grant, two Roosevelt's, and Trump. But in each case, they all brought with them friends and enemies, and a lot of other stuff that is part of New York culture - which the rest of the country doesn't understand. can't relate to, or isn't interested. But to New Yorkers who know these personalities well and either love them (like the Roosevelts) or hate them (like Grant and Trump), New York's dominant position in publishing and now broadcast spins New Yorkers' feelings about the hometown kids to the nation. For this reason, not many New Yorkers have fared very far in national politics, cause the rest of the country isn't interested in the NYC society pages dominating the national discussion, despite NY's dominant position in national media. It's almost breaking an unwritten rule, letting NY media celebrity gossip dominate the national political discussion. It makes no difference if it were Hillary, Bloomberg, Guiliani, RFK or Trump. The situation would be same. Passions would be strong whether you loved them or hated them. And they'd have plenty of hometown enemies fanning the flames on a national level. Its peculiar to NY, and no other the 49 states carry this burden. You can always tell the country is in a crisis of leadership if we're desperate enough to turn to a New Yorker. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 07:02, 18 December 2018 (EST)
Useless trivia: the Independent Counsel law originated in 1878 when a bunch of Grant's hometown enemies resented his success and tried to take him down nationally. And they had enough poop on him locally to take it to Washington. Well, if they felt that strongly about his morals, ethics, and corruption, why didn't they take him down before he got elected? The Cohen case is a replay; suddenly corruption in the NYC taxi cab industry, that federal, state, and city police and prosecutors have known about for years, becomes the vital issue facing survival of the planet and species. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 07:32, 18 December 2018 (EST)
Okay, so there's some selective prosecution against politically active New Yorkers. And his arresting agents weren't necessarily public benefactors. I don't even know whether Cohen's office was searched by the New York state police or the feds, and if the feds whether or not it was done at Mueller's bidding. And some say it was an illegal search. And that it was a dragnet whose employers sought information that would lead them to evidence of unknown crimes that could implicate Trump despite attorney/client privilege.
All of this gets assembled under the ambit of Mueller. I don't know what phrases should best describe Mueller. He creeps around looking under things as the rest of us watch what he is doing. He takes note of things we don't find notable, and when he does talk he blurs the line between what is maliciously unlawful and what is trivial fodder for public relations and then wallows around in generalities until no one cares to find out anymore. It confirms that all roads lead to Mueller not New York more or less eventually. VargasMilan (talk) 21:28, 18 December 2018 (EST)
Mueller's a "fixer," like Bill Barr is. To understand Mueller, you'll never get to the bottom of it. I uncover a scandal and cover-up virtually daily that Mueller's been involved with. Someday some writer can dedicate a lifetime to compiling it all. For a thumbnail view, I'd recommend this NYT book review by Alan Dershowitz from 2000 - before Mueller was appointed director. There were gangland wars in Boston going back to 1965. By the late 70s - early 80s there was a huge public outcry to "do something." Mueller was assigned. To end the gang war, the FBI took sides. One side was exterminated, the other side had a license to kill. By the late 80s, scandal erupted in the BFO Boston Field Office. Mueller did such a good job covering it up, Bush appointed him national director in 2001 (after the Dershowitz article). This is the Whitey Bulger case - who, as an FBI informant, murdered 52 people. When Mueller became director, Bulger was a fugitive. Shortly before Mueller left office, Bulger was put away for life. A few months ago Bulger was murdered in prison. What threat an 89 year old man in prison is to anybody, is a matter of speculation.
As noted, you're never going to find any conclusions in the Bulger case, the BFO corruption scandal, Mueller's career, etc. But you can see Mueller seems to approach all investigations like he's dealing with the mafia, uses the same techniques of immunity, blackmail, and co-opting "witnesses," and above all is a cover-up man for the DOJ & bureau, especially when there's a massive public outcry to "do something." That's my best take on the man. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 02:04, 19 December 2018 (EST)

If you chat with Ace...

If you chat with Ace at an atheist website, tell him he suffered yet another defeat. See: New Zealand atheists will lose the War on Christmas in the 21st century and Talk:Irreligion in New Zealand.

It's a good thing he never came up with a suitable monetary payment arrangement in order to gain the privilege to debate me. Obviously, he would have lost quite badly. And it wouldn't be due to my debating prowess, but rather to the utter weakness of atheism and atheist debaters.Conservative (talk) 07:08, 31 December 2018 (EST)


Would you be willing to create a War on Science article to discuss how the Left opposes scientific research in favor of pure ideology on issues such as abortion and gender? --1990'sguy (talk) 13:54, 4 January 2019 (EST)

It would take some basic research; I'm not exactly sure where to begin but I could get something started.
The angle of attack I could begin with is the politicization of science, and demonstrate how social science trumps natural science - for example economic science trumping medical science and climate science. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 14:12, 4 January 2019 (EST)
That sounds good to me. These articles might be good starting points (and some of them are from left-leaning sources): 1,2,3,4,5 --1990'sguy (talk) 14:23, 4 January 2019 (EST)
Ok, will do. I can see this is something that may start small and slowly and grow into something really big. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 14:29, 4 January 2019 (EST)

PZ Myers and War On Science quote

RobS, I don't think Myers' essay is very usable for the purpose you requested, but I was able to glean this quote.

The atheist PZ Myers said about various political aspects of the New Atheism movement: "Mainly what happened is that the credibility of science was stolen to bolster rationalizing prior bigotries."[27]

That is about the best I could do. Myers is a liberal/leftists and he is part of the problem as far as the War on Science (Myers is a SJW). In that essay, he was complaining about atheists who are politically to the right of him.Conservative (talk) 15:07, 28 January 2019 (EST)

Obamagate timeline

You might be interested in this, which a newly-created account shared: [28] --1990'sguy (talk) 15:18, 7 February 2019 (EST)

Thanks, looks real interesting! RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 16:00, 7 February 2019 (EST)
In addition to this, I strongly recommend you update the Green New Deal article, if you have the time, now that the Democrats have released the official congressional resolution and now that the list of cosponsors is out. This plan is utterly laughable, but it's getting strong support from the Democrat Party. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:12, 8 February 2019 (EST)
I'm trying to get ahold of the original that was deleted from their site. You know where I can find it? Even just a screenshot. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 00:33, 9 February 2019 (EST)
You mean this? It's also a good idea to use the House resolution too: [29] --1990'sguy (talk) 08:33, 9 February 2019 (EST)
The media (including conservative news sources) have been covering the resolution in detail, so I think it will be easy finding info. --1990'sguy (talk) 08:50, 9 February 2019 (EST)
This seems like a good summary of the Green New Deal: [30] --1990'sguy (talk) 16:10, 9 February 2019 (EST)
The farting cows needs to be followed up; this from PBS News Hour explains the science behind it. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 16:19, 9 February 2019 (EST)
Wrong vid; its this one. 16:25, 9 February 2019 (EST)
Hello, sir. I'm Dove. I'm interested in doing anti-vandalism work around here. I presume that you do this also. Nice to meet you! RapidEditor (talk) 22:30, 24 February 2019 (EST)
Fine. Glad to me you. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 22:34, 24 February 2019 (EST)


Hello, I'm DW. I'm here for anti-vandalism work. I am an administrator from DW (talk) 13:27, 9 April 2019 (EDT)
Deletionpedia, sounds interesting. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 13:32, 9 April 2019 (EDT)
Have you ever of Deletionpedia? Articles that does not survive on Wikipedia, ends up on Deletionpedia. Here is what Deletionpedia is about: DW (talk) 13:41, 9 April 2019 (EDT)

Trump Administration article

Hello RobSmith, would you please update the White House staffing list in the Trump Administration article, as you have previously done? --1990'sguy (talk) 08:25, 10 April 2019 (EDT)

re: a atheist/agnostic wiki

Please read: Essay: The atheism killing atheist wiki that Conservapedia spawned

Feel free to share this article at that wiki. :) 19:04, 17 April 2019 (EDT)


Congratulations on Obamagate timeline!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 12:03, 28 April 2019 (EDT)

Thanks! Looks like it's headed to the half million mark. I'm going to keep it up (Muellergate now) cause we have outside researchers who use it as a valid, non-fake news record, and it looks like the whole Obamagate/Spygate/Ukrainian collusion scandal will continue in Trump's second term. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 12:12, 28 April 2019 (EDT)


You might want to add the NYT anti-Semitic cartoon mention to the Liberal racism and Left-wing Anti-Semitism articles. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:14, 28 April 2019 (EDT)

Done. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 14:16, 28 April 2019 (EDT)

Leftism and Rightism discussion

1) Did you know that Fascism and Communism are literally polar opposites? Or that 27,000,000 Soviets died fighting the Nazis? Words have meanings, you know 2) Did you know that Communists despise Liberals? In fact, you are a liberal, because you support capitalism and a free-market economy 3) I hate the Democrats, they are a bunch of spineless corporate neoliberals 4) Do you genuinely believe that it is possible to simultaneously be against gun control and be a "totalitarian"? 5) Correct!

