Difference between revisions of "Talk:Main Page"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Roman Catholicism, Protestantism, and centralization)
(Guns and vegas: new section)
Line 727: Line 727:
Despite what the latest MPR item says, FiveThirtyEight is not making any specific prediction with regard to Alabama. In fact, the site notes prominently that the race is currently a dead heat: "[https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/politics-podcast-alabama-is-tied/?ex_cid=navlink Politics Podcast: Alabama Is Tied]." The article linked at MPR suggests that as more voters absorb the news of the allegations against Moore, the tide will turn against him. At the same time, the news about Franken makes the Dems look hypocritical.<br />The senate is currently confirming Trump's judiciary nominees at a rapid clip. We need Moore in the senate to keep the window of opportunity open. If a Dem is elected in Alabama, McCain becomes the swing vote on judicial nominees. That's a role he relished way too much when he had it before. As long as gridlock prevails in Congress, the federal judiciary will retain an outsized role. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 01:51, 23 November 2017 (EST)
Despite what the latest MPR item says, FiveThirtyEight is not making any specific prediction with regard to Alabama. In fact, the site notes prominently that the race is currently a dead heat: "[https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/politics-podcast-alabama-is-tied/?ex_cid=navlink Politics Podcast: Alabama Is Tied]." The article linked at MPR suggests that as more voters absorb the news of the allegations against Moore, the tide will turn against him. At the same time, the news about Franken makes the Dems look hypocritical.<br />The senate is currently confirming Trump's judiciary nominees at a rapid clip. We need Moore in the senate to keep the window of opportunity open. If a Dem is elected in Alabama, McCain becomes the swing vote on judicial nominees. That's a role he relished way too much when he had it before. As long as gridlock prevails in Congress, the federal judiciary will retain an outsized role. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 01:51, 23 November 2017 (EST)
== Guns and vegas ==
I have to ask - what difference would it have made if guns were allowed at the festival given it was not appearent where the shots were coming from and the shooter was on the 31st (from memory) floor? It wouldn't have been very good to have 10s of people firing wildly into the buildings above them. [[User:JohnSelway|JohnSelway]] ([[User talk:JohnSelway|talk]])

Revision as of 23:22, 23 November 2017

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


Did he do it for gun control?

As anyone who has watched the news media lately knows, for liberals gun massacres and talk of "gun control," by which they mean getting back at the NRA, go together like peanut butter and jelly. After the Orlando massacre, a lot of liberals reacted along the lines of, "If only the shooter was white, we could use this incident to get gun control." Perhaps Paddock thought this way as well. Mark Steyn elaborates. The news reports make Paddock sound apolitical, which makes this theory less likely. But if he could have a secret life as a gun enthusiast, he could have a political life we don't know about as well. As Sherlock Holmes said, "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." In collecting his arsenal, Paddock followed the law scrupulously. As a wealthy man with a pilot's license and private planes, he presumably had access to the black market. Liberals are big believers in "blowback." It wouldn't be the first time they tried to turn the concept around and make it work for them. The Obama administration sold guns to Mexican drug dealers in "Fast and Furious." Why? Pointing out how many of the guns used by criminals in Mexico were of U.S. origin was one of Obama's favorite gun control talking points. PeterKa (talk) 23:04, 7 October 2017 (EDT)

I was hoping the note Paddock left in his room would shed light on his motives. But it turns out to be filled with calculations concerning what firing angles to use.[1] Gun control is one of the few motives where is it vitally important that the motive be concealed. If it was about gun control, that would suggest the gambling was less an addiction than a way to get big shot treatment from the casino. PeterKa (talk) 01:56, 8 October 2017 (EDT)
The Huffington Post also has an article on gun control as a possible motive. This story notes that Paddock had far more guns that he needed to commit the crime. They were all bought legally, as if he was making a point about what was possible while staying within law: "Where Las Vegas shooter Stephen Paddock bought his guns; it was all legal." In short, gun control has become a death cult with worshipers seeking martyrdom. PeterKa (talk) 02:20, 8 October 2017 (EDT)

Addicted to gambling?

