Talk:Main Page/Archive index/165

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Rapper at anti-gun rally arrested on gun charges

If this doesn't belong on MPR, I don't know what does: "Rapper Who Performed at March for Our Lives was Arrested on a Gun Charge." Liberals have nothing against guns. What they hate about the NRA is that it supports Republicans. PeterKa (talk) 02:59, 27 March 2018 (EDT)

Only 10 percent of DC marchers were under 18

The average age of March for our Lives protesters was 49, according Breitbart and WaPo. It was basically the Women's March redux. Eighty-nine percent proudly reported that they voted for Hillary. PeterKa (talk) 13:35, 28 March 2018 (EDT)

I'm beginning to think these protesters are only government workers and relatives of government workers who live in the Maryland and northern Virginian corridor, drive in, hold the signs, get televised by the media (who declare how amazing the turnout is) for the purpose of both of them exchanging the advancement of the schemes of particular liberal pressure groups for the groups looking the other way on out-of-control spending and liberal societal entanglement (that is, both things originating a demand for more, even less essential Federal Government workers behind which current ones can hide their jobs) or advancing a media ideology—and forcing Republicans to divert their resources elsewhere than cutting the budget or de-fueling social anarchy.
And then who leave the signs without putting them in the trash for the taxpayer-funded D.C. sanitation department to go clean up afterwards. VargasMilan (talk) 20:19, 28 March 2018 (EDT)
Thank God Hillary Clinton was such a lackluster candidate who had trouble creating large crowds. If the Democrats had enthusiasm before the 2016 election, they might have won.Conservative (talk) 21:35, 28 March 2018 (EDT)
The Dems told themselves Hillary's victory was inevitable. They thought this was a clever strategy, but it clearly reduced turnout. They can't address their own failures, even now, but only point fingers at Russia and "collusion." The Dems often claim to have won the "popular vote." In a modern popular vote system, there is a runoff between the top two candidates. It is unlikely Hillary would have won such a runoff.
It seems that Hollywood financed the anti-gun rally and many "protesters" went just to see the celebrities. This is Hollywood responding to Weinstein and the Me Too movement by pointing fingers at the NRA. PeterKa (talk) 07:26, 29 March 2018 (EDT)
You don't know the half of it. If Jill Stein had sued Michigan and Pennsylvania, those states could have slow-walked the electoral college votes, taken Trump's electoral college majority away and thrown the contest to the House of Representatives where they would have elected Hillary president. VargasMilan (talk) 09:33, 29 March 2018 (EDT)
The House would have elected Hillary? On what planet? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 13:35, 29 March 2018 (EDT)
How many NeverTrumps are there that would have voted that way "for the good of the country which is obviously deeply divided"? VargasMilan (talk) 14:48, 29 March 2018 (EDT)
In regard to the popular vote, they are correct according the reported numbers--Clinton won the popular vote. However, it's important to note that Obama lost the popular vote, but only got in due to the electoral collage. --David B (TALK) 15:01, 29 March 2018 (EDT)
Obama got 52.9 percent of the vote in 2008 and 51.1 percent in 2012. In 2016, Hillary got 48.2 percent while Libertarian Gary Johnson got 3.3 percent. If there had been a French-style second round, I don't think Johnson's votes would have gone to Hillary. PeterKa (talk) 20:37, 29 March 2018 (EDT)
The people do not elect the president. No one has ever pretended they do. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 23:59, 29 March 2018 (EDT)

Liberal corporate bullying (again)

Leftists have engaged in corporate bullying many times already, notably having caused most of Breitbart's advertisers to leave, among other incidents, but now, the anti-gun kid protestors are trying pressure companies into boycotting Laura Ingraham's FNC show simply because she committed the unspeakable sin of mocking David Hogg: [1] The way I see it, since these kids argue they're too immature to be anywhere near guns (because their brains are still developing), we shouldn't take them seriously when their feelings are hurt by something like this (they'll grow out of it as their brains develop). Unfortunately, many of these corporations are probably going to bend under the pressure. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:00, 29 March 2018 (EDT)