They are not opposites; they are competing ideologies on the Left side of the political spectrum.
This illustrates the danger of Leftist ideology - innocent people, centrists, moderates, and people on the Right get dragged into violent Leftist power struggles for domination. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 16:54, 9 July 2019 (EDT)
If Fascism is leftist, then why did Hitler privatize many industries? Also, Hitler railed against Marxism, and invented his own definition of Socialism, to fit his ideological views.

If fascism is on the right, why was Hitler a statist? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 17:58, 9 July 2019 (EDT)
Exactly how is "statism" left-wing? Would you consider absolute monarchies to be "leftist"?
Conservatives, or people on the right, believe in God, liberty, freedom, andthe dignity of the individual; Leftists worship government, restrict personal freedom, advocate slave systems. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 18:31, 9 July 2019 (EDT)
I believe that the State should be abolished, that slavery, including wage-slavery, is abhorrent, and that personal liberties should be protected to the extent that they do not infringe on other people's liberties. What am I, then?
A confused communist. A typical leftist.
Leftist look to government for solutions and salvation. Conservatives look to God and personal responsibility. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 18:36, 9 July 2019 (EDT)
How do we look to "government" for solutions and "salvation"? What do you define as "government"? How would you reconcile "abolishing the state" with "looking to government for solutions and salvation"?
"Abolishing the state" is Marxist theory fantasy which has never happened yet; everywhere it's been attempedt has resulted in the enslavement and extermination of Marxist revolutionaries and non-revolutionaries alike. (Marxist elites are simply common criminals). Leftists, rejecting God, put their hope for salvation in the coercive power of government and renounce human freedom in exchange for dependency on other humans, i.e. socialist bureaucrats. How do I define government? As a dispensationalist, I define it as Gen. 9:6, (incidentally, the Wikipedia page I linked to here is wrong. The Dispensation of Human Government has never ended. You see typical Marxist/Satanic lies in Wikipedia, of course). After the unavenged murder of Abel by his brother Cain, God placed the responsibility on humans to insure justice rules on earth. God mandates' that murderers do not run the planet, which is exactly what happens when Socialists are in put charge. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 19:26, 9 July 2019 (EDT)

> "Abolishing the state" is marxist theory fantasy which has never happened yet, everywhere it's been attempedt (sic) has resulted in the enslavement and extermination of Marxist revolutionaries and non-revolutionaries alike.

The State cannot be abolished instantly (despite what some anarchists may tell you). It is a gradual process, which can only really make any real progress once socialism has spread to the point where capitalist espionage is no longer a threat. The United States has constantly tried to sabotage Socialism every single time it has been tried, be it through economic sanctions (Cuba, the DPRK, Venezuela, etc.), through funding far-right extremists and backing military coups (Chile, Nicaragua), interfering in other countries elections (Italy, Russia), or outright invasion. (Vietnam, Grenada).

> (Marxist elites are simply common criminals)

Do you have anything that can prove that statement?

> Leftists, rejecting God, put their hope for salvation in the coercive power of government and renounce human freedom in exchange for dependency on other humans, i.e. socialist bureaucrats.

That statement is false. Leftists believe in empowering the working class, in workplace democracy, and in creating a society in which all people have a voice, and where all people participate in government. Also, not all leftists are atheists. Have you ever heard of Liberation Theology? What about Christian communism?. Or these quotes:

  • "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." (Mark 10:25, KJV).
  • "Acts 2:44-45, "All who believed were together and had all things in common; 45 they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need."
  • Acts 4:32-35, "Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common. ... 34 There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. 35 They laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need."

>How do I define government? As a dispensationalist, I define it as Gen. 9:6, (incidentally, the Wikipedia page I linked to here is wrong. The Dispensation of Human Government has never ended. You see typical Marxist/Satanic lies in Wikipedia, of course). After the unavenged murder of Abel by his brother Cain, God placed the responsibility on humans to insure justice rules on earth. God mandates' that murderers do not run the planet, which is exactly what happens when Socialists are in put charge.

First off, not everything you disagree with was written by Marxist/Satanist/leftist/(insert other group that you don't like here), and not everything you disagree with is a lie. Also, exactly how are Socialists murderers? The socialist government in the USSR drastically improved standards of living, ended famines in Russia (last famine was directly after World War 2), and might I remind you, put the first man in space! Cuba has been praised for it's universal healthcare system, and has a higher life expectancy then the United States! Not only that, but they also have a 99.9 percent literacy rate! [1]

  • Links, refs, and other things
How does one man's quote about people "forgetting about God" prove anything about the quality of life in the USSR?
"The socialist government in the USSR drastically improved standards of living, ended famines in Russia"
[31] They CAUSED a famine
"Cuba has been praised for it's universal healthcare system"
[32] [33]
"How does one man's quote about people "forgetting about God" prove anything about the quality of life in the USSR?"
The point of the Solzhenitsyn quote is that Solzhenitsyn did not see an improvement in the standard of living, he saw the exact opposite. Shobson20 (talk) 00:15, 15 July 2019 (EDT)

> They CAUSED a famine

No they didn't. [2]

> Cuba's Health-care

Have some more sources!

> The point of the Solzhenitsyn quote is that Solzhenitsyn did not see an improvement in the standard of living, he saw the exact opposite.

One man's quote does not prove anything about the standard of living, other then his opinion of the standard of living.

It's not just a "quote"; it is eyewitness testimony. Solzhenitsyn was born 1917 - the same year as the Russian Revolution. He knew nothing of pre-Soviet life. By 1932 and the government mandated starvation, he was 15 years old; during the socialist mass murder purges of 1938, he was 21. He's relating what his elders of that time, at the risk of their own lives because of social media censorship, told him. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 19:35, 15 July 2019 (EDT)

Could you delete the "Leftism and Rightism discussion" section

The guy who's been arguing it has been blocked and we need to stop giving him attention. Shobson20 (talk) 21:45, 15 July 2019 (EDT)

I didn't block him. I thought we were trying to have a conversation. I've been very busy with other things, and would like to investigate some of those links as time is available. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 22:48, 15 July 2019 (EDT)
This same person has been defacing communism-related articles on this site. He cited Communist Douglas Tottle's book which was discredited and pulled not long after it was released. He cites Leftist rags like HuffPo. Surely you know that Holodomor deniers are full of it, right? All indications by his tone are that he wants to feed his ego by proving himself right, not engage in legitimate, open-minded dialogue. Shobson20 (talk) 23:11, 15 July 2019 (EDT)
diff? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 23:35, 15 July 2019 (EDT)

Communism Debate page set up for User: MarxistLeninist

Debate: Communism

A communism debate page has been set up for User: MarxistLeninist.Conservative (talk) 02:22, 16 July 2019 (EDT)

Pete Buttigieg article

Thanks for deleting my editorial content that I inadvertently included in the section on race relations in the Pete Buttigieg article. I was pressed for time, and that comment belonged on a comment section which I had open in another browser tab, and I did not realize I had included it When I finally go back to the Pete Buttigieg article here then I was shocked to see it, but relieved when I found it deleted, for such theorizing does not belong in a encyclopedia.

However, your statement that replaced my first sentence, "While campaigning at a staged event in Iowa an audience plant" itself is a problem since the questioner was Dave Begley, who writes for the conservative Powerline blog, and who opposes Buttigieg. Daniel1212 20:18, 20 July 2019 (EDT)


This is Bongolian‎ from (redacted). There has been an incident on (redacted), one of our admins Arthur Kerensa (D), has been emailing offensive photographs of willies to people on Discord. Can you confirm, has he being doing it to Conservapedia members? Bongolianisback (talk) 18:20, 27 July 2019 (EDT)

Not me. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 19:25, 27 July 2019 (EDT)


Hello: I wanted to stop by and say, I respect your writing and copy edited, going by the cited source linked to the sentence on the JFK page. So, have a look. Cheers, JohnJustice.