As far as the gambling addiction theory goes, casino owner Steve Wynn claims that the casino had no reason to think of Paddock as a problem gambler: “He's been staying in Las Vegas since ‘06. So you know, we're talking about 11 years with his girlfriend or at least in recent years, frequent visitor, once or twice a month, to this hotel and others. The most vanilla profile one could possibly imagine. A modest gambler at least by our standards, you know, nothing serious, paid promptly, never owed any money anywhere in Las Vegas. He didn't fit the profile of a problem or compulsive gambler.”[2] They didn't give him the best suite in the hotel because he was a small timer, so this may be overstating the case. Can a "modest gambler" really bring in dozens of guns, store them in his room for a week, and demand not to be disturbed? Let's hope not. PeterKa (talk) 00:26, 9 October 2017 (EDT)

This story in the LA Times explains Paddock's gambling habits. At one point, he had a method of actually making money at video poker. The casinos readjusted the odds a year or so later. Mostly, he was a "comp hustler." That is to say, he tried to break even as a big money gambler while earning freebies from the casino. PeterKa (talk) 06:41, 10 October 2017 (EDT)

"Sugar daddy" ads in Europe

It's sad to see the beautiful French language contaminated this way: Sortez avec un Sugar Daddy. See "Students with sugar daddies: ‘It was a money-making scheme’." PeterKa (talk) 01:56, 8 October 2017 (EDT)

Gun control, the never ending war

Why is gun control the never ending war zone of American politics? Because it is a reliable source of financing for politicians and consultants on both sides. See "Democrats More Interested In Politicizing Gun Violence Than Stopping It." The media's hysteria on this issue inspired Waco, the Oklahoma City bombing, and possibly the Las Vegas shooting as well. Paddock bought several weapons in California, where everything the gun control lobby wants is already law. As long as Jimmy Kimmel and other liberal heroes retain armed guards, it's all just posturing.[3] PeterKa (talk) 08:09, 8 October 2017 (EDT)

Dems think they will ultimately prevail on the gun control issue, in order to prevail on other issues as a result. When Australia enacted gun control after a mass shooting, liberals were then able to pass other parts of the agenda. Gun control causes an entire country to move leftward politically, as citizens become more dependent on the state.
However, Dems fail to realize that they more they try for gun control, the more Dems will continue to lose elections. Some say that Al Gore lost in 2000 because of the gun control issue, observing that he failed to carry his own home state of pro-Second Amendment Tennessee, which has more Electoral College votes than the margin of his defeat.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 14:29, 8 October 2017 (EDT)

"Detective User: Conservative" solves the Stephen Paddock case

Please see: Stephen Paddock was a power hungry, liberal, beta male whose anger exploded.

Question: Why are so many nonreligious, effete, liberal men so angry? See also: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo? and Richard Dawkins and anger and Atheism and anger

We know that he was a nonreligious loner. On top of this, he was a liberal beta male who by definition had no followers. So a conspiracy theory is pretty much ruled out.Conservative (talk) 09:16, 9 October 2017 (EDT)

Hans Küng is often at odds with some in the Catholic hierarchy, if you believe some of the accounts on the internet, but he came up with the observation that the secular state is always having to take recourse to what he called "substitute messiahs".
Grief counsellors are called in the next day after a violent or tragic event at schools, when it may take more than many days and among loved ones rather than a stranger to work through grief. Yet they are called in anyway, because liberals need to compensate for not valuing family life because the family gets in the way of too many of their goals.
Likewise with the "substitute messiah" of gun control. Careful observers have been watching Venezuela these recent months where previous acts of gun control, however well-meaning, by the socialist government which could, in ordinary times, among a responsible class of people, prevent the escalation of violence, in a time of economic and political turmoil where those ordinary times are gone, at best simply benefit the socialist party in power as they spread the confiscated firearms to their own party and turn government into nothing better than coercion.VargasMilan (talk) 10:16, 9 October 2017 (EDT)
The new article List of atheist shooters and serial killers is pretty popular right now. It already has over 4,400 page views.Conservative (talk) 14:01, 9 October 2017 (EDT)

Columbus Day

Don't forget to raise your American flag today; this marks the 525th anniversary of the discovery of America, although the saddest I can remember in a long while. VargasMilan (talk) 10:18, 9 October 2017 (EDT)

Pence walks out of NFL game

So Pence walking out in response to kneeling NFL idiots is now the media's idea of a scandal. The argument here is that the vice president flew to the game using taxpayer-funded Air Force Two simply to perform a "campaign stunt." Where was this accountant mindset when Obama was president? Obama routinely used Air Force One to go to campaign events, both his own and Hillary's. The campaigns do reimburse the Air Force for this, at least in a token way. The amount they pay reflects the amount an equivalent charter flight would cost. This is, of course, only a tiny fraction of the overall cost of a presidential visit. NPR crunches the numbers. PeterKa (talk) 00:21, 10 October 2017 (EDT)

Good points. Classic liberal logic: if Pence had stayed to watch the game, then liberals would not be complaining about the cost. What if Pence had left at halftime? Would liberals complain about that?--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:31, 10 October 2017 (EDT)
If standing up for our national symbols isn't official vice presidential business, what is? The amount these visits cost is absurd, but that's not Pence's fault. PeterKa (talk) 01:24, 10 October 2017 (EDT)

Muslims/evangelicals. Secular leftism collapsing faster than I expected

Please read the following articles:

Germany/France are two main pillars upon which Western, secular, liberalism rests now. If Gave is roughly correct (he did have a mathematical error as per the latter link given above), then an anti-atheism, anti-homosexuality, ant-feminism Muslim population may strike a huge blow against secular leftism much earlier than I thought.

