Talk:Main Page

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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

Archive Index

The end of net neutrality

What does the end of net neutrality mean? It means that ISPs will be able to prioritize the traffic of Websites that pay an additional fee. It's really no different than what shippers do. The U.S. Postal Service offers customers the choice between regular and priority service -- and no one claims that's unfair. Hopefully, the additional fee will provide an incentive to create technology that speeds up the traffic. The Obama administration issued the net neutrality regulations in 2015, so the idea is only two years old. But it won't go away without a fight. That because media backs every Obama legacy, even his dumbest ideas. Here is a great comment from RedState: "For many, the Internet of 2015 was a terrifying place where only the richest and most powerful could share their cat videos while the rest of humanity had to entertain themselves by spelling naughty words with pocket calculators."[1] PeterKa (talk) 02:05, 15 December 2017 (EST)

I asked this on the Net Neutrality page, but I never got an answer, so I'll ask this again:
"Just want to know, is Net Neutrality Conservative or Liberal? The article here on Conservapedia indicates that Net Neutrality is inherently liberal/left-wing. But on the other hand, those asking for net neutrality indicate that removing it would be a liberal value in itself, hence the confusion. I'll quote the pop-up I'm getting on the forum Pokecommunity (short for Pokémon Community):
"This is the web without net neutrality.
Cable companies want to get rid of net neutrality. Without it, sites like ours could be censored, slowed down, or forced to charge extra fees. We can stop them and keep the Internet open, fast, and awesome if we all contact Congress and the FCC, but we only have a few days left. Learn more."
"And there's the full message:
Like I said, the whole thing seems confusing, since BOTH options seem to sound very liberal/left-wing."
It also doesn't help that this also makes similar arguments, and makes it sound as though, regardless of how it went, the liberals STILL win, and Conservatives STILL lose. Pokeria1 (talk) 10:38, 15 December 2017 (EST)
There are two main running arguments I'm hearing for/against this.
  1. Support net neutrality because it will help ensure equality on the Internet and prevent censorship and ISP from charging extra for "fast lanes" that only big companies can afford.
  2. Oppose net neutrality, because it puts the government in control of the Internet, rather than the free market. As a part of this, rather than companies paying for the service they need, this "equalizing of outcomes" means that they will in many cases be paying less than they should, while others therefore are subsidizing it by paying more than they should, either directly or in taxes.
When I first heard of this, I actually thought it would be a good idea--it was pitched as a means of preventing censorship. However, as I have done research on the issue, I have changed my mind. It seems that this is inherently a liberal policy of socialism/communism, where all pay equally, but not everyone participates equally. Why are Google, Facebook, and so many other Internet giants in support of net neutrality? I suspect it is at least in part because they are the ones who will need to pay for these "fast lanes" now that it has been overturned. Like socialized medicine, a lot of people would overpay and get almost nothing in return, while a minority would get a large amount back for a small contribution. Oh yes, and in communism, the government makes out like a bandit too.... --David B (TALK) 11:21, 15 December 2017 (EST)
PeterKa, shipping services are good to compare to this--the Internet is a delivery system, much like UPS. If you want your content delivered, you need to pay for it. If you only have a few padded envelopes, you pay a little. If you are mailing out fifty refrigerators every day, you need to pay a lot more. In this situation, I think the average site (such as CP) is mailing the envelopes. WikiMedia, Google, Facebook, etc. are the ones shipping kitchen appliances and wanting everyone else to help pay their bill. I may be over simplifying the policy, but from this viewpoint, net neutrality is classic socialism. --David B (TALK) 11:29, 15 December 2017 (EST)
"Hi, I'm Sid from Free Market Postal Services. I'm just calling to inform you that your envelopes are going to spend a few weeks in our sorting facility because the guy with the fridges paid us extra to have everything delivered on time, and we only have a fixed amount of mail we can process on any given day. Have a nice day!"
I'm mildly puzzled that Conservapedia cheers for the end of Net Neutrality. I suppose it helps that this is pitched as "All small sites will stay the same, but the big boys will have to pay up or be slowed down!" You don't seem to consider the extended argument: "The big boys can then pay a bit more and get preferred treatment." ISPs are now given free rule, yet you expect only one highly specific outcome, and that's risky.
I have a hunch that your enthusiasm will last exactly until Wikipedia, CNN, the NFL, Facebook or the DNC make quiet deals with ISPs to guarantee them fast lane access (or even have their data not counted against the users' monthly bandwidth cap) while competitors big and small get sorted into the slower lane (or even into a more expensive tier, like with cable packages). --Sid 3050 (talk) 15:13, 15 December 2017 (EST)
It's not perfect, for sure. The free market picks the best option though--those with high prices and poor service loose. However, there is one major problem still in existence--zone limitations. ISPs are legal required to limit their service to certain areas, which although in times gone by might have been helpful, really isn't anymore. If someone can do it cheaper and better than the existing ISP, they should be able to come in and compete. However, there is still some competition, such as fiber (in some places), satellite (typically slow), dial-up (incredibly slow by modern standards--does this one even count? And yes, dial-up is available from an outside vendor, not just the telephone company), and cellular network options such as mobile hotspot. None of them except for fiber are as good, but they can still put some pressure on ISPs to keep them in line.