This time Ingraham caved (more accurately, apologized), while at least some of her advertisers are leaving: [2][3] This gives Hogg the advantage in this "dispute," and it makes Ingraham look bad to everybody (mean to leftists and weak to conservatives). Conservatives should stop caving to the Left and hold their ground (and they should point out examples of hypocrisy by the Left). Furthermore, maybe the hosts on FNC should find more conservative advertisers. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:57, 29 March 2018 (EDT)
Conservative advertisers are hard to come by. Almost all of the big companies with plenty of advertising money are flaming liberals. Not to worry, though, these "big businesses" run by "the 1%" are supporting the democrats because they care about the poor, and not their own wealth....which in their defense, they (presumably) earned honestly and therefore deserve. --David B (TALK) 15:05, 29 March 2018 (EDT)
Maybe they care about the poor, but if they did, they'd be donating overwhelmingly to apolitical charities rather than being activists for gun control, environmentalism, mass migration, and the homosexual agenda. They seem to care more about affluent white liberals than the poor. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:32, 29 March 2018 (EDT)
  • Hogg hasn't been attending class for years, but he still has a 4.2 GPA.[4] How can you get such a comically high GPA and not be qualified to enter a California public university? Ingraham was making fun of his inept school, not Hogg.[5] PeterKa (talk) 20:13, 29 March 2018 (EDT)

Ingraham's mistake

James Delingpole is right: Laura Ingraham should never have apologized to David Hogg. Far-left activists and SJWs don't have honest motives in these disputes (we know this from experience), and they will use any chance they get to destroy those who stand in the way of their socialist agenda. Apologizing for something as irrelevant/trivial (to put it mildly) as this only gives them ground. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2018 (EDT)

And now Hogg is calling for Ingraham to apologize to a whole host of other people: [6] Yes, she made a bad decision by caving to the SJWs. Hopefully, she won't cave any further. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:12, 1 April 2018 (EDT)
Laura Ingraham's mistake was doing that tweet. Sun Tzu said to attack what is weak and avoid what is strong. Hogg's strength is his very high GPA. His weakness is his idiotic and callous statement related to malaria killing millions.[7] His statement about malaria makes him appear to be heartless and not really caring about human life.
In addition, Ingraham's tweet was gratuitous and had nothing to do with gun control or the preservation of human life. It came across as a petty, personal attack. I agree with Scott Adama (creator of Dilbert) that Ingraham did not hurt herself with her apology.[8] I do think that Hogg probably hurt himself somewhat by not accepting her apology.
So far, her tweet and the subsequent boycott are not career crippling in terms of the television aspect of her career as Fox News is currently standing by her.[9] Fox is not losing those advertisers. They are just switching them to another slot.
An unintended consequence of Hogg's call for a boycott might be right-wing retaliation when a left winger at CNN/MSNBC makes an inappropriate remark.[10] Conservative (talk) 04:46, 3 April 2018 (EDT)

Is the pope Catholic?

It's not a joke anymore. See "Pope Francis: 'There Is No Hell'" and Pat Buchanan's "Does the pope believe in Hell?" The last heretic pope was Honorius I (625-638). Honorius was a Byzantine pope who was found guilty of Monothelitism by the Third Council of Constantinople. ("Monothelitism teaches that Jesus Christ had two natures but only one will").
Andrew Ekonomou, Trump's the new Russia attorney, is, oddly enough, a well-known medievalist. In fact, he wrote the book on Byzantine popes: Byzantine Rome and the Greek Popes: Eastern influences on Rome and the papacy from Gregory the Great to Zacharias, A.D. 590–752 (2007). Ekonomou claims that Honorius was only guilty of "linguistic carelessness." PeterKa (talk) 21:19, 29 March 2018 (EDT)