On top of this, Merkel appears to be much weaker now and the French youth are becoming more right-wing in recent years.

I do know that Muslims are not assimilating and they tend to live in isolated ghettos in France (See: European desecularization in the 21st century).

My guess is that the accuracy of Gave's calculation rests on whether or not the fertility rate of French Muslims will about stay the same or significantly drop in the next 40 years.

After all is said and done, secular leftism appears to be between a quickly growing hammer of right-wing populism and an anvil of Muslim/Christian evangelicalism.

Secular leftism is collapsing much faster than I anticipated. However, I did foresee an acceleration of desecularization happening in the world so I was not completely caught off guard (see: Acceleration of 21st century desecularization). Conservative (talk) 02:36, 10 October 2017 (EDT)

Conservapedia proven right™! VargasMilan (talk) 04:31, 10 October 2017 (EDT)
Atheism dependent on the state collapses fast when state support is eliminated as can be seen at: Collapse of atheism in the former Soviet Union. The resurgence of religion after state supported atheism can happen quick as per: Central and Eastern Europe and desecularization
Once Muslims and/or evangelicals and right-wing conservatives have a sufficiently large voting majority and evolutionary indoctrination is eliminated in schools like what has been done to a large degree in Turkey, Western atheism will collapse relatively quickly.
The wildcards are: Will the European Muslim birthrate go down? How much will immigration policies change in Europe? Will a Reconquista 2.0 cause Muslims to be expelled from Europe? Will the Europeans do a more rigorous crackdown on Muslim terrorism in order to delay anti-Muslim immigration forces from gaining traction sooner? Are Christian and/or Muslim creationists going to step up their outreach efforts? Will Catholicism continue to see modest growth in Europe?[4] Conservative (talk) 11:25, 10 October 2017 (EDT)

It looks like the Muslim immigration flow to Europe will be the key factor as far as Islam and Europe as can be seen by these two articles:


What a hero. Flat out called Trump a liar. Strange there's no mention on MPR. JanZ (talk) 19:18, 10 October 2017 (EDT)

Corker is a moderate/establishment Republican who chose not to run again because he feared a primary election loss. Corker's parthian shot is not very impressive.
Trump firing back at Corker may make tax reform harder. For example, Trump's comments about McCain's war hero status may have caused McCain to vote against repealing ObamaCare.
Nevertheless, the world is moving towards right-wing populist politics. Brexit-Trump-Betty Devos-Le Pen's support among the young-AFD in Germany-Roy Moore. The left is sweating and getting violent because they are feeling like trapped rats in a corner.Conservative (talk) 19:56, 10 October 2017 (EDT)
Leftists and the establishment have been calling Trump a "liar" (and worse) since he announced his presidential campaign -- Corker's comments are nothing new. What is new is that now it's blatantly apparent that Corker (and much of the GOP Senate caucus) is a RINO establishmentarian and an opportunist. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:40, 11 October 2017 (EDT)

Media turns on Harvey Weinstein

So many people maintained their silence for so many years. Why now? Why the New York Times? The hammer came down soon after Weinstein green lighted the production of a pro-Israel movie. See American Thinker. Since the scandal broke, Weinstein has canceled production and promised to work against the NRA. So his first reaction was to worry that he hadn't been politically correct enough. PeterKa (talk) 19:49, 11 October 2017 (EDT)

Harvey's brother engineered the hit so he could take over the TWC production company, according to CNN: "Harvey Weinstein believes his brother Bob betrayed him." PeterKa (talk) 22:47, 11 October 2017 (EDT)
It never had anything to do with sexual harassment. When Weinstein could pick the winners, he was Meryl Streep's "agent and God." His current movies are poorly preforming sequels (Shakespeare in Love, Sin City, Kill Bill and Fahrenheit 11/9). With no hits in the theaters, he's out with yesterday's garbage. Did Streep know or not? "Not everybody knew," she says coyly.[5] PeterKa (talk) 02:33, 12 October 2017 (EDT)
As Mark Steyn reminds us, we've seen this movie before. In the next act, the Hollywood malefactor returns as a hero. After all, Harvey's crimes are not nearly as shocking as, say, Polanski's or Arbuckle's. Polanski has put out one substandard movie after another. Only Chinatown redeems him. Weinstein's claim to being an artistic genius is at least as good as Polanski's.
Check this out: "Harvey Weinstein: Contract with TWC allowed for sexual harassment." He'll be able to sue TWC for big bucks. Being fired may be the best thing that every happened to him. PeterKa (talk) 01:07, 13 October 2017 (EDT)

This is how bad Congress is

On Tuesday, the Trump Administration criticized Congress for taking so many breaks, and the next day, the House (supposedly GOP-controlled) voted to extend its current break.[6] It's clear that Congress is deliberately subverting Trump's agenda.