The "fast lane" argument assumes there is a set, finite amount of bandwidth. This is true in the short term, but not in the long term. Lesser paying customers are still paying customers, and ISPs will want to keep them. Bandwidth can and will be increased to maintain reasonable service for these people as well.
I'm not saying this is all wonderful, or that everything will be perfect. We will see how this all goes. However, when the government (which moves slow and costs too much) gets involved in something, it typically follows suit and moves slow and costs too much. --David B (TALK) 15:31, 15 December 2017 (EST)
This actually reminds me a lot of health insurance--It worked fine in the free market until the government went and messed it up. I'm not talking about Obamacare (though that was tier-two mess-up)--I'm talking about inter-state service limitations. The government blocked insurance companies from competing in a free market, then when it all started looking like things weren't going quite right, decided that they needed to step in and break it even more. In comes Obamacare, and suddenly everything goes down the drain. The only way it could possibly work was by forcing people to buy into it--and even that isn't working. Turn it back into a real free market, and things will improve. Of course, that will probably never happen, since the government takes control, but rarely gives it up. --David B (TALK) 15:39, 15 December 2017 (EST)
  • The censorship argument is bogus. Net neutral neutrality never stopped liberals from censoring sites. Here is the NYT: "The Terrifying Power of Internet Censors." Cloudflare is an Internet security company that we should all know more about. It was set up to protect sites from denial of service attacks. After Charlottesville, they decided that the Daily Stormer was a malicious site. The site has moved to the .red domain: If the Dems take Congress in 2018, we may all have to move there. PeterKa (talk) 18:23, 15 December 2017 (EST)
I seriously have no idea what point you were trying to make there: You complain about companies using their unchecked power to block, restrict or sabotage access to certain websites. Now, Republicans repealed Net Neutrality and thus gave ISPs the power to block, restrict and sabotage access to certain websites. And yet, you're against Democrats and against Net Neutrality? --Sid 3050 (talk) 19:46, 15 December 2017 (EST)
His point is that they have been doing this while under net neutrality. It has not stopped them, or even slowed them down. It has only given the government a hand in the already crowded pot. --David B (TALK) 23:31, 15 December 2017 (EST)
PeterKa, that is an interesting article. However, it's not quite that CloudFlare forced the Daily Stormer off their own domain. As I understand, CloudFlare is a server-side service. It can block people from accessing a protected website. However, the webmaster still holds the domain, and can just circumvent CloudFlare if they cause trouble. CloudFlare should not have any hold on the domain, unless it was actually registered by or through CloudFlare, which is a feature I am not aware of existing, if it does. Typically, you buy a domain, then point it to CloudFlare. In their system, you set up your site, so after users connect to the DNS, they get bounced to CloudFlare. CloudFlare does their "magic" then sends the user on to your actual website. It all hides under the domain name, but is still an external process.
Daily Stormer was not able to get DoS protection, but they didn't force them off the internet. An actual D/DoS could, but that depends on the attack and the hosting service. This is a concerning step by CloudFlare, but I don't think they actually have any sway over the TLD.
Am I mistaken? Does CloudFlare have more power than this with domain registries? --David B (TALK) 23:45, 15 December 2017 (EST)
What's in the NYT article is all I know about Cloudflare. The article says that Daily Stormer "lost its ability to stay online" because of Cloudflare. For a while, they were accessible only through Tor. It was GoDaddy and Google that revoked the domain name, according to the article.
Back in 1996, the FCC issued net neutrality regulations under Title I of the Communications Act. This approach is referred to as "light-touch" regulation. In 2014, the light-touch approach was declared unenforceable by a federal appeals court in Verizon vs. FCC. The FCC responded in 2015 by issuing net neutrality regulations under Title II. Title II treats the ISPs as public utilities.[2]
If ending net neutrality will give all the bandwidth to the big boys, I have to wonder why Facebook and Google/Youtube, Netflix, and Amazon all support net neutrality.[3] In the short term, it's possible these companies will suck up more bandwidth. But ending net neutrality also creates an incentive to build more bandwidth. That will make it easier for new companies to enter the field. Which of these two effects will dominate is impossible for outsiders to know. But the green eyeshade people at the established companies obviously assume they benefit from net neutrality. PeterKa (talk) 22:03, 16 December 2017 (EST)
Companies like Netflix and Amazon very much support net neutrality, and it makes sense they do,for two reasons. First, streaming video takes up a lot of bandwidth, so they don't want to worry about the ISPs throttling them for bandwidth issues or charging them. Further, one of the biggest ISPs is Comcast, which owns NBC. As NBC competeso with Netflix and Amazon Prime, they don't want to risk companies like Comcast giving preferential treatment to NBC at their expense.--Whizkid (talk) 23:08, 16 December 2017 (EST)

Mexico Central America says, "California, here I come."