Information you were seeking from me on main page talk

Message to RobS: Collapse of atheism in the former Soviet UnionConservative (talk) 15:23, 4 August 2019 (EDT)

War on Freedom

I began the article War on Freedom, which I will expand in the coming days. I intend it to explain the philosophy of John Locke and the founding fathers on individual liberty, natural law, and self-governance, and discuss the various ways the Left is working to destroy this philosophy in Western politics. Feel free to edit/expand the article in any way. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:11, 11 August 2019 (EDT)

Very good. I'll follow your lead and begin inserting links and redirects whereever possible. RobSDeep Six the Deep State!

American Progressivism

If you agree that we need at least one page about American Progressivism, why are you so intent on putting so much unrelated content in one specific page? That is not where it belongs. Progressingamerica (talk) 20:44, 17 September 2019 (EDT)

Well then, create American Progressivism, and we can add the Bob La Follette and Henry Wallace material.
Don't forget to include that American Progressivism is not nationalist, but rather preaches universal ideals. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 20:48, 17 September 2019 (EDT)

Book recommendation

You have a lot of energy and drive, I like that. You should consider reading Philip Dru: Administrator, which is a novel, but it describes the american progressives dreams in one little package. Best part, is that the book is also an audiobook.(in case you are doing something like gym, driving, or flying which has long periods of available time)

I'm not done creating the audiobook yet, but a book that is much more directly ideological(and not a fantasy novel, which is not everybody's cup of tea) of american progressives is Herbert Croly's The Promise of American Life. When I finish creating it, I'll try(if I remember) to let you know if your preference is for audiobooks. Just so it is said, this is an "or" recommendation, not "and". And sadly, I know I will have to also say this lest be accused of trying to hawk sales and abuse the website. My audiobooks are all public domain free downloads just for education only. Progressingamerica (talk) 21:41, 17 September 2019 (EDT)

Yes, it is one of those books I've been meaning to read forever (I think I started once, and I think I read portions of Colonel House and David Lloyd George's League of Nations Mandates). But early on I was drawn in a different direction from that same time period - my undergraduate thesis was on the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. I recall vividly being called a fascist in the classroom in 1976 for daring to suggest that Ukraine had a right to be independent - whowudathunk in 2014 when Barack Obama signed the Magnitsky Act that he was a fascist and what I wrote about then would become U.S. law? RobSDe Plorabus Unum 22:34, 17 September 2019 (EDT)

CP coverage of Dixiecrats

Hello Rob, you might want to take a look at this, regarding CP's coverage of Dixiecrats and segregationist Democrats: User talk:1990'sguy#The Dixiecrat, Conservative Democrat, and Reagan Democrat Pages --1990'sguy (talk) 14:50, 21 September 2019 (EDT)

The other editor replied to your response. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:59, 21 September 2019 (EDT)
I replied again. Sorry, I'm just trying to get a better understanding is all. Anyway, thank you Rob and 1990'sguy for what you do. I enjoy coming on here and sharing your articles with my family and friends. I use this as my Wikipedia. Classical Liberal (talk) 22:45, 21 September 2019 (CDT)
I don't understand how conservatives could be among the Dixiecrats since you said the Dixiecrats were racist New Dealers and that there were both liberals and conservatives among them. Conservatives were against the New Deal. And when you said, "The 1947 desegregation order marks a turning point in the liberal movement, but many liberals and alleged "liberals" (white folks riding the Democrat, anti-Republican welfare state and gravy train) remained segregationists, or at least racists." What did you mean by alleged "liberals?" The alledged liberals were liberals, right? But liberals who don't support support civil rights, right? Classical Liberal (talk) 08:28, 22 September 2019 (CDT)
"Alleged liberals" of Chicago in the 1960s - klansmen and the Black Panthers. Both hated Republicans cause Republicans wanted to cut off their welfare and dependence on government.
The ideological label means nothing. Southern Democrats identify as "Democrat" based on (1) the Civil War, and (2) more importantly Reconstruction and its aftermath. Southern Democrats identify as "Democrat" based upon being anti-Republican, whatever that means. Republicans are the people who burnt their houses down during the Civil War, and uprooted their way of life during Reconstruction. The sheer hatred of the name "Republican", and anything connected or implying "Republican" is in their DNA. Seriously, watch this 5 minute video of a discussion between two Southerners (O'Keefe is from North Carolina), and how the old man is triggered by anything connected to the Republican party. He is a true "Rebel" in the Rebel tradition. The old man would not try to make peace with me by offering me a joint, as he does with O'Keefe, cause I'm obviously a Yankee. This is by no means unusual - I've had these same meaningless, partisan debates with my Southern Democrat friends my entire life. I can walk across the parking lot or down the street and do it right now. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 13:05, 22 September 2019 (EDT)

I created a page for you guys to edit with information. It's Unite the "Right" Rally and I thought we should shed light on the truth of what happened in Charlottesville. Classical Liberal(talk) 19:55 23 September 2019 (CDT)

In short, what used to be called "regionalism" still plays a big part in American's identification with party, and ideology is too often overhyped. The term was used in the Jacksonian era, but with the railroad and later the Civil War, "regional factions" began to be split up, except perhaps in the Jim Crow South. And that post-Civil War Southern, "regional" "Democrat" identity survived. In the 1960s, LBJ invited blacks into the Democrat party for the first time, promising payoffs from the public treasury for loyalty at the ballotbox. Bribing voters from the public treasury for votes is nothing new to Democrats, it just became equal opportunity and affirmative action. none of this means traditional Democrat voters ever became more liberal or less racist. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 21:50, 28 September 2019 (EDT)

Hillary Clinton server

I don't know if you added this to one of your articles yet, but the State Department is expanding its investigation into Clinton's server: [34] --1990'sguy (talk) 21:43, 28 September 2019 (EDT)

Thanks, will do. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 21:48, 28 September 2019 (EDT)

Send this blunt message to Ace

"Well, to be blunt, NZ is one of the best countries in the world. Easily one of the most peaceful and safe nations on Earth. It also ranks above the US in nearly every single metric you can rank. So yes, NZ is up there." Acei9 02:28, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Remind Ace that if it were not for the USA, he might be speaking Japanese (Battle of Guadalcanal, etc.).

Also, have him read this page: User:Conservative/Gentlemen as there is a message for him.Wikignome72 (talk) 09:55, 3 October 2019 (EDT)

New Zealand has much to be ashamed of; European colonialists and white supremacists segregated the native Maori and other people of color into leper colonies and forced them to accept Christianity. The cost of the Gerald R. Ford supercarrier, which makes it possible for New Zealand to sell its goat cheese in Japan, is equal to about 7% of NZ's GDP. The US spends less than half that on total defense spending. If not for the magnanimity of US taxpayers, ingrate NZ nationalists would have nothing to brag about. Koala bears would have gone extinct generations ago and their socialist society would be living on a steady diet of kiwi fruit. Not to mention all the carbon emissions New Zealand is responsible for just to have tourists fly in or people seeking to escape that leftist hellhole and find civilization. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 11:52, 3 October 2019 (EDT)
Ask Ace what will happen if the Chinese, who are growing more aggressive, decide to conquer NZ and the USA decides to take an American first policy and let New Zealanders try to gain their own freedom? Would he like living under the communist Chinese? China becoming Christianized might prevent such a scenario of course (see: Growth of Christianity in China).Wikignome72 (talk) 12:17, 3 October 2019 (EDT)
It's already happening; NZ's prosperity is dependent on sailing its goat-herder cheese through the South China Sea to Japan and South Korea. Chinese control of the South China Sea is the same as a tariff; they'll have to ante up at the toll booth. And the toll booth will require them to re-route deliveries to China where the income available to buy goat cheese is just a fraction of what it is in Tokyo or Seoul. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 12:30, 3 October 2019 (EDT)
The USA could ask NZ to pony up and send money to the USA to help pay for their defense. It wouldn't be the first time that America decided to take an American first policy in relation to NZ (see: SHULTZ ENDS U.S. VOW TO DEFEND NEW ZEALAND).
But that would mean cutting their socialist healthcare system, where you can get a kidney transplant for $24 and the cost of parking. Common sense and reason are not socialists strong suit. Plus the moral self-examination and re-valuation New Zealanders would have to go through. Remember, Americans are cruel and heartless and socialists are kind, compassionate, and loving. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 12:43, 3 October 2019 (EDT)

These articles about irreligious/nonreligious/socialist Denmark are applicable: Trump’s NATO Spending Demand Would Break Denmark’s Welfare State, Bloomberg News, 2016 and DENMARK IN NATO: PAYING FOR PROTECTION, BLEEDING FOR PRESTIGE, 2018.Wikignome72 (talk) 12:48, 3 October 2019 (EDT)