The establishment GOP is complaining that Bannon will cause the GOP to lose one or both houses of Congress, and they say that will be bad because Congress won't be able to advance Trump's agenda, but even now, they are apparently unwilling to do it -- thus, losing Congress to the Dems will be an effective status-quo election result. Conservatives have literally zero to loose with Bannon's actions.

BTW, if the Democrats take Congress, I predict they will lengthen their workweek and take fewer breaks -- like they did during the Obama Administration. Their policies are terrible, but they know how to advance their globalist/socialist agenda. --1990'sguy (talk)

Paddock and the truth

A white mass killer is too good to be true for the leftist media. That's why they look no further at the contrary evidence.

  • What did Paddock do for a living? Played video poker? If you are counting cards at the casino they will kick you out even though it's legal and slightly tips the odds less in the casino's favor. Now we're supposed to believe Paddock mastered video poker and the casinos let him not only stay, but gave him complementary rooms and food, hoping the luck will turn in the casino's favor? I guess the casinos have to cut back on their lavish accommodations for everyone else while he's in town. Great business model, huh?
  • How many non-ideological mass killers have a girlfriend?
  • If Paddock was alone, why were there reports of gunfire from the fourth floor?
  • Paddock's hotel room had a camera in the door's peep hole, and if everything was under control in the room, and not edgy, as with the presence of a hostage, why were dozens of rounds fired at a security guard (Campos) who approached the door before the massacre started?
  • A maintenance worker at the hotel said Paddock Campos told him to "take cover" when the worker arrived to see the shooting start. Did Paddock have an accomplice another person with him in the suite who went out of was struggling to maintain control of the situation [where two individuals were conversing in the hallway]? (Website Breaking 911 had a transcription error and what the maintenance worker really claimed was that he saw the injured security guard [Campos]—not Paddock—along with the first bursts of gunfire, and that it was Campos who told him to take cover.)
  • If there were no accomplices, why did it take eight days and revised timelines for the authorities to establish when Paddock checked in? Because there were Arabic names associated with his check-in time and location, and the FBI doesn't want to dig into the possibility that ISIS made it over our laxly-enforced border to carry out their second grand-scale mass murder, the first being in Orlando?
  • Why was Paddock's body discovered with rubber gloves on his hands unless he expected to survive the attack, rather than commit suicide, and not leave evidence that he was the shooter?
  • What did Paddock do for a living? Lose at video poker all day with a return of 98 cents, or worse, on the dollar? Terrible way to invest, but great way to launder money. Could Paddock be a gun-runner, explaining the variety of guns in the room, but who didn't have an accomplice but rather a client or clients who overpowered Paddock and committed the murders?
  • Could the shooter have used the rubber gloves and placed them on Paddock after he was dead to implicate him and otherwise explain the lack of fingerprints on the arsenal of weapons?
  • Wasn't the killer(s) escaping the premises a real possibility since the security at the Mandalay hotel failed to clear the stairwell until long after the wounded security guard [(taking cover at the end of the hall) informed the police who arrived on] left the floor [which door the gunfire came from] two minutes after the shooting stopped?
  • Didn't witnesses report that there was an Arabic woman who showed up at the front row of the concert before it started telling everybody that they were going to die? Couldn't have another perpetrator or perpetrators with motive to commit the massacre overpowered Paddock days before and prepared the attack days in advance and hoped to employ a crude sort of terror "narrative" with this woman in a mysterious and terror-inducing role? VargasMilan (talk) 12:35, 12 October 2017 (EDT)
Regarding ideological mass killers and having a girlfriend, didn't Joseph LeBon have a wife who supported him in his mass killings at Arras? Pokeria1 (talk) 13:36, 12 October 2017 (EDT)
That I don't know, but the Muslim husband and wife in the San Bernardino atrocity who were an ideological pair could be another example.VargasMilan (talk) 14:59, 12 October 2017 (EDT) correction two: 17:20, 12 October 2017 (EDT)
He just liked gloves. It wasn't about fingerprints. See "Who was Stephen Paddock? The mystery of the ‘most boring son’." This article also claims he made his money buying depressed real estate and fixing it up. If he was so good at real estate, why did he switch to video poker? At any rate, it's the best explanation I've seen. PeterKa (talk) 19:24, 12 October 2017 (EDT)