With California a sanctuary state and the U.S. economy hungry for cheap labor, illegal immigration has returned to Obama-era levels: "'Free-for-all' at U.S. border reveals disturbing trend." Hey, I hear they give you one free murder in San Francisco. What we need is mandatory E-Verify, as Ann Coulter explains. PeterKa (talk) 15:55, 16 December 2017 (EST)

Your WND article says, "Most of the families and UACs are coming from Guatemala and other parts of Central America."[4] Guatemala is a Latin American country with a high percentage of evangelicals/pentecostals.
The American sociologist Peter Berger said, "One can say with some confidence that modern Pentecostalism must be the fastest growing religion in human history."[5]
This is yet another nail in the coffin of American atheism.
Please read the article: Señor Gringo Militant Atheist, American atheism is doomed! Olé! Olé! Olé!.
I hope this further clarifies things for User: JohnZ. :)Conservative (talk) 18:38, 16 December 2017 (EST)
I suppose I should change the title. Before Obama, the Mexico never used to let Central Americans cross their country like this. This represents Obama's revenge on America.
When Obama compared Trump to Hitler, the MSM responded with a flood of "Obama is right" headlines. Did the Jews flee to Nazi Germany at any point? PeterKa (talk) 21:09, 16 December 2017 (EST)
In the around the mid 1000s to the mid 20th century, the descendents of European countries colonized countries. Now the descendants of non-European countries are colonizing the countries of the descendants of Europeans through immigration. This is due to the decline of the West - especially declining fertility rates.
And due to the rapid rise of Christianity in China and its attendant economic progress, the 20th century could easily be a Asian Century.
There is backlash against these developments as seen by the rise of European, nativistic nationalism; the rise of the alt-right and growing backlash Muslim terrorism against the West, but these political movements due not address the core issue which is falling fertility rates among much of the West.
Trumpism partially solves the issue as it is expanding religious freedom and taking a harder stance against abortion. Also, the USA has a higher fertility rate than much of Europe so the argument for Trump's wall is on firmer footing than anti-immigrant sentiment in European countries that have very low fertility rates that are currently at sub-replacement levels. Greater religious freedom is helpful as religious people have more children and falling fertility rates among the nonreligious is a significant problem in much of the West.
Will a wall be built on the Mexican border? Right now, there does not seem to be the political will among Americans to build it. In the USA, there are no massive anti-immigrant rallies like those in Europe. But that could change in the future. Usually, anti-immigrant sentiment rises with unemployment and Trump's stronger economy is causing unemployment to fall. It also making America a more enticing place to illegally immigrate to. My guess is that a compromise might be reached and Trump might build walls in various sections of the USA if the GOP does not lose a lot of Congressional seats in 2018. But who knows what is going to happen in 2020 and 2020. The Democrats are very weak and Trump could be reelected despite his current unpopularity among many liberals/moderates. A lot depends on what happens to the American economy as that could increase the popularity of Trump. If passed, tax reform might rev up the economy.
Here is a key statistic concerning the USA: "The birth rate for evangelical adults in 2014 was 2.3 children, the same rate as Catholics. Only two groups produce more children: those in the historically black tradition (2.5%) and Mormons (3.4%). The national average was 2.1 percent."[6] Conservative (talk) 02:46, 17 December 2017 (EST)

Is Mueller's time up?

Today's news is full of speculation that Trump is getting ready to fire Mueller. So let's review the case against Mueller:

  • The purpose of the special counsel regulation is to allow a qualified outsider without conflicts of interest to investigate a delicate matter. By this standard, Mueller cannot be considered the right man for the job. He is a long-time professional ally of Comey's. Comey's dismissal as FBI director is what prompted Mueller's appointment. Mueller's first move as special counsel was to appointed Peter Strzok, Comey's hachetman at the FBI, as a key investigator. Typically, a special prosecutor investigates accusations against the current administration, so it is logical to appoint a member of the opposite party. But Mueller is investigating something that happened on Obama's watch.
  • Mueller's tenure as FBI director (2001-2013) is not one that inspires confidence. See "When Comey and Mueller Bungled the Anthrax Case." Left-wing conspiracy theorists insisted that the anthrax killer had to be a right wing nutjob. Mueller dutifully hounded Hatfill, an innocent ebola researcher, for several years until a judge ordered him to give it up.
  • None of the cases Mueller has brought so far have any relationship to his original mandate of investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election. Manafort was prosecuted for not paying taxes years earlier and Flynn for his activities as a transition team member. As near as I can tell, what's really going on is score settling. Flynn's Muslim-bashing upset Obama back when he was DIA director.
  • Mueller's mandate is itself irregular. The regulation says that a special counsel should be appointed to investigate a crime. "Links and/or coordination between the Russian government" and the Trump campaign isn't a crime.[7] Rosenstein is a good lawyer and I'm sure he knows how to write a mandate correctly. So why was it written this way? Because Sessions has recused himself from the question of Russian interference. So Russia is the one thing that Rosenstein can order an investigation of on his own authority. In other words, Obama-era holdovers are using a loophole to usurp the authority of the president and his cabinet. PeterKa (talk) 04:33, 17 December 2017 (EST)
When Reagan swept into office, he got the Heritage Foundation to screen applicants ideologically. This allowed him to bring in a generation of conservatives with him. It seems that Trump wants to hire each employee himself. He obviously doesn't have the time or energy to deal with more than a handful of offices personally. The Federalist Society finds judicial nominees, but many executive offices are being left vacant. So a lot of power resides with Obama holdovers like Rosenstein. In the Bush administration, Rosenstein's position was held by Comey, who appointed the Plame special prosecutor. PeterKa (talk) 08:42, 17 December 2017 (EST)as
Since I wrote the above, Trump has denied any intention to fire Mueller. It would make more sense to fire Rosenstein, since he's the legal authority and driving force behind the investigation, as this article explains. Mueller can't be replaced without creating a huge uproar. But replacing Rosenstein is a cinch. Rachel Brand is next in line in the DOJ organization chart. Under the Vacancies Act, Trump can replace Rosenstien with anyone who has been confirmed by the Senate for any position in the administration. I'm pulling for Andrew McCarthy as deputy attorney general. PeterKa (talk) 22:25, 18 December 2017 (EST)