This commie should be impeached. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 23:56, 29 March 2018 (EDT)
The Catechism seems to be pretty cut and dried on this issue: "The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire.""[11] This is supported by citing Mt 13:41-42. PeterKa (talk) 20:41, 30 March 2018 (EDT)
Basically, he's calling Jesus a liar (Matt. 18:9, for example). RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 13:05, 31 March 2018 (EDT)
The Vatican released a comment that they couldn't be sure anything from that interview, conducted by a communist, taken separately, was quoted accurately. Pope Francis may have meant "There is no hell that would be applied punitively to these individuals' case according to the sense in which you are seeming to understand hell, but rather..." using the phrase as shorthand and indicating the meaning by setting apart the phrase with hand gestures and vocalisms.
I feel this may be the first case after the original that can be described as a "Mercian". VargasMilan (talk) 14:05, 31 March 2018 (EDT)
Here is the statement from the Vatican Press Office. It seems that they did not consult the pope himself to resolve the issue. So we have a pope who confides freely with his communist atheist "friends," but not so much with his own press office. PeterKa (talk) 08:01, 1 April 2018 (EDT)
Again, he may be deep down sympathetic to Liberation Theology that Marxists had a hand in, or it may be that he is practicing "Love thy enemies" and was willing to risk the potential for embarrassment that the interviewer did in fact cause, intentionally or not.
This pope seemed willing to risk the embarrassment of being mistaken on social issues that comes from taking stances he believes were the most compassionate rather than remaining silent and seeming to tacitly approve of restraining compassion.
Only just recently he said he had become aware of "fake news" and made a point to condemn it. This doesn't sound like a pope who's "playing to the crowd" as he just handed a tool of criticism to his friends and to his enemies alike in case he says something, or even in case they just wish that he had said something, untruthful. VargasMilan (talk) 09:20, 1 April 2018 (EDT)
Getting "lost in translation" isn't the first time the Vatican used this kenard. This pope was hired to cover-up the Vatican banking scandal - the fact the church screwed the victims of sexual abuse who won monetary judgements in court, and then illegally transfered assets from the local diocese to the Vatican Bank to avoid paying. By putting a Marxist in charge to stir up class warfare while the greedy bankers in the Vatican Politburo cheat victims was a brilliant PR move. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 11:44, 1 April 2018 (EDT)
I think you can criticize His Holiness the Pope and my defense of his actions in a more fraternal and less cynical and dismissive kind of way. VargasMilan (talk) 01:59, 3 April 2018 (EDT)
  • If you think you can be more Catholic than the pope, think again: "You cannot be more restrictive than the Church herself,” [Pope Francis] told a lay association gathered Thursday morning at the Vatican, “nor more Papist than the Pope.”[12] PeterKa (talk) 18:44, 5 April 2018 (EDT)

The politics of Rosanne

The pro-Trump reboot of Rosanne is a huge success with 18 million viewers. Although the show purports to be about working class America, this is a Hollywood version of being pro-Trump. There is no denying that the U.S. economy has improved under Trump, so you are allowed to support him for that reason. But no one knew that when we voted in 2016. Opposition to immigration, multiculturalism, and Islamic terrorism (which Hillary assured us did not exist) was certainly a bigger factor. After seeing the response Khizr Khan got at the Democratic National Convention, my sense was that the choice was Trump or Islamic law. (See "Muslim Gold Star Father Believes Constitution is SUBORDINATE to Sharia Law").
When Obama was elected in 2008, neither party challenged the idea that marriage was between a man and a woman or that boys were boys and girls were girls. Now the most conservative sitcom on the air is scrupulously PC on such issues. Rosanne even has grandchild who is “gender creative.”[13] PeterKa (talk) 17:06, 30 March 2018 (EDT)

NFL Cheerleaders

I do not understand the headline about the male cheerleaders for the Rams. Is the existence of male cheerleaders per se meant to be a reason to Unplug the NFL, or is it the 'underpaying' of female cheerleaders that is meant to be the reason to Unplug? If the former, it's not clear why that's a problem. If the latter, I'm surprised to see Conservapedia weigh in on a labor dispute when apparently the cheerleaders are paid a fixed rate for their services as contractors to the NFL teams. If the cheerleaders feel that the payment is insufficient, they are not obligated to take the employment offer. Or perhaps the NFL was not paying the previously agreed-upon wages? If any individual team was doing that systematically, I'm sure they would soon find themselves unable to fill those positions!--Brossa (talk) 17:10, 31 March 2018 (EDT)

Not all NFL teams have cheerleaders. Generally speaking, only those cities where a cheerleader squad can function as a stand alone entity, i.e. as an unsubsidized revenue generating entity, have cheerleaders. Some franchises may pay a partial subsidiary to a cheerleader squad which is basically an outside contractor, but the money would have to come out of stadium revenues, and not the league's revenue sharing (television money) which goes to player salaries and limited by the salary cap. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 23:33, 31 March 2018 (EDT)
That does not seem like a reason to Unplug the NFL. Nobody who freely agrees to an exchange of goods or services for money is 'underpaid' unless they then are not paid the agreed-upon amount, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. Nor does there appear to be a claim of any coercion, with the cheerleaders being forced to work against their will. If the existence of a cheerleading squad somehow profits a football franchise, it is in the franchise's interest to maximize that profit by minimizing personnel costs while still attracting employees with the desired qualities. --Brossa (talk) 09:49, 2 April 2018 (EDT)