Boys will be girls and girls will be boys

Yes, it really is a mixed up world -- except for my Lola. Once, they were eunuchs. Now they are "gender confirmed." Caitlyn Jenner was always Caitlyn Jenner. He was not "born a boy" and was never Bruce. Those are the latest style rules from AP, the news media's most influential style model.[7] PeterKa (talk) 19:12, 12 October 2017 (EDT)

Well, that settles it - the Associated (or should I say, Dissociated) Press has officially lost all credibility (as well as all its marbles). Northwest (talk) 10:41, 13 October 2017 (EDT)
In 2015, after the Obergefell v. Hodges legalized gay "marriage" in the USA, triumphant liberals declared the culture war was over and they had won.
Fast forward to the USA 2016 presidential election: Evangelicals and conservative Catholics helped propel Donald Trump to victory. Trump was the first U.S. president to go to the Values Voter Summit.
If Trump elects one more U.S. Supreme Court, it could change the conservative vs. liberal balance on the court for many years to come.Conservative (talk) 22:02, 14 October 2017 (EDT)

Conservapedia Obsessive Compulsive Disorder is an officially recognized mental disorder

Please see: Conservapedia Obsessive Compulsive Disorder is an officially recognized mental disorder.

Question: Will the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition (DSM-5) be the next authoritative source to recognize this debilitating mental health disorder?Conservative (talk) 14:42, 15 October 2017 (EDT)

That made my day, User:Conservative! Thank you for your amazing insights.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 14:44, 15 October 2017 (EDT)

I thought this was rather humorous:

In 2017, the atheist PZ Myers, quoting fellow leftist Alex Nichols, wrote:

"..the growing popularity of jibes associating outspoken atheists with fedoras, neckbeards, and virginity, led to an exodus of liberals and leftists from the “atheist” tent. Those who remained for the most part lacked in social skills and self-awareness, and the results were disastrous."[8]

The secular left and the atheist movement is imploding at a faster and faster rate.Conservative (talk) 15:02, 19 October 2017 (EDT)

Trump ends illegal Obamacare subsidy

When Obamacare become law, no insurance company wanted anything to do with it. So Obama pulled out his "pen and phone" and created a subsidy not provided for in the law. It was an unconstitutional attack on congressional control of the budget. Even the media admits that the Obamacare insurance system may not survive if it is implemented as written. The Dems may regret their stubbornness in the repeal and replace debate. Obamacare backers claim that the subsidy was supposed to be included in the law, but left out as an oversight. Few congressmen would have been eager to vote in favor of an appropriation bill providing payments to insurance companies, so at very least it was a convenient oversight. Obamacare was always a fraud, pushed through Congress with the false claim that the insurance companies would pay for it. See National Review. PeterKa (talk) 22:57, 15 October 2017 (EDT)

I want it gone as much as you, I'm sure, but the problem is that they will push this as "proof" that they need a single-payer system. "See? We tried to work with insurance companies, but they just wouldn't cooperate. Now we need to take complete control so it can work!" I'm afraid to rejoice at its failure--people are two brain-washed and trusting, so they will just go on like sheep to the next, even worse option. --David B (TALK) 15:41, 17 October 2017 (EDT)


Here's something to build a Weinstein bio around:

Weinstein "told me, in front of the publicist and a co-worker beside him, that a famous star, a few years my senior, had once sat across from him in the chair I was in now. Because of his “very close relationship” with this actress, she had gone on to play leading roles and win awards. If he and I had that kind of “close relationship,” I could have a similar career. “That’s how it works,” I remember him telling me. The implication wasn’t subtle. I replied that I wasn’t very ambitious or interested in acting, which was true. He then asked me about my political activism and went on to recast himself as a left-wing activist." [9] RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 03:11, 16 October 2017 (EDT)

Stock market at record high

Amid all the doom and gloom spewing from the left, the Dow Jones Industrial Average has broken all records, having just past its fifth 1,000-point milestone since Trump was elected. It is now over 23,000. See: [10] --David B (TALK) 15:35, 17 October 2017 (EDT)

Stock market prices are based on expectations of future growth for companies and the economy.
When Ronald Reagan reformed the tax code, there was a big jump upward in the economy. If Trump gets something passed on tax reform, it could be very big.
trump is also cutting out onerous regulations on businesses and these regulations are often tough on small businesses.
Trump is also doing things that will speed up the collapse of ObamaCare and give business people and some consumers more options. ObamaCare collapsing and being replaced by a better system could also be boost to the economy. Many companies are no longer offering full-time work due to ObamaCare rules imposed upon them.
European politics affects USA politics too. European politics is moving the right and we could see big further gains in terms of right-wing politics in the upcoming 2021/2022 German and French presidential elections. The continued irritant of Muslim terrorism, Muslim rioting, Muslim non-assimilation and Muslim sexual/other crimes in Europe will insure that European politics shifts rightward. Conservative (talk) 21:35, 17 October 2017 (EDT)