Harassment claims against Trump were paid for

One woman was offered $750,000 to make a sexual harassment claim against Trump, but turned it down. See "Exclusive: Prominent lawyer sought donor cash for two Trump accusers." The lawyer in this case is Lisa Bloom, daughter of Gloria Allred, the lawyer who helped gin up the smear campaign against Roy Moore. PeterKa (talk) 17:46, 17 December 2017 (EST)

This story finally made it the New York Times as well to Fox News. We now know the name of the donor who offered the money: Susie Tompkins Buell, the founder of Esprit Clothing. PeterKa (talk) 17:25, 1 January 2018 (EST)
Posted, thanks.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 19:00, 1 January 2018 (EST)
Buell's $500,000 was supplemented by $200,000 from Brock: "David Brock secretly paid $200,000 to bring forward Trump accusers in 2016." PeterKa (talk) 19:46, 1 January 2018 (EST)
Now that the claims against Trump have been been exposed as a hoax, the Dems can stop pretending that they care about sexual harassment. So of course it's time for a Weinstein comeback. No, I'm not kidding: "Ridley Scott: I haven’t ruled out Harvey Weinstein making a comeback." This could be Kevin Spacey time as well: "While discussing Spacey’s possible return to acting, Mr Scott told Press Association: “Never say never, I’ve no idea. I’m sure Harvey (Weinstein) will already have a go within a year.”" And while we're at it, let's bring back Louis C.K.: "Dave Chappelle’s Defense of Louis C.K.." PeterKa (talk) 18:59, 6 January 2018 (EST)

Trump is on a roll

You can't get better headlines than this Daily Mail story: "America's Christmas bonus! Big business passes on massive corporate tax rate cut as AT&T gives EVERY worker a $1,000 bonus and Boeing, Comcast and Wells Fargo hand out wage rises and bonuses too." The tax reform bill will also abolish the "individual mandate," the heart of Obamacare. On the downside, the tax cuts are likely to contribute to the deficit. But Republicans in Congress seem eager to tackle spending next. Trump's poll numbers have recovered nicely in the last week. The market stock has experienced a historic upswing in the last year, the GDP is growing at three percent,[8] ISIS has been defeated, and the federal regulation monster has been tamed.
Mueller's firing of Peter Strzok and his seizure of transition email gives the appearance of an investigation gone off the rails. An executive order to sideline Rosenstien and make someone else second-in-command at the Justice Department is said to be in the works. So we can expect the Mueller investigation to start winding down. The Trump-Russia "collusion" theory Mueller is supposed to be investigating looks pretty silly in light of stories like this: "President Trump Shows He’s A Russian Asset By Sending Lethal Aid To Ukraine."
All in all, 2017 was a year of historic accomplishment. It's quite a turnaround from a week ago, when Trump's poll numbers were at crisis levels, no major legislation had been passed, and the U.S. political scene grimmer. PeterKa (talk) 08:18, 21 December 2017 (EST)

I didn't even mention one of Trump's most important accomplishments: judicial appointments. By the end of the Obama regime, rule of law had taken a backseat to partisanship, if the travel ban fiasco is any indication. Here's a comprehensive list of Trump's accomplishments: "Year One List: 81 major Trump achievements, 11 Obama legacy items repealed." PeterKa (talk) 18:29, 21 December 2017 (EST)

No more Task Force Smiths!

Mattis is in Ft. Bragg to recommend that the troops to read Fehrenbach’s Korean war classic, This Kind of War.[9]. The man has excellent taste and This Kind of War is a real warrior's tome. This time around, guys, no more Task Force Smiths, as Fehrenback would say. Things are also escalating on the propaganda front: "North Korea flooded with illicit information carried by hydrogen balloons as tensions escalate." According to the story, "the appetite for information within the hermit kingdom had considerably shifted in recent months from popular films such as Titanic, South Korean soap operas and megastar Psy’s music videos more towards news, documentaries and educational material including Wikipedia entries." PeterKa (talk) 18:30, 23 December 2017 (EST)

Big Government Oswald Spengler

Can we please not cite Oswald Spengler as some great oracle? (Main page right) The guy loved big government, thought his vision for socialism was the true socialism, and many of his ideas spawned Nazism. Conservapedia and Conservapedians has made it quite clear that we do not like big government nazism or big government socialism, so then can we be consistent here? Thank you. There have been plenty of people who have written about the decline of Western civilization without us having to compromise our beliefs and rely on someone such as this. Progressingamerica (talk) 11:28, 27 December 2017 (EST)