London Homicide surpasses New York

Well, the gun-free utopia of England just stole the title of city with the most murders from The US. London just beat New York. How about's almost as if banning guns just changes how people kill people, and not how much. [14] --David B (TALK) 15:19, 2 April 2018 (EDT)

The US doesn't have the problem of throwing acid in the faces of women who don't wear burkas yet. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 15:24, 2 April 2018 (EDT)
London and and New York have almost exactly the same population. London's murder rate would be higher if the victims of terrorism were included.[15] Yet Theresa May assures us that terror has nothing to do with Islam or immigration. If terrorism is just another form of crime, why doesn't the British government include it in the crime rate? PeterKa (talk) 19:15, 2 April 2018 (EDT)

Mexico prepares an attack on the U.S. border

Mexico is arranging for a "caravan" consisting of over a thousand Honduran refugees to the attack the U.S. border:[16] When the going gets tough, bring in the women and children from another country, as they (apparently) say in Mexico. We could end up with refugees starving in No Man's Land, a modern Alesia. Caesar stuck to his spears and turned the Gallic refugees away. PeterKa (talk) 23:34, 2 April 2018 (EDT)

Poland MPR post should be removed

This MPR blurb criticizing Poland should be removed or at least changed.

Anti-Semitism is rampant throughout Europe -- and Poland is not even close to being the worst country in this regard. Caroline Glick gives a good perspective -- several liberal Western European countries (Germany, Iceland, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, etc.) are actively trying to ban infant male circumcision, and if these efforts are successful (they already are in at least certain parts of Germany), Judaism would effectively be banned in those countries. Also, kosher meat, another important part of Judaism, is banned in all or parts of Belgium, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Denmark.

Also, let's not forget that large numbers of Jews are leaving, or considering leaving, Western Europe because of the rising anti-Semitism there, including half of all French Jews wanting to leave France.[17][18][19][20] And lastly, let's not forget that the UK Labour Party has a major problem with anti-Semitism among its members: [21][22]

So why is MainPageRight ignoring Western Europe's rampant anti-Semitism (and Western Europe is the place where mass migration, open borders, pro-Islamism, and "liberal values" are present), but picking on Poland for its much less severe anti-Semitism? And why is the country that MPR does choose to pick on one of the only conservative/patriotic countries in Europe that actually is taking a common sense approach to the migrant crisis among other issues? The MPR post should either be completely removed or revised to show that Poland's anti-Semitism is very mild compared to Western Europe. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:16, 3 April 2018 (EDT)

You make excellent points, and I've changed the MPR accordingly. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 15:23, 3 April 2018 (EDT)

Prosecutor appointed for Clinton/Obama scandals

Appointing a prosecutor to investigate Hillary was one of Trump's best-known campaign promises. You might have thought that would be an easy promise to keep, but it took Sessions over a year to do it. Hillary was too big for Comey's FBI to jail, but hopefully not too big for U.S. Attorney John W. Huber: "John Huber, who will investigate the FBI, is a special counsel in every way but name." Huber will also be investigating the Obama administration's surveillance of the Trump campaign. PeterKa (talk) 16:36, 3 April 2018 (EDT)

Huber was appointed about in July, not "over a year". He was certainly on the job by November, or actually given more authority. Sessions runs a tight ship. There has been no leaks. And the investigation and grand jury is being run from Utah, home of Intelligence Community Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative Data Center. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 09:51, 4 April 2018 (EDT)
The rats are turning on each other. Lisa Page turned states evidence and got McCabe fired. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 18:11, 6 April 2018 (EDT)

It was a liberal extremist who went on the shooting rampage against YouTube, so it is difficult finding media articles discussing her views.

[23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32]

Just 10 of around 415,000 results. I would hardly call that hard to find.--JohnsonS (talk) 19:33, 4 April 2018 (EDT)