What Trump Russia is really about

Trump-Russia is all about getting even with the American people because we dared to vote for the "wrong" person. Otherwise, why would this story be trending today: "How Hillary Clinton still can, and should, become president after the Trump-Russia investigation." That may sound like an Onion parody, but it's a serious Newsweek article. Now, the nation is not pinning for the lost presidency of HRC, at least not according to this article: "A new poll shows that Hillary Clinton's approval rating is even worse than Trump's." Judging from her memoir and recent interviews, feeling sorry for herself is her current full-time job. She should feel lucky that she's not in jail, which is where she belongs after destroying 30,000 emails that she was supposed to turn over to the FBI. PeterKa (talk) 02:02, 18 October 2017 (EDT)

"Harvard University professor Lawrence Lessig offered a Clinton path to the presidency on Medium, putting forward a series of "if/then" scenarios that lead to House Speaker Paul Ryan handing the White House keys to Clinton." - Newsweek[[11]
Lessig needs to step out of his ivory tower cocoon more and spend more time in real world. You can tell he is a law professor and not a history professor.Conservative (talk)

What Trump really said

  • Widow admits interpreting president's remarks as disparaging and dismissive - MSM and Democrats pretend the paraphrase was a verbatim quote.

He said, ‘Well, I guess you knew’ — something to the effect that ‘he knew what he was getting into when he signed up, but I guess it hurts anyway.’ You know, just matter-of-factly, that this is what happens, anyone who is signing up for military duty is signing up to die. That’s the way we interpreted it. [ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/10/18/totally-fabricated-trump-disputes-congresswomans-depiction-of-his-exchange-with-soldiers-widow/?utm_term=.568fbc4a313d]

This is typical of the media - to pretend that their interpretation of what Trump said is an exact quote - or that they knew what he had in mind. We need to call them on it more often. --Ed Poor Talk 11:45, 18 October 2017 (EDT)

Hillary went to the funeral of a Benghazi victim and lied to his family about a how the incident was triggered by an anti-Muslim videotape. The first problem here is that this is such a stupid lie that expecting anyone to believe it is insulting. It's also using a funeral as just another place to push partisan talking points. At this time, Obama was preposterously claiming to have solved the problem of terrorism. It followed that Benghazi was not about terrorism. Instead, it was an "inappropriate videotape on Youtube" issue. I don't know what Trump said, but it would be hard to top that in terms of inappropriate treatment of the bereaved. PeterKa (talk) 10:01, 21 October 2017 (EDT)

Bush chucks his principles again

When Bush approved the banking bailout, he told us he was chucking his principles. Who needs principles when you can call people juvenile names like "bigot," "white supremacist," and "racist"? See "George W. Bush delivers clear rebuke, without mentioning Trump by name." The media is spinning this as "Trump has gotten so extreme he's made Bush team up with the Clintons." But in fact, W has been best buddies with Bill Clinton for many years, even before Trump became a Republican. And it's specifically Bill who is his buddy and Hillary only as Bill's partner. Bill and W are both glad-handing Southern good old boys. In other words, sexual harassment doesn't seem to be much of an issue for him. PeterKa (talk) 08:53, 20 October 2017 (EDT)

Hollywood admits it knew about Weinstein's acts

According to Hollywood director Quentin Tarantino, "everyone who was close" to Weinstein knew what he was doing -- the same people who condemned Trump for his alleged acts.[12] Here's an interesting article on the number of alleged acts of sexual abuse, comparing Weinstein, Cosby, O'Reilly, Trump, and Ailes -- I noticed that Cosby and Weinstein committed significantly more alleged acts than the others, but the Left was OK with Weinstein's acts while going ballistic at Trump and O'Reilly (even though almost all of Trump's accusers accused him just before the election, an apparent attempt to take him down rather than get justice). --1990'sguy (talk) 09:18, 20 October 2017 (EDT)

Based on the "no firing for sexual harassment" clause in his contract, it's clear TWC's lawyers and board of directors knew this was an issue at least since 2015.[13] PeterKa (talk) 10:58, 20 October 2017 (EDT)
Basically, the liberal side of the fence expects to get away with it. Which brings to mind a very classic Hollywood line: "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" Karajou (talk) 05:37, 21 October 2017 (EDT)
  • All these stories about starlets and producers may be titillating, but I know what you are thinking: Where's the racism angle? Well, Buzzfeed has found it. Weinstein and other producers were more attracted to white women, you see, so black actresses ended up with fewer parts. That's Hollywood for you. When it's not being sexist, it's being racist. Lupita Nyong'o's accusations seem awfully convenient in this context.[14] Soon, the directors will have to be gay. PeterKa (talk) 10:03, 24 October 2017 (EDT)