I don't see how the MPR post praises Spengler in any compromising way -- I don't see how it is an endorsement of his entire worldview. To me, Spengler seems to be one of the many people throughout history I've seen who is correct regarding certain views (in his case, the decline of the West) but far off on others (socialism). Maybe he was a man of his time? Either way, I don't have strong views on him, and I wouldn't mind him being removed from MPR.
Regardless, I think MPR should be trimmed. Some of the more recent entries take up way too much space and are blocking what I think are more relevant entries (Merry Christmas, Latin America, etc.). --1990'sguy (talk) 12:28, 27 December 2017 (EST)
This is a situation where the "purist" in me kicks in. When someone so clearly adores big government, they are "off the list" so to say for me. I can always, always find someone else who has espoused a similar idea, without pointing to someone or something this problematic. For example, James Burnham wrote Suicide of the West. By the time Burnham wrote Suicide, he had rebuked his former big government Marxist beliefs and given up on it.
Conversely, I am not aware of any place, any time, where Oswald Spengler rebuked his love of big government. He just didn't like Nazis - that alone doesn't make him reputable. Therefore, simply citing him in any way is compromising in and of itself. In Law there is what is called the "fruit of the poisonous tree". MPR has fruit in it right now from a poisonous tree. Progressingamerica (talk) 13:08, 27 December 2017 (EST)
User: TerryH doesn't read main page talk and he posted the Oswald Spenger main page right post.
If you feel very strongly about it, I would contact User: TerryH on his talk page.Conservative (talk) 13:42, 27 December 2017 (EST)
Progressingamerica, your points are fair, but I'm more of a pragmatist on matters like this. I disagree with Spengler's views on socialism, but his views on the decline of the West, particularly his prediction that mass migration would help cause the decline of the West, seem to be playing out before our eyes today. As a sidenote, knowing that the Nazi Party downplayed/avoided their socialist and anti-Semitic agenda when trying to attract conservative/Christian votes in the Weimar elections, I don't consider Spengler's disapproval of the Nazi Party to be the decicive factor in making him reputable.
Conservative, would you please either trim MPR or move further up the posts about conservative victories in Latin America and about Americans saying "Merry Christmas"? --1990'sguy (talk) 13:53, 27 December 2017 (EST)
Yeah, and besides, to be honest, Thomas Jefferson also came from the same poisonous tree as, say, Teddy Roosevelt, largely because when he became president, he actually DID become a massive big government follower, doing stuff that actually conflicted with what he said, and even voiced support for the Jacobins up to and including their 1793 reign of terror. Don't believe me? Just read "Liberty: The God that Failed" by Christopher A. Ferrara. Either way, I agree with ProgressingAmerica on one thing: I do think the recent news entries are getting out of hand and betraying Conservapedia. I may be against atheism to such a degree that I want to see them completely wiped out, especially after what they did to us since 18th century France, but I do think that claiming they're more likely to get cancer (I know someone who died from cancer from my childhood, and he most certainly wasn't atheistic, being Episcopalian if anything), or be autistic (and BTW, speaking as someone who actually WAS diagnosed as high-functioning autistic and know people on that spectrum, I can definitely confirm the existence of people who have autism who if anything are very religious, such as myself, a staunch Roman Catholic, or my think tank, which included a Methodist and two Jewish people who are at least religious enough to go to Synagogue) or undergo genetic mutations is things getting out of hand. And I wish people don't cite medical journals. As my dad said, medical journals could be published just by someone having a doctorate named on the cover. Medical journals also claimed support for global warming and homosexuality. Should we consider those things being scientific fact? Besides, several of these elements you're talking about is coming closer and closer to genetic predestination as well as the idea of eugenics to me, which last I checked is NOT a Conservative idea. Pokeria1 (talk) 14:03, 27 December 2017 (EST)
To be fair to Cons, he never said that religious/conservative/Christian people never get autism, cancer, or any other afflictions. He's saying that atheists are less healthy as a whole (I see from your comment that you recognize that he's not saying that only atheists have these diseases, but you don't seem to be treating it that way). --1990'sguy (talk) 14:13, 27 December 2017 (EST)
I just personally get irritated whenever he or anyone else claims that autism is composed of atheists, whether it's all or a majority. It's a sore issue for me, and I hate being told, implicitly or explicitly, that I should adhere to atheism just because I happen to be autistic. I may have my... issues regarding God, serving him out of sheer terror rather than love, with my overall view of Him being closer to a megalomaniac, but I definitely do not deny that he exists, and if anything am far too aware that he exists, unlike atheists. When people cite medical journals, it gets me even more irritated as well regarding that. Pokeria1 (talk) 14:49, 27 December 2017 (EST)
Fair points, and I understand your feelings with the "sore issue" part, but still, I don't think Cons is calling autism an atheist disease, and nor is he saying that people with it should become atheists. He's saying that atheists are more likely to have it compared to the population as a whole -- and this (if even true) does not mean that a majority of people with autism or cancer are atheists (atheists are a clear minority in the U.S. and world population, so even if every atheist hypothetically had autism/cancer/etc. -- which Cons is not saying -- the non-atheist population with such afflictions could still outnumber or be very close to the number of atheists).
However, I do think that either way, CP should not emphasize articles like that. When discussing atheism, we should emphasize the hopelessness of atheism. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:43, 27 December 2017 (EST)
  • Here is what Spengler wrote in Hour of Decision (1934): "And these same everlasting "Youths" are with us again today, immature, destitute of the slightest experience or even real desire for experience, but writing and talking away about politics, fired by uniforms and badges, and clinging fantastically to some theory or other." At that time, Spengler was one of the few people who could write material even mildly critical of the Nazis and get it published in the German press. It wasn't long before this book was banned and Spengler was confined to writing about ancient history. So he did use his prestige as a historian to stand up to Hitler in his small way. In any case, Spengler's views of Nazism and big government are tangential to what he is notable for. PeterKa (talk) 05:10, 28 December 2017 (EST)