The cost of two beers at an NFL game is $19; $24 will get you a kidney transplant in New Zealand (not ceretain if this rate applies to foreigners and illegal aliens; the racist New Zealanders probably won't allow a foreigner to fly in for quick kidney transplant and fly back out, emitting more carbon emissions). By communists/socialist/Marxist reasoning, we should be able to afford their healthcare and defense costs and there's no reason we should stop. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 12:52, 3 October 2019 (EDT)
I added an additional article about Denmark to my previous post.Wikignome72 (talk) 13:06, 3 October 2019 (EDT)
Geez, talk about racists. I was checking my facts for updated figures. Using this site for some figures, "the transaction between the donor and recipient is kept private and. donors and the kidney would cost rs 2 lakh. after a series of negotiations the price was brought down to rs 1.5 lakh excluding m." According to this conversion chart, rs 1.5 lakh = about $25 (2016 figures; the good news is, prices are stable).
So what's going on here? It appears Indian doctors practicing medicine in NZ subsidized by the government (which actually is subsidized by the US government cause NZ doesn't pay for their defense costs) pay live Indian donors $25 to $36 bucks for a kidney (equivalent to three or four beers at an NFL game). And these European white supremacists who colonized New Zealand and set up this system of exploitation of people of color not only exploit the donors, they exploit the brainpower and labor of Indian doctors to market this Socialist scam to world. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 13:19, 3 October 2019 (EDT)
Quite a scam the New Zealand socialist government has going on here; they pay Indian doctors a regular government subsidized salary (evidently cause white new Zealanders are too stupid to become doctors) who then ferry in their Indian compatriots from India on an assembly line and toss them $36 bucks + hotel for their inconvenience to extract a kidney from a living person. The glories of Socialized medicine! Dr. Mengele would be proud to see all his research set to good use. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 13:50, 3 October 2019 (EDT)

The USA National Debt keeps rising as the USA spends a lot on defense. A rule of economics is that if something is not economically sustainable, it ends/changes. Sooner or later the USA will ask NZ to pony up as far as defense spending. Of course, it is also possible that the USA could break up given the cultural divide in the present USA if things are not resolved. If that happened, where would that leave NZ?Wikignome72 (talk) 13:33, 3 October 2019 (EDT)

We're obviously subsidizing the racist exploitation of people of color by the New Zealand nationalized healthcare system. I suggest we start there. God bless Donald Trump for highlighting this cynical exploitation of people of color by white supremacists and the socialist government of New Zealand to America and the world. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 13:39, 3 October 2019 (EDT)
I don't really care about racial politics. Should Jesus tarry, in the Western World, intermarriage/immigration will probably resolve more and more of it over time - especially if white birth rates don't rise above replacement level of births. The bickering back and forth and even race riots are just bumps in the road. In addition, if biblical Christianity grows in the West due to desecularization, that could mean increased racial harmony. It would also mean a rise in the fertility rate among whites so maybe less immigration over time. It is too hard to tell about the future of immigration.
More importantly, the whole notion of race is unscientific so why go on and on about it.[35].Wikignome72 (talk) 14:03, 3 October 2019 (EDT)
IMO, there is racial exploitation going on in New Zealand's socialist healthcare system. We have a similar problem on a smaller scale. Blood banks exploit homeless drug addicts, many of which are minorities, by kicking them down $25 or $50 bucks for a pint of blood to buy their next fix. To the extent the government and medical profession are in on exploiting the most vulnerable in our society varies; Obamacare certainly tried to institutionalize these injustices. And Obamacare provided the legal framework for the type of institutionalized racism that exists in all social democracy healthcare systems. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 14:12, 3 October 2019 (EDT)
Again, the whole discussion of race is not only unscientific, it could easily resolve itself over a long period given intermarriage. Since Trump has been elected, racial harmony has actually increased despite what the maintream media says. See: Study Shows Donald Trump Has Made America LESS Racist!!! and Black Business Ownership Up 400 Percent Under President Trump!!!
The UK: "Irish, Jews and now African-Caribbeans and others are intermarrying and becoming absorbed into the white majority ethnic group. I am a product of this, as a white Canadian with Chinese and Latino ancestry. And so his black nephew has the option of identifying with his European heritage — indeed the data tell us someone of his background has an 80 percent chance of marrying into the white majority. In the future, he may well consciously or unconsciously view himself through this prism."[36]
The USA: "It’s been half a century since the US supreme court decriminalized interracial marriage. Since then, the share of interracial and interethnic marriages in America has increased fivefold, from 3% of all weddings in 1967 to 17% in 2015."[37]
More on the USA: " In 1987, Pew Research polled Americans on whether they believed it was acceptable for Blacks and Whites to date each other. At that time, less than 50% of Americans thought interracial dating was acceptable. By 2010, that number was well over 80%. The progressive views of young Americans suggest that the country is likely to become even more open-minded about intermarriage. In 2014, 85% of Americans between the age of 18 and 29 responded that they would accept a family member marrying a person of a different race or ethnicity, compared to just 38% of those 65 or over."[38]
More on the USA: STUDIES: WHITES Projected to Become Dominant SUPERMAJORITY in U.S. due to Hispanics who intermarry self-identifying as whites
Conservatives are far too reactive and not enough proactive. By talking about race a lot due to leftist/liberal charges of racism against conservatives, you are being far too reactive.Wikignome72 (talk) 14:29, 3 October 2019 (EDT)
My point is, racial politics is the only thing that concerns leftists. They are under the mistaken notion that Socialism will cure racism. They're wrong. And the government mandated racist healthcare system of New Zealand illustrates the point.
As to myself personally, if one is familiar with World War II, it began as a race war between Teuton (or Deut, as in Deutsche) and Slav (Poles, Czechs, Slavic, Russian, Belorussian, Ukrainian, Serbs, etc). I am exactly that - half German and half Slav. I understand the differences from both sides of my family. Fortunately, in America I'm considered full-blooded "white"; however the recent institutionalized racism that Democrats, communists and liberals have tried to make law is disconcerting, given everything both sides of my family have been through. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 14:45, 3 October 2019 (EDT)

I disagree. The existence of Elizabeth Warren/Bernie Sanders/Bute-edge-edge show that class politics and sexual politics are playing a significant role in leftist politics too. The 2007/2008 recession caused a rise of right-wing/left-wing populism. So economics and class politics still play a powerful role.

I am going to take a time out on following politics until the non-Republicans become more rational which might be never in my lifetime. I will just vote straight GOP. Worse case scenario, I will emigrate.Wikignome72 (talk) 14:54, 3 October 2019 (EDT)

Scratch New Zealand off the list. As Gov. Cuomo said, "It was never that great." RobSDe Plorabus Unum 15:01, 3 October 2019 (EDT)
The demographic and social science data indicate they could start shaking off their irreligion/nonreligion in about 20 years. Who knows what could happen if they repent? See: Postsecularism and New Zealand in the 21st century.Wikignome72 (talk) 18:07, 3 October 2019 (EDT)

Please share this info with Ace

Please share this info with Ace: The future of American atheism is bleak.Wikignome72 (talk) 02:02, 27 October 2019 (EDT)

Why right-wing populism will triumph

I thought you might find these articles interesting.Wikignome72 (talk) 12:31, 28 October 2019 (EDT)

It seems like the media elites are starting to come out of their denialism and are beginning to recognize that right-wing populism is not a temporary blip on the radar.Wikignome72 (talk) 12:33, 28 October 2019 (EDT)
Yes, thank you. I got Windows 10 that has a "Read Aloud" function which is immensely convenient for going through lengthy articles, and reviewing important information. All these articles seem timely on a well rounded scope of upcoming issues. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 14:08, 28 October 2019 (EDT)


Why unblock JohnZ less than an hour after he was blocked for his continued behavior (editing mainly on the talk pages in violation of 90/10, insulting editors/admins, imposing liberal POV on articles, etc.) on the site? By unblocking him, all that does is send him the message that he can do as he pleases here and not get punished for it (contrary to the CP guidelines and commandments), and all it's going to do is encourage and embolden his behavior here. Northwest (talk) 00:21, 30 October 2019 (EDT)

He was engaged in two ongoing discussions of relevant, timely matters with two editors/ I saw no incivility in those discussions or edit warring in mainspace.
When blocking an editor, it can be extremely rude to other editors who are having ongoing discussions with the blocked editor. Why should the editors who violated no rules have to wait two weeks because you were offended or had your feelings hurt? RobSDe Plorabus Unum 02:14, 30 October 2019 (EDT)


IA 3 D Axne IL 14 D Underwood NY 11 D Rose NY 22 D Brindisi OK 5 D Horn SC 1 D Cunningham UT 4 D McAdams CA 21 D Cox GA 6 D McBath IA 1 D Finkenauer ME 2 D Golden MI 8 D Slotkin NJ 2 D Van Drew NJ 3 D Kim NM 2 D Torres Small NY 19 D Delgado VA 2 D Luria VA 7 D Spanberger CA 48 D Rouda IL 6 D Casten KS 3 D Davids MI 11 D Stevens MN 2 D Craig MN 7 D Peterson NH 1 D Pappas NJ 7 D Malinowski NV 3 D Lee TX 32 D Allred TX 7 D Fletcher AZ 1 D O'Halleran AZ 2 D Kirkpatrick CA 10 D Harder CA 25 D VACANT CA 39 D Cisneros CA 45 D Porter NJ 11 D Sherrill PA 17 D Lamb PA 8 D Cartwright WI 3 D Kind

Won't agree on matter of politics - what about Voyager 1 and 2?