Uranium One

Trump's phone call to a bereaved military family has eclipsed the latest Clinton scandal, at least in the mainstream media. At the time Hillary approved the purchase of Uranium One by Russian nuclear giant Rosatom, the FBI was actively investigating a Russian bribery and racketeering scheme to gain control of the U.S. uranium industry. Director Mueller authorized the investigation in 2009, when Hillary was secretary of state. It was quashed by Comey in 2015. While the details of Mueller's investigation of Trump get leaked in real time, it took six years for the media to report on this investigation. The book Clinton Cash (2015) documents that the Russians made a payment to the Clinton Foundation in exchange for her approval of the Uranium One transaction. But the book doesn't mention Russian racketeering in the uranium trucking industry. The way the story has been told up to now, the transaction was a legitimate business investment. OK, so Hillary is corrupt and greedy and what else is new? This news suggests that the FBI was a partner in crime. What did Mueller and Rosenstein know of Hillary's links to Russia at the time of Mueller's appointment as special counsel? See "FBI uncovered Russian bribery plot before Obama administration approved controversial nuclear deal with Moscow." This column by Mark Steyn helpfully reviews the background. PeterKa (talk) 23:55, 21 October 2017 (EDT)

Got it started. Uranium One bribery scandal. It is important to realize up front (1) the Clinton Foundation received donations from multiple sources, and more importantly (2) the Clintons personally received remuneration in the form of speaking fees paid to Bill Clinton. It is extraordinarily important not to confuse the two as Clinton defenders are and will try to do. Try to avoid discussion on Foundation donations, unless you have solid information and are familiar with it. Focus on Bill Clinton's speech, which is a half million dollar emolument paid to Hillary Clinton. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 01:33, 22 October 2017 (EDT)
Rosenstein ran the DOJ investigation into Russian racketeering. In 2009, Obama wanted to "reset" relations with Russia. So the investigation just spun its wheels until 2014, when Putin invaded Crimea and ended reset. Then the case was quieted pleaded out so as not to attract media attention.[15]

"Climate change" was never about the climate

For John Podesta, "green jobs" was a scam to earn a fast buck for himself. Here is the Daily Caller: "EXCLUSIVE: Podesta’s ‘Green Company’ Forced to Close Because Hillary Lost the Election." These kind of scams have been exposed before, but liberals take them in stride. Where are the True Believers who just want to save the Earth? Shouldn't they be outraged by this abuse of their cause? PeterKa (talk) 00:24, 24 October 2017 (EDT)

Russia dossier was paid for by Clinton campaign, DNC

The "Russia dossier" full of filth and attacks on Trump turns out to be a Clinton production. Here is the Washington Post: "Clinton campaign, DNC paid for research that led to Russia dossier." The pro-Clinton late night comedians jumped on the dossier right away, even while proclaiming that "Never Trump" Republicans were responsible for it. So there was reason to suspect it was campaign stunt from the beginning. This article says, "Before that agreement, Fusion GPS’s research into Trump was funded by an unknown Republican client during the GOP primary." So there is still a possibility that the "Never Trump Republican" cover story wasn't a complete lie. We will know more when the House intel committee gets the bank records. I can remember back when raising the level of our nation's political discourse was considered a reason to vote for Hillary. PeterKa (talk) 23:22, 24 October 2017 (EDT)