Trump far more admired than Hillary

Fourteen percent of Americans named Donald Trump the man they most admired. Nine percent named Hillary the woman they most admired, down from 12 percent last year: "Gallup: Obama, Hillary Clinton remain most admired" PeterKa (talk) 20:32, 28 December 2017 (EST)

The day the Deep State was born

Does anyone think this crowd cares about Russian interference in the 2016 election: "Russia probe grand jury looks like ‘a Black Lives Matter rally,’ says witness." As near as I can tell, no one involved in the Mueller investigation knows or cares anything about Russia. Russia is just a pretext to allow the Rosenstein/Mueller cabal to get back at Trump for firing Comey. Comey had to be fired because he was confused regarding a fundamental aspect of his job: The president selects the FBI director; The FBI director doesn't get to select the president.
Mueller is a long-time professional ally of Comey, as you can see from this story in Politico about the Steller Wind bruhaha of March 11, 2004, the day the Deep State was born. This is a Mueller-worship piece written by someone who knows guy well. Yet there is no attempt to portray Mueller as motivated by anything more noble than a thirst for revenge. Mueller's history of going the extra mile for Comey suggests that he'd make a loyal friend. But he cannot be considered the most appropriate choice to be an investigator.
Aside from Mueller's relationship with Comey, other unanswered questions swill around Mueller's long and sleazy career. Has anyone asked him why took down New York Governor Elliot Spitzer in a politically motivated prostitution investigation back in 2008? Or why he targeted Stephen Hatfill, an innocent Ebola researcher, with a torrent of leaks that suggested he was involved in the anthrax mailings? PeterKa (talk) 21:19, 2 January 2018 (EST)

Trump's tweet about having a bigger nuclear button than Kim will no doubt go down as one of the all time great tweets.[10] Here's what Trump could say say about Mueller, if he wanted to continue in the same vein: "Bob Mueller, the former FBI boss best known for setting Governor Spitzer up with a hooker sting, is hot on the trail of my appointees. I've advised the entire staff not to cross state lines during trysts." PeterKa (talk) 23:12, 3 January 2018 (EST)

Franken finally resigns

Senator Al Franken finally resigned on January 2, but sadly for the wrong reasons. Yes, he does have seven pervnado accusers. (That's only one less than Roy Moore had.) But Minnesota voters knew full well that Franken was a pervert when he first "elected" in 2008. In fact, his pervertness was a selling point. It would be a finger in the eye of those Republican prudes who impeached Bill Clinton. If Dem voters had no problem with Clinton's sexual misbehavior, why would Franken's give them pause? What Franken should be resigning for is promoting Jamie Leigh Jones and her fabricated claim of being gang raped by Halliburton employees. See Washington Monthly and Anne Coulter. PeterKa (talk) 23:12, 4 January 2018 (EST)

Cold is the new warm

Al Gore told us back in January 2006 that due to “a true planetary emergency” we had only ten years to go: “unless drastic measures to reduce greenhouse gases are taken within the next 10 years, the world will reach a point of no return.” Eleven years later, Niagara Falls is frozen and Gore is at Sundance promoting his new flick, An Inconvenient Sequel. One attendee asked him: "My friends make fun of me about the 10-year tipping point, what do I tell them?" Gore's only response is, "Well, we gotta keep working." He then enters a Chevy Suburban and departs on the snowy street. Here is the video. To be a global warming alarmist these days is to be an unembarrassable buffoon. PeterKa (talk) 23:46, 4 January 2018 (EST)