Operating more than 40 years. Quite decent work that was! Now exploring the outer realms of the solar system.[39] --James2 (talk) 15:20, 4 November 2019 (EST)


Congratulations, your account has been promoted to Sysop! Please feel free to post on the Main page from time to time--Andy Schlafly (talk) 16:25, 11 November 2019 (EST)

Thank you! RobSDe Plorabus Unum 16:44, 11 November 2019 (EST)

I created the article you requested

RobS, I created the Atheist deification of politics article that you requested.Conservative (talk) 23:38, 23 November 2019 (EST)

I have taken Talk:Infant baptism off of my watchlist

Too much talking there could constitute a violation of the 90/10 rule, though Dataclarifier has probably already stepped over that line, since he's been doing more talking there than anyone else. Shobson20 (talk) 21:35, 27 November 2019 (EST)

Don't worry about it, you're input is useful. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 22:36, 27 November 2019 (EST)
My last edit was made in anticipation of the "proof texts" he might use to "prove" that you can lose salvation. I was attempting to show him that Protestants are already familiar with his arguments, and that he's wasting his time. He appears to, as many Catholics do, think he has special superior knowledge. But one thing I've learned very recently is, never assume that you have a bullet-proof argument, never assume that you have a knock-out punch that can easily win debates, and know when to stop. Shobson20 (talk) 23:52, 27 November 2019 (EST)
@Shobson20: I think the 90/10 rule states that it doesn't matter how much you comment on talk pages as long as you continue to make productive mainspace edits. Thus, speaking as an administrator (along with fellow admin RobS), you don't have anything to worry about. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:05, 27 November 2019 (EST)
Shobson, His whole argument is essentially that you pay an admission cover charge at the door - baptism - which then empowers you to ignore all scriptural teaching on righteousness and salvation, cause you're already in the family. Having anted the cover charge, you then can compete in a Gospel of Do-gooders where your good deeds are stacked up against your sins in the final analysis. All of this runs against the scripture of course, and places his Roman Catholic doctrine in the same boat as Islam, Buddhism, Mormonism, and other errant doctrines. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 01:21, 28 November 2019 (EST)
So I made the comment about Baptism being one of the Sacraments in the Catholic Church, which is true. It has also been affirmed by former Catholics such as James G McCarthy (author of The Gospel According to Rome) and Richard Bennett (a former Catholic priest of 20 years) that Baptism is necessary for salvation according to them. However, VargasMilan was correct in pointing out that not all of the Sacraments can be done by everyone and they are not all necessary. But my sources do say that attending Mass and receiving the Eucharist are continually necessary and that missing one purposefully is a "mortal sin" that puts you back in a state of non-grace. I like to call it the "Catholic roller coaster," continually bouncing up and down between a state of saved and unsaved in the case of "mortal sins" and accruing and shaving off time in Purgatory for "venial sins." I think that the Catholics of CP should note that many Catholics converted after reading and analyzing the Bible for themselves without the Catholic Church coloring their interpretation they realized that it didn't match the Catholic doctrine that they were taught. This includes at least 50 Catholic priests (in the book Far From Rome, Near to God) and 10 former nuns (The Truth Set Us Free). Many of their testimonies are on Shobson20 (talk) 11:05, 28 November 2019 (EST)
Much of what is now called Roman Catholic doctrine evolved during and after the Reformation. At the time of Luther, much was just everyday ordinary corruption that creeps into any human organization over time, but the Reformation canonized and institutionalized many errant doctrines, not based upon an spiritual or scriptural foundation, but due to political expediency to differenciate the church from its Protestant rebels. Priestly celibacy for example, was sold as supposedly having some biblical basis; however it was simply a reform aimed at preventing a family dynasty from dominating the papacy or a palace coup, and having an elected leader. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 12:27, 28 November 2019 (EST)
I know that. I also know that Papal infallibility wasn't codified until 1870 at Vatican I and the Assumption of Mary was codified as late as 1950! Pope Pius XII codified that doctrine. Catholics also deny that the leaders ever denied allowing the laity to read the Bible but: [40] ‘We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old and the New Testament; unless anyone from the motives of devotion should wish to have the Psalter or the Breviary for divine offices or the hours of the blessed Virgin; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books.’ (Edward Peters. Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe, Council of Toulouse, 1229, Canon 14, p 195.) Yet despite all of this, Catholics claim that they are practicing the "same faith for 2000 years." One of the quickest books that deals with the historical angle is "The Gnostic Origins of Roman Catholicism" by Ken Johnson. Shobson20 (talk) 12:59, 28 November 2019 (EST)
Most catholics don't even know what a 'catholic' is, other than that they the bible in favor a man who tells you what God's word is - which makes it no different than Mormonism, which is essentially Protestantism with a pope, RobSDe Plorabus Unum 14:57, 28 November 2019 (EST)
Before the Great Schism when the eastern church broke off, "Catholic" meant "universal." That's important to keep in mind when Roman Catholics claim "the church fathers were Catholic." They were, but not in the sense that they are thinking. For example, Catholics use John 6 to prove the real presence in the Eucharist, yet St. Augustine said it was figurative "If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. 'Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,' says Christ, 'and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.' This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us” (Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, III)." Shobson20 (talk) 15:46, 28 November 2019 (EST)

Evidence that Dataclarifier is cherry-picking verses

He cites Romans 3:31, yet Romans 3:27-28 say: "Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. Because of what law? The law that requires works? No, because of the law that requires faith. For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. Looking just a few verses earlier shows how he's pulling it out of context. Another common argument is that the "works of the law" refer to the Jewish ceremonial law and not the moral law. However, earlier in Romans 2, Paul gives examples of the law by saying "you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal? You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? You who boast in the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? Romans 2:21-23 Those are aspects of the moral law, not the ceremonial law. Shobson20 (talk) 15:45, 28 November 2019 (EST)

I've been working exactly on those verses lately, specifically the whole context of Romans chaps 2-4. Paul is commenting on John chap 8, were Jesus' antagonists say, "We be not born of fornication, Abraham is our father." That was boasting. In Romans Paul also says, "God is not a respecter of persons", which Dataclafier uses to call God "cruel".
To make the appropriate point, I see it more as contrasting pride and grace, not so much law and grace; Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? as Paul asks. But Paul also says "By law is the knowledge of sin", which Dataclarifier would likely agree babies and infants do not have.
As to boasting, the simple point is that there is no initiation rite into God's family. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 22:00, 9 December 2019 (EST)
Nancy Pelosi's claim that she is immune from hating and/or being asked if she hates because she is "Catholic" (more specifically baptized Catholic) is boasting, which of coarse has no scriptural basis whatsover to either (a) being accepted into God's family, or (b) having one's motives or actions questioned. It is pride - the original sin - which baptism obviously did not wash away. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 19:01, 10 December 2019 (EST)

Permission to use images for conservapedia via e-mail permission from image owner

Hi Rob, I've worked to create seven pages here on conservapedia. Working on my eighth now. On my eight page there are 4 sections that need the emphasis of photo info-boxes to elaborate visually to the article from a scientific and creative stance. Images have been granted permission to me for use on conservapedia with no inhibited copyright laws per the image creators via e-mail. These e-mails were the only convenient way to gain permission because of his location and time zone in Finland with myself being in North America Pacific time. Is there a way for me to upload or attach a couple of these e-mail permissions to my image request or can I send it to you along with the images for upload to the page upon completion? (talk) 20:19, 9 December 2019 (EST)