Gore just gets dumber as he gets older: "Al Gore: ‘Bitter cold’ is ‘exactly what we should expect from the climate crisis’." The only problem is, Nostradamus-Gore did not predict cold snaps or snows in An Inconvenient Truth (2006). PeterKa (talk) 01:34, 5 January 2018 (EST)
I remember my father telling me that in the 1970s everyone wasn't talking about global warming but global cooling, and all these so called "climate scientists" were absolutely convinced that there would be an ice age by the year 2000. Needless to say, we weren't buried under 100 ft of snow in 2000. Then they went and started saying the exact opposite with global warming and now they talk about "climate change", saying any weather that is slightly unusual must be due to climate change.
Anyway, I thought you might find the global cooling thing funny. FredericBernard (talk) 10:01, 5 January 2018 (EST)
I forget the exact number, but I believe the earth's known temperature cycle is about 20 years long. There may be other cycles, but this one at least is playing into the nonsense. In the 1970s, it probably was colder that it had recently been. Then, as we entered a warm cycle of more solar activity, "global cooling" began to look more and more ridiculous, so then they needed to shift to "global warming." This worked for a little while, but now as the cycle has shifted in the other direction again, they again look like fools. To help deal with this exposure of the joke, Gore started saying that cooling was a result of warming. Somehow, ice supposedly melts (due to excess heat) to the point that it actually consumes more heat than it "should," and makes the air colder than average. Anyone who knows a little about physical science knows what a foolish claim that is. Besides, you know those dramatic pictures of ice breaking of of glaciers? Ice breaks off from the sides when there is so much weight behind it that the brittle ice fractures. This happens only as the main glacier grows, making it too heavy--ice breaking off of glaciers is a sign that there is plenty of new ice.
Now those who believe a bit of the Bible have theorized that there was once a "water canopy." If this existed, then ice caps are a new feature altogether anyway, made possible only by the earth's poor heat distribution after the flood, and the excess water this canopy deposited. I don't know if it is true, since I wasn't there. However, it does make some sense.
In any case, until they start growing grapes productively in Greenland like the Vikings used to do, you can't tell me that things are warming up. Cooling at least makes more sense, because we know that the earth's molten core is slowly solidifying. It's not due to human activity, but just natural cool-down after the planet's creation. It seems it was accidentally designed very well to hold its heat for a long time and maintain the EM field, dispute this process. Good thing, since when it becomes solid, every living thing on earth will roasted by solar wind. It's a comfort to know that in the end, people will still be living here on earth--if not, the book of Revelation would be pretty short. --David B (TALK) 10:58, 5 January 2018 (EST)
I didn't know anything about cycles, just remember my father talking about it when I was younger. Interesting though. Also your point about glaciers is good, never thought about it like that before! :) FredericBernard (talk) 11:31, 5 January 2018 (EST)
  • As far as cycles go, perhaps you are referring to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. Here is a handy chart and discussion. PDO/AMO determines the frequency of El Nino events. The 2014–16 El Nino was unusually large and we are now in the downswing. The interior of the Earth will take hundreds of millions of years to cool significantly. But the Milikovich cycles suggest that we are headed for another ice age in 50,000 years or so.[11]
    In the 1970s, the media was in the grip of apocalyptic environmental scenarios of every kind: overpopulation, global cooling, global warming, resource depletion, energy crisis, approaching famine, etc. In the late 1970s, a group of activists led by Stephen Schneider realized that pumping out so many conflicting scenarios at once confused the public. The Union of Concerned Scientists resolved that the activist community would focus on global warming. This was in 1978, which was a notoriously cold year. The environmentalist movement had adopted a "conservation and renewables" agenda a few years earlier in response to the energy crisis. A warming scare is more compatible with this type of agenda than a cooling scare is. In short, this issue has always been driven by politics as opposed to weather or climate trends.
    As far as what the climate is really doing, take a look at this chart by Ljungqvist. It shows that we are in a Contemporary Warm Period that can be compared to earlier periods such as the Roman Warm Period (250 BC to AD 400) and the Medieval Warm Period (950 to 1250). CWP began with a dramatic warming spurt that continued from 1900 and 1930. That upswing is too early to be explained by industrial emissions. From 1940 to 1970, there was a cooling trend. Since 1970, global temperature has been increasing steadily. Temperatures are now back up to where they were in the 1930s. They are also back up to where they were in the year 1000, if you want to take a longer view. I suspect we are now at the top of a solar cycle of some kind. PeterKa (talk) 23:38, 5 January 2018 (EST)
I guess you can see from the above why the ecofreaks banned me from Wikipedia. It's their first response to rational argument. PeterKa (talk) 02:19, 6 January 2018 (EST)
That is a very well-reasoned and researched argument! I believe what I was thinking of was not quite what you linked too, but that is a good resource as well. I did a little quick research and couldn't find a 20-year cycle, but there is an 11-year one. [12] I thought there was another cycle in the 20-30 year range of time, but perhaps I was mistaken. Also, here is a good ICR article on the issue:[13] --David B (TALK) 22:32, 7 January 2018 (EST)
And yes, I can see why Wikipedia wouldn't like that! --David B (TALK) 23:19, 7 January 2018 (EST)
William Connolley has decided that he is Wikipedia's expert on the 1970s climate debate. I take it that I dissed him. He is a big deal over there. He has a nickname for me, so there is reason to think that he cares about my case. I didn't actually write all that much about climate when I was on Wikipedia. They asked me some odd questions on the subject at one point, like I was being vetted. Perhaps the answers I gave were used to ban me. PeterKa (talk) 04:04, 8 January 2018 (EST)

The media and Trump

The media went on about Trump and Russia for a year. When Flynn pleaded guilty to lying, he issued a statement saying that he knew nothing about any Russia collusion. If there was Russia collusion, who would know more about it than Flynn? In short, this line of argument seems to have reached a dead end. What is Russia collusion anyway? "Collusion" sounds like a legal term of some kind, but it's just so much hand waving. At least, it's not something you can actually be charged with.
Next it was pervnado. After protecting Weinstein for many years, The New York Times suddenly decided that he would be sacrificed to create a pretext to renew attention on old claims against Trump. But then it turned out that the accusations against Trump had been ginned up by Lisa Bloom, who had offered money to the accusers. So that dog didn't hunt either.
With Wolff's book, the media is back to questioning Trump's mental state. If Trump is unbalanced, what about Joe Biden or Keith Ellison? The media will never use this "psychoanalysis from afar" technique on any Dem regardless of how unbalanced they appear to be. This is a tactic with its own sleazy history. During the election campaign, WaPo published a series of articles claiming that Trump's supporters were racist or crazy. Politicized mental health assessments were notoriously used by the Dems against Goldwater in 1964.
I predict that the next phase of the anti-Trump campaign is "obstruction of justice." Mueller and the media will be treating those who question the validity of the probe as criminals themselves. This tactic means that the justification of the probe is the probe itself. This is the unethical policeman's strategy applied to politics: If you don't confess, you must be lying or obstructing. It's way past time for Sessions to wake up and clip Mueller's wings. PeterKa (talk) 03:28, 8 January 2018 (EST)

As noted at Conservative News and Views, Goldwater sued Fact Magazine for its publication of an article that amounted to both a smear job and a politically-motivated attempt to discredit him based on dubious "mental health" claims against him and he won, leading to the creation of the Goldwater Rule in the APA's Principles of Medical Ethics.[14] What Bandy Lee is doing now on the Democrats' behalf is very similar to the hit piece against Goldwater back then, and Trump would be well within his rights to likewise sue Lee (or if not, simply discredit her publicly) for her politically-motivated actions while the APA could, at least, censure her or take out sanctions against her for unethical professional behavior.
As for an attempted "obstruction of justice" accusation by the Democrats and their liberal media puppets, it'll end up backfiring on them and boomeranging back to them if they try it because the Democrats have themselves been known to obstruct justice to protect those of their own who've been engaged in criminal or otherwise unethical activity (most notably in recent years under Obama, and especially regarding the Clintons) while the liberal media acted on their behalf to cover for them, even though they are in no position to make accusations themselves based on their own lack of credibility and the recent accusations of sexual misconduct against several prominent media figures. Northwest (talk) 00:21, 9 January 2018 (EST)
Obstruction usually implies threatening witnesses, prosecutors, or judges, paying them off, or something of that kind. Trump is in the law enforcement chain of command. It's perfectly legitimate for him to decide that one case will be pursued but not another. Did Comey commit of obstruction when he exonerated Hillary? In 2014, Obama told us there was "not even a smidgen of corruption at the IRS," thus heading off a criminal investigation.[15] When Nixon fired Cox, the Watergate committee called it an "abuse of power," not obstruction or any other criminal act. PeterKa (talk) 19:32, 9 January 2018 (EST)

Oprah 2020? Ha, ha, and more ha!

At a moment when Hollywood is looking sleazier than ever, CNN tells us that Oprah is "'actively thinking' about running for president." Uh, actively think again Oprah: "Actress: Weinstein used Oprah and Naomi to seduce me." You can bet that more stories like this would come out if she actually did run. Oprah and Weinstein. Weinstein and Oprah. It was a long very public friendship documented in plenty of now embarrassing photos. The CNN story I linked to above features an enthusiastic Oprah endorsement by noted Weinstein worshiper Meryl Streep. I don't think that helps. The MSM has marketed pervnado as a moment for female empowerment. But does it not suggest that a lot of women in Hollywood got to where they are by whoring? PeterKa (talk) 17:34, 8 January 2018 (EST)

If Bernie Sanders runs for president and wins the nomination for the Democratic Party, that would be a plus for the atheist movement, but maybe not. Trump and/or his surrogates would surely point out he is an atheist, which could cause him to lose the election (see: Distrust of atheists).
If Oprah rans for president and won the Democratic Party that might not be good for atheist activists given her opinion that atheism is odd (see: Atheism and wonder). Conservative (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2018 (EST)
Oprah is so well liked that attempts to link her to Weinstein would fail. She is probably the biggest potential threat to Trump in 2020.
She would probably blow away professional politicians in a crowded primary just like Trump did. The Democrats have a weak bench so she would probably win a primary easier than Trump did. Nut perhaps Bernie Sanders would give her a run for her money.
Hopefully, she will not choose to run and/or a strong economy would give Trump the presidency. Maybe all the attacks on Trump/Obama will give her pause as far as running as she would lead a very divided country. However, Trump's victory in 2016 may have emboldened her to run in 2020.
Lastly, evangelicals/Christians are a big voting block and her past as far as ties to New Age religion would hurt her in this voting block.[16][17]Conservative (talk) 03:05, 9 January 2018 (EST)
Oprah: Generations of older people have to die before racism issue gets significantly better.[18]
Older people vote at high percentages. This isn't going to help her win the elderly vote.Conservative (talk) 03:15, 12 January 2018 (EST)