Hello Technotronical, I'm obviously not RobSmith, but you can request image uploads at Conservapedia:Image upload requests. Also, User talk:DavidB4 is the editor who uploads photos, so you can send permissions to him. Please message him on his talk page, and he might be willing to have to contact him via email. Thank you. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:36, 9 December 2019 (EST)
Thank you. 1990'sguy I wrote on DavisB4's page for the image request (talk) 23:17, 10 December 2019 (EST)

El Paso Walmart shooting

Would you please review this edit on the article? I'm not familiar enough on this topic to review it, and you're the primary editor of the article. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:59, 11 December 2019 (EST)

Hi! I was the one who edited the article. I thought it was important to contextualize some of the quotes and provide some clarifications, but I see that you reverted the edit. Could you elaborate on this?--TheDood (talk) 14:01, 12 December 2019 (EST)
Sure. You "contextualized" by giving it commie talking points - eliminating the fact that leftwing brainwashed idiot thought a guaranteed income was inevitable in the MAGAnomic era of full employment, eliminating the fact he made no reference whatsoever to immigrants or illegal immigrants, and adding some stuff about "confederacy". Pure leftist bigotry that you added. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 14:30, 12 December 2019 (EST)
Rob, with all due respect, I think you are really misrepresenting my intentions here. I come from a position respecting transparency and objective presentation of facts. The shooter had in fact mentioned illegal immigration: "So it makes no sense to keep on letting millions of illegal or legal immigrants flood into the United States". He had mentioned that UBI would be a direct consequence of an influx of immigrants and jobs disappearing. The reason why I combined this quote with another one is that they are directly related, and ripping them apart makes it seem like he is advocating for UBI as opposed to suggesting that it is "inevitable". Lastly, the "confederacy" stuff is a direct quote, after all. The shooter had made a suggestion of forming a confederation informed by race separation: " Racial diversity will disappear as either race mixing or genocide will take place. But the idea of deporting or murdering all non-white Americans is horrific. Many have been here at least as long as the whites, and have done as much to build our country. The best solution to this for now would be to divide America into a confederacy of territories with at least one territory for each race. This physical separation would nearly eliminate race mixing and improve social unity by granting each race self-determination within their respective territory(s).". Also, how is this leftist bigotry if I'm quoting the shooter and not adding my opinion there? Make no mistake, I'm not here to make some leftist talking point or argue for UBI or making the shooter look more right-wing or left-wing. I just want clarification that reflects what he thought so that people can make their conclusions. After all, we don't need to misrepresent the shooter's words to make people understand his true ideology, right? --TheDood (talk) 15:12, 12 December 2019 (EST)
I stand corrected in the immigration question. The shooter clearly opposed ALL immigration, particularly legal immigration, which clearly is an extreme position. The give away of leftist brainwashing and ideology is his reliance on science fiction, futurism, and junk science to make moral judgments, particularly as it relates to universal basic income and even genocide. Full quote: " In the near future, America will have to initiate a basic universal income to prevent widespread poverty and civil unrest as people lose their jobs" - obviously a member of the Yang Gang. Sure, I am making an assumption that this 19 year old brainwashed punk thinks that this would obviously take legislation and federal funding to accomplish - most definitely NOT a "rightwing" or conservative position by any measure and only the result of cultural Marxist brainwashing and public schools.
As to his comments on a "confederacy", there is nothing unusual about a Texas native talking about splitting up into a confederacy, and it is hardly indicative of a wider national sentiment (unless some leftwing commie agitprop tries create a false narrative implying such). RobSDe Plorabus Unum 19:47, 12 December 2019 (EST)
Well, to be fair the full full quote is "So it makes no sense to keep on letting millions of illegal or legal immigrants flood into the United States, and to keep the tens of millions that are already here. Invaders who also have close to the highest birthrate of all ethnicities in America. In the near future, America will have to initiate a basic universal income to prevent widespread poverty and civil unrest as people lose their jobs." This is important because he implies America will be "forced" to introduce UBI as a consequence of an immigrant influx. And yes, of course, it is implied as an element of the welfare system. Again, consider this extract(directly following the previous quote): " Joblessness in itself is a source of civil unrest. The less dependents on a government welfare system, the better. The lower the unemployment rate, the better. Achieving ambitious social projects like universal healthcare and UBI would become far more likely to succeed if tens of millions of dependents are removed.", so the claim isn't "UBI is good", it's "UBI will have to happen because of unemployment, and when it does, we should aim to minimize the number of people to support".
I could assume he is advocating for expanded welfare (healthcare and UBI), but remember the context of the writing. Here is something that he has to say: "[...]America will soon become a one party-state. The Democrat party will own America and they know it. They have already begun the transition by pandering heavily to the Hispanic voting bloc in the first Democratic Debate. They intend to use open borders, free healthcare for illegals, citizenship, and more to enact a political coup by importing and then legalizing millions of new voters." It does not sound like he could ride the democrat rhetoric now because in his mind, it will expand the problem of voting. And let's not forget that what he thinks he is doing is an instrument to help remove migrants: "[the fact that Hispanic migrants are economically-driven] is an encouraging sign that the Hispanic population is willing to return to their home countries if given the right incentive. An incentive that myself and many other patriotic Americans will provide." and we know what incentive he is talking about -- not a democrat-supported ubi, healthcare or anything of that sort. Instead -- mass murder, terrorism, and racially divided America. Speaking of which, I'm not Texan, but I'm pretty sure that Texans are not trying to create something with implications like "This physical separation would nearly eliminate race mixing and improve social unity by granting each race self-determination within their respective territory(s).". --TheDood (talk) 21:22, 12 December 2019 (EST)
I never said he said it was good, it is all liberal leftwing crap, from its inception to analysis. And he puts a UBI ahead of healthcare. Where did he get that? Church?
Your analyses that he points to genocide is contradicted by the document itself.
Face it, the guy is a leftwing progressive racist who hates Hispanics. What's odd about that? His type are a dime a dozen. And he likely picked it up from public schools and popular culture. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 01:29, 13 December 2019 (EST)

Updating page on Pamela Karlan

Hi RobSmith, since you have worked on many Conservapedia pages regarding the deep state, can you see if you can add more useful information on the page about Pamela S. Karlan? Also, should I add Pamela Karlan into the Deep state template? Thanks! --Liberaltears (talk) 4:46, 29 January 2020

She's an academic and not a civil servant, isn't she? Has she ever worked in government? RobSDe Plorabus Unum 17:57, 29 January 2020 (EST)
Karlan worked for the Obama administration. Pamela Karlan’s Long, Biased Record of Anti-Trump Prejudices --Liberaltears (talk) 6:40, 29 January 2020
Ok, what sort of nefarious activity was she engaged in? RobSDe Plorabus Unum 20:34, 29 January 2020 (EST)
Unfortunately, I couldn't yet find any nefarious activity in particular, but given how her testimony in the House impeachment coup as a "witness" seemed somewhat similar to some other cases, it seems to me like she was part of the Deep state... I was wondering if you might've known more about Karlan in particular and had really useful information to add to the page about her, like you did with the pages on Vindman, Ciaramella, and Rosenstein. --Liberaltears (talk) 9:08, 29 January 2020
I wonder if she had a national security clearance. She probably worked in the DOJ, but not on national security matters. Honestly, I never heard of her and clicked the link for a refresher. As an academic, her kind are a dime a dozen. She is what passes in commie lib circles as a "constitutional expert" whose main job is brainwashing commie lib law students. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 21:16, 29 January 2020 (EST)
Interesting... you're really an expert at looking into this type of stuff! Do you think you can find a lot of information worthy of putting on the page about Pamela Karlan? --Liberaltears (talk) 9:30, 29 January 2020
I can't find anything to link her to the IRS scandal, Fast and Furious, Clinton shenanigans or Crossfire Hurricane. She's just a partisan hack. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 23:37, 29 January 2020 (EST)
Alright, thank you RobSmith! --Liberaltears (talk) 2:52, 30 January 2020

Need correction on Hunter Biden page

Hi Rob. I was about to share that page when I noticed a mistake. I leave it to you to edit the correction: Devon Archer is not the nephew of 'Whitey Bulger'. That distinction belongs to James Bulger, who is the founder and head of Thorton Group LLC and whose father William (Billy) Bulger is on the board of.

Devon Archer's connection is to his Yale friendship with Chris Heinz and through the latter to his stepdad John Kerry, on whose campaign Archer apparrently worked etc. Here are two links to sites that show the correct information: & Thanks Rene --Ipsugar (talk) 00:14, 4 February 2020 (EST)

Thank you. So Archer still has a connection to the Thornton group, evidently. Can that be clarified? RobSDe Plorabus Unum 00:42, 4 February 2020 (EST)
Archer's connection to Thornton is through the partnership of Thornton with Rosemont Seneca Partners, of which he was a managing partner. What is left out is the involvement of Thorton's founder and head of that company ie. James Bulger, the son of the longtime Kerry ally and former Massachusetts state Senate President William Bulger. This company formed a partnership with the Chinese to form Bohai Harvest RST (BH-RST:Rosemont Seneca Thornton) aka BHR or Bohai Harvest Partners.

Business registration filings in China list Hunter Biden, Schwerin, and James Bulger as key officials at Bohai Harvest. Helpful site: --Ipsugar (talk) 17:58, 5 February 2020 (EST)

Did Archer ever work for Thornton Group? or is his relationship limited to a partnership? Also, sources say he is "a longtime friend" of James Bulger. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 18:02, 5 February 2020 (EST)
I haven't come across anything that suggests Archer ever worked for Thornton directly, just as a partnership he worked with James Bulger. I am aware of only this: that Hunter Biden, Chris Heinz and Devon Archer were Yalie friends and Archer was a long time business associate of Hunter Biden. However, it wouldn't surprise me that James Bulger was known to all the parties before the formation of of the current business relationships with Chinese figures in BHR. I can not seem to find enough information about James Bulger. I guess researcher with their foot on the ground and not just the internet will have to come up with that information!--Ipsugar (talk) 19:25, 5 February 2020 (EST)
Th NY Post article, which I misread originally and thank you for pointing that out, appears to rely on Peter Schweizer whose written several books on this corruption. He might be one of the best sources to begin with.
Separately, there is a Devon Archer article. These corrections should be made there and then cut and pasted to several other pages I screwed up. Also, after Archer allegedly washed his hands of Hunter Biden and corruption, he was convicted of securities fraud in federal court. [41] Archer was charged along with porn king Jason Galanis. [42] RobSDe Plorabus Unum 20:18, 5 February 2020 (EST)
I haven't read anything of Devon Archer washing his hands of Hunter Biden and the business relationship. I've only read that Chris Heinz removed himself (allegedly) from Hunter Biden's business with Burisma.
about Devon Archer, I read somewhere he was a clothes model for Ambercrombie Fitch while he was at Yale. That while he was found guilty by a jury, his conviction was overturned by the Judge. She was an Obama appointee and I also read she knew Hunter Biden. I don't have the link to that story. I've been through so many I lost track! In any case, Source Watch has a page on Devon Archer and even wikipedia has an page on Hunter Biden. This is the Source Watch wiki: (talk) 16:53, 6 February 2020 (EST)

Typo on MPR

Hi Rob. There's a typo phrase on MPR: "Bernie lead him 101 To 66", while it should be "Bernie led him 101 to 66". I contacted Conservative, but it was a pretty quick reply, so I think he missed it. Thank you. VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 07:45, 17 February 2020 (EST)

Replacing an image...

Just curious RobSmith, can you see if you can replace File:160px-Debbie_Stabenow_official_photo.jpg with this image? Thanks! --Liberaltears (talk | contribs) 4:12, 19 February 2020

New typos on MPR

We have "striped of their right to bare arms". Two typos. Thank you. VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 19:50, 25 February 2020 (EST)

What's it supposed to be, "stripped... bare legs"? RobSDe Plorabus Unum 19:58, 25 February 2020 (EST)
Uh, buh...VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 20:02, 25 February 2020 (EST)

Coronavirus mortality article

What do you mean when you say the South Korean infection rate is 4%? The share of South Korean infections is 4% of the world total number of infections? VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 21:08, 16 March 2020 (EDT)

Okay, 4% of everybody that was tested. VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 21:29, 16 March 2020 (EDT)

Relay a message to LondonGrump

Re: "One thing remains constant... [User: Conservative]..., like most of his buddies, can't evaluate evidence for toffee. LondonGrump (talk) 13:52, 26 March 2020 (UTC)"

Please tell LondonGrump that I know there is plenty of evidence pointing to secular leftism and globalism dropping like a rock in influence and right-wing nationalism and religious fundamentalism gaining influence.

"Others migrated from Rational Wiki to alt-right online hubs like 4Chan and Reddit." - BreakPoint: The 'New Atheism' is old news because it couldn't explain sin, December 23, 2019 (reprinted in Chatanooga Times Free Press)[43]

Lastly, ask him to read the article Atheism and evidence which ranks #10 at a popular search engine that begins with a G for the phrase "Atheism and evidence". What proof and evidence does he have that atheism is a valid worldview?Conservative (talk) 02:22, 27 March 2020 (EDT)

Just look at the Site Metrics in Alexa.
CP in the Green Past 90 Days

+20% Daily Pageviews per Visitor + 18% Time on site -6% Bounce rate

RW in the Red Past 90 Days -5.6% Daily Pageviews per Visitor -3% Daily Time on Site +6% Bounce rate

Site Rank CP +7.54%; RW -8.22%
In time of Global Apocalypse, Who ya gonna call? RobSDe Plorabus Unum 05:04, 27 March 2020 (EDT)
Death and economic uncertainty are a strong river for atheist activists to swim against.Conservative (talk) 10:12, 27 March 2020 (EDT)

Cats on ships

Thanks for the category additions to USS Teddy Roosevelt. --Ed Poor Talk 12:39, 1 April 2020 (EDT)


I removed the material on main page talk about the psychology of conspiracy theories. My apologies for posting that.

The Wuhan virus as a bioweapon theory while not a fact is not merely a crank conspiracy it seems. But my investigation into the matter was cursory at best given some current obligations I have to fulfill for some people plus some important personal goals that I set. I have decided to be a lot firmer about some important goals that I have set for myself and am more stringent in terms of not allowing any competing matters get in the way. So regrettably, while I appreciate the resources you provided me, I cannot investigate the matter more. Conservative (talk) 20:34, 13 April 2020 (EDT)

The Guardian's Beijing Bureau Chief reported two days ago:
Where the coronavirus originated is becoming more and more political. At least three universities in China are requiring all research on the source of the virus be vetted by higher ups who decide whether the research is 'suitable for publication.' [44]
So don't expect any cooperation from the CCP to establish the factual evidence you demand. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 20:57, 13 April 2020 (EDT)
There is a wide spectrum between zero percent certainty and one hundred percent certainty. For example, one can be 1% percent certain. Or 40% certain. Or 90% certain. Or 95% certain. Or 99% certain. Or 99.99999% certain. The same applies to certainty something did not happen. For example, one can be 99.9999999% certain that something did not happen. With this being said, it is possible to be certain something did or did not happen.
To give you a real world example, because I have not only read compelling Christian apologetics material, but have also literally experienced miracles and have the Holy Spirit living within me, I eventually became 100% certain that God exists. And then to add a thick layer of icing on the cake, I debunked many atheistic assertions. But this didn't happen overnight. For example, my baptism was a leap of faith. Because I had a doubting Thomas personality, I struggled with doubt to a certain degree even up to point to the point of my baptism despite having read Christian apologetics material. Yes, I had strong intellectual reasons for believing that Christianity was true up to the point of my baptism, but 100% belief in God is more than that. The Bible says that we are to love God with all our heart, mind and soul. Gary Habermas, who is a Christian apologist who struggled with doubt, points out that emotion can cause doubt. And of course, sin can cause doubt.
Here is another example, because I know the Christian worldview is true, I can be 100 percent certain that water is wet. I don't have to be a radical skeptic.
In addition, while I know that Christian evidential apologetics have merit, I also know that presuppositional apologetics and classical apologetics have merit. In short, I hold to a integrated apologetics view. Evidential apologetics and presuppositional apologetics are just opposite sides of the same coin.Conservative (talk) 03:21, 14 April 2020 (EDT)
This much I know: the consensus view at the moment is that it came out of a lab. Whether it is man-made, or whether it came out accidentally or deliberately are different questions. But the view at the moment is that the government of China, and the WHO, acted with criminal negligence in not reporting facts to the world. This is the the basic information the intelligence community will (or may have already} assessed, and this is the information President Trump and the U.S. Congress will act on.
We should end this debate. It came from a lab and China lied about. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 03:28, 14 April 2020 (EDT)
I really don't care about consensus. Biological science and the social science of history are sciences and scientific truth is not determined by consensus. There are reasonable procedures within these disciplines and people don't have to rely on the arbitrary notions of men of what is fashionable to believe. Often social pressure determines consensus and not the actual evidence.
Next once a matter gets politicized in the USA, due to political polarization there is no consensus on these type of issues. 30% of Americans believe COVID-19 is a man-made virus and the left calls them "conspiracy theorists".[45] On the other hand, the National Institute of Health (NIH) says COVID is a naturally created virus: Genomic Study Points to Natural Origin of COVID-19 by Francis Collins, March 26, 2020. Now if you are a right-winger and a creationist, you could point out that Francis Collins is an evolutionist and I think he is pro-choice so maybe his ideological/political leanings clouded his judgment. Regardless, Collins did make some scientifically valid and reasonable arguments. After all is said and done, the politicization of science combined with confirmation bias is not healthy for science.Conservative (talk) 05:08, 14 April 2020 (EDT)
It doesn't matter if it's man-made or not. The facts are it came from a lab and China put out the fake news that it came from eating bats in a wet market. The WHO colluded with China in claiming it's non-transmissible.
These facts cast a shadow over whether the release was deliberate or not, or whether it's man made. But it's essential we get on the same page now, cause Dems plan to impeach Trump using Chinese disinformation. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 05:15, 14 April 2020 (EDT)
Just saw a poll: 77% believe it came from a lab. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 05:17, 14 April 2020 (EDT)

I don't care what the polls say about this matter. Both true science and truth are not determined by consensus. Most people go to Hell when they die (Matthew 7:13-14), so I certainly don't want to rely on consensus when it comes to important or even less important matters.

I am undecided, but I am leaning towards the position that the virus was not man-made.Conservative (talk) 05:36, 14 April 2020 (EDT)

At this point, we are just going to agree that COVID-19 originated in China and that the CCP is at fault for letting COVID-19 get out of control. And the CCP is also at fault for engaging in censorship and not letting the world know about the COVID-19 problem earlier. In addition, they did some underhand matters relating to medical supplies and other matters.Conservative (talk) 05:45, 14 April 2020 (EDT)
We are not debating if it was man made. We are debating if it came from a lab or came from eating bats. You, evidently, are a victim of Chinese psychological warfare. Your perceptions of reality is being altered. 13:21, 14 April 2020 (EDT)
I realize the distinction you are making. I really should have taken the time to clarify things earlier. I was a bit rushed lately.
And it appears as if the laboratory theory is gaining traction and has been picked up by Reuters, Fox News, etc. I know I said I wasn't going to follow news, but my self-discipline lagged today. I recently had the CPU revving in my PC and lost some sleep fixing the problem. Whenever I am sleep deprived, my self-discipline wanes. Experts say that getting enough sleep increases self-discipline. They are right!Conservative (talk) 21:59, 16 April 2020 (EDT)
Sorry to hear; me too. Sometime I do my best writing at 2, 3, or 4 in the morning. Usually on days when it tales me all day to get through my emails and information sources. I try to keep up daily, but often its just impossible. Especially now. Like election news seems to have taken a back seat. And Covid has so many aspect - scientific, medical, economic, public safety, civil rights, political, international, etc. I try to focus on few major aspects, be complete and current, etc.
The point I'm making is, news sources and pundits views isn't my focus; how the U.S. government and the international community reacts is the big news. We're not going to wait years for some commission to study the matter that gets no cooperation from the CCP, which is being just as deceptive now as they were back in December and January.
This is a seismic shift in global politics, in our everyday lives going forward. The CCP is to be ostracized by the international community. No question it has been criminally negligent, and innocent people have died. The question is, How will it react to being cut from trade with the rest of the world? Trade has made the CCP very powerful, and they might not take its loss lying down. I suspect they may resort to blackmail with these unconventional weapons if the break is sudden and swift. Who knows? The may have already made the policy decision in retaliation for the trade war.
A few months ago an alliance between China, Iran, and Russia was our biggest fear; now Iran is very angry and accusing China of a bioweapon attack. So the propaganda war will continue for some time. What's important to establish that the CCP is culpable for the global pandemic, and the international community must take some kind of firm action relating to its status in the global trading community. A total cutoff may be too dangerous. But the U.S. and others must stop making these Chinese slave masters and killers rich. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 22:29, 16 April 2020 (EDT)

Great image to upload...

Hi RobSmith, can you upload this image (from this page) into a file on CP to use on the page for Karen Whitsett? Thanks! --LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 16:49, 27 April 2020 (EDT)

[File:Karen Whitsett.jpeg Done]. Here's another one but we need more narrative to create accompanying space. RobSLive Free or Die 16:55, 27 April 2020 (EDT)
Yes! Thank you RobSmith! The good news is that I'm working on the page right now. --LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 17:00, 27 April 2020 (EDT)
My thinking is that between this page, Vernon Jones, Kanye West, and Candace Owens we'll have to create a subcategory for Category:Black History and have so many new viewers during Black History Month, we won't be able to keep up with creating new bios. RobSLive Free or Die 17:07, 27 April 2020 (EDT)
How about "Category:Black Americans"? --LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 17:33, 27 April 2020 (EDT)
That's a catch-all; I just discovered we have Category:Black Conservatives. Any Black who bumps the trend and quits the Democrat Plantation is an historical figure, whereas Cat:Black Americans would include any brainwashed communist piece of garbage who wants to keep their fellow Blacks enslaved. RobSLive Free or Die 17:39, 27 April 2020 (EDT)
How about "Category:Blexit Movement"? --LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 17:50, 27 April 2020 (EDT)
Also, speaking of Blexit, which was started by Candace Owens, and I'm just wondering out of pure curiosity here, are you the same Rob Smith that went on her show? (full episode here) --LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 17:53, 27 April 2020 (EDT)
No. Actually, I get that question a lot. That's guys gay, too, I guess. RobSLive Free or Die 18:11, 27 April 2020 (EDT)
Interesting, I didn't know that a lot of other people have asked you that question. By the way, regarding the topic of Black History Month coming up and adding in Category:Black History to pages, should I add the category link to the CP page on Tim Scott? I just wanted to check with you, as the article seems to follow along with the narrative that Sen. Scott is an establishment Republican, although he is generally pro-Trump and conservative. --LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 18:24, 27 April 2020 (EDT)
Yes. He's the first popularly elected Black Senator from South Carolina. That makes him an historic figure and probably should be added to his introduction. RobSLive Free or Die 18:59, 27 April 2020 (EDT)
Category link added, will soon add introduction as historic figure. Also, about a subcategory for Category:Black History, do you think that "Category:Blexit Movement" is a good idea? --LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 19:08, 27 April 2020 (EDT)
I don't think we're ready for it. The Blexit article barely exists in outline, and Blexit anyway will be just a transitory phase. We have to concentrate on article content first. RobSLive Free or Die 19:20, 27 April 2020 (EDT)
Oh, okay. --LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 19:30, 27 April 2020 (EDT)
I just added Terrence K. Williams to the Black Conservatives category. Tim Scott is a historical figure, but isn't he a Black Conservative too? Other blacks from my Top conservatives on Twitter list: Diamond and Silk, Charles V. Payne, Wayne Dupree, Deneen Borelli. Also Bo Snerdley. VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 20:21, 27 April 2020 (EDT)
Definitely need the Diamond and Silk article soon, and Dupree, as well; I thought Bo Snerdley was fictitious? RobSLive Free or Die 20:34, 27 April 2020 (EDT)
That's really funny that you still think that. I thought that too. But one time Rush invited Snerdley to discuss something on the air, so he turned out to be a real person. During the Obama Administration, he was appointed Rush's official "Obama criticizer", so he must have spoken a little then too. I don't remember what the deal was with his having a real name, but that's fine with me, because it adds to the mystery. He has a Bo Snerdley account on Twitter too. VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 20:47, 27 April 2020 (EDT)
I thought I heard Rush say one time it was fictitious; that's really 'old time' radio. In the old radio days, radio hosts used to invent a fictitious character who they would do the voice impersonation of, to have a pretend conversation with. The characters usually could joke and say things on air that the host himself would otherwise be criticized for. RobSLive Free or Die 21:12, 27 April 2020 (EDT)
That's far out. Maybe that's what you expected he was doing and interpreted something he said that way. VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 23:20, 27 April 2020 (EDT)
I did a Google search on the subject and found very little (meaning it's an area that's wide open for development). I did find this, however. It's still common. RobSLive Free or Die 23:24, 27 April 2020 (EDT)