What would have happened to the dossier if Hillary had won the election? Obviously, the campaign couldn't have continued to finance it. But the way had been prepared for research to continue as an FBI project. See "Report: FBI offered to pay for work on Trump dossier." In other words, it was all about prosecuting Trump for treason or something similar. There is no punishment too severe for the crime of running against Hillary as far as the mainstream media is concerned. Wasn't it Hillary who told us that prosecuting opposition leaders was a threat to our democracy? PeterKa (talk) 17:43, 25 October 2017 (EDT)
  • WaPo is now pooh-poohing it's own story: "So what exactly is the scandal here? Is it that the Clinton campaign conducted opposition research on Trump?" Who is this writer kidding? Given what we know about coordination between the Clinton campaign and the press from Wikileaks, there is no way this stuff could have come out the way it did without the approval of someone at the top level of ClintonWorld. Steve Colbert was Hillary's biggest shill in the entertainment industry. He embraced the dossier early and with enthusiasm. The dossier was compiled by the head of the Russia desk for British intelligence and it was clearly of great interest to the FBI and to Mueller. One has to wonder why these people, who should have access to all kinds of intel, rely on a report of such dubious quality. Maybe it's the best they have. Or perhaps Podesta said, "Use this report." Comey. Mueller, and rest just follow orders. PeterKa (talk) 02:56, 26 October 2017 (EDT)
Note: Steele was not hired until two months after the Republican client quit. MSM & DNC spin now is the Republicans are responsible for the bogus material. A theory: the Republican client (McCain most likely, on behalf of Lindsey Graham) hired FusionGPS to investigate Trump-Russia ties. FusionGPS came up with nothing, but told the GOP client it could be manufactured. That's when the GOP got out and the DNC took over. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 14:39, 26 October 2017 (EDT)
Good guess, but it turns out the Republican client was Jeb Bush. Hillary hired FusionGPS in April 2016, around the time of the New York primary.[16] PeterKa (talk) 19:48, 27 October 2017 (EDT)
Now they're saying it was Paul Singer through Washington Beacon. Singer was Rubio's money man.[17] In any event, Steele was hired after the Clinton campaign began financing Fusion GPS. So blaming any Republican for the dossier is misdirection. PeterKa (talk) 21:31, 30 October 2017 (EDT)

Healthcare double standards

I find it interesting that the mainstream media is reporting on the savings of the ObamaCare stabilization "compromise" bill,[18] (only $3.8 billion over the next 10 years) while the repeal bills would have saved much more (one of them $321 billion over the next 10 years). However, with the repeal bills, which would largely reverse the slide toward socialism, the media was fixated on the number of people who would be insured. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:21, 25 October 2017 (EDT)

The longest election is nearly over

The globalists may finally be dumping the greedy, scandal-ridden Clintons. See "It's time for a special counsel on Hillary Clinton's Russia scandal." It's Trump's most controversial campaign promise in The Hill, once a reliable Hillary booster. Soros is dumping money into 2018 House races, but that doesn't look like a promising strategy. The Cook Report currently puts Republicans ahead 228 to 192. In terms of bellwethers for 2018, the Virginia House of Delegates election on November 7 is the race to watch.[19] PeterKa (talk) 23:36, 25 October 2017 (EDT)

The Dems have successfully changed the subject of the hour from Uranium One and the Steele Dossier to, "What is Mueller going to do Monday?"[20] Is there a precedent for leaking arrests in advance? Whatever he is planning to do, the fact the Mueller does anticipatory leaks like this shows that his focus is political theater. Mueller was head of the FBI in 2010 when Clinton approved the Uranium One purchase by Rosatom. The FBI's criminal investigation of Russian influence in the uranium industry at the time rated only a local Maryland press release.
It occurred to me that Mueller is using the same tactic against Trump as he did with Bruce Ivins, the anthrax killer. The FBI harassed Ivins and then told his lawyer that the grand jury had decided to indict. He committed suicide in response. The FBI also promoted a theory that Ivins was obsessed with some sorority. I'm sure this was embarrassing to Ivins, but it didn't seem to have much connection to the case. Several jurors later told the media they were nowhere near indictment at the time Ivins died. It was all a dirty trick by Mueller to avoid potential embarrassment in court. When more advanced genetic sequencing techniques became available a few years later, the National Research Council was able to confirm that the anthrax used in the mailings came from Ivins' lab.
Why did Hillary and the FBI need an MI6 agent to write up the nonsensical Steele Dossier? And why didn't it become public until after the election? Mark Steyn has a excellent theory. It was all about getting a FISA warrant for surveillance of Trump and his associates. One thing Steyn ignores is that the FBI's initial request for a warrant was turned down by the FISA court in June 2016. I guess the dossier wasn't up the court's standards, at least not at that time.PeterKa (talk) 06:39, 29 October 2017 (EDT)

Please see: Essay: The death rattles of liberalism and secular leftism.Conservative (talk) 10:46, 29 October 2017 (EDT)

Christians and Trump

Conservative Christians who throw their lot in with Trump can kiss goodbye to any claims of moral authority for a generation. I can see the T-shirts now: I voted Trump and all I got was that lousy Gorsuch. PhillipKD (talk) 15:55, 29 October 2017 (EDT)
It's the Left that loses its credibility when it constantly claims that Christians are hypocrites for supporting Trump -- not only is Hillary "married" to a known sexual assaulter and pervert (as well as the fact that she has defended Bill and gone after the victims), but her policies are very anti-Christian. She supports the ERA, repealing the Hyde Amendment, forcing Chrisitan business owners to violate their consciences, expanded abortion "rights," strong support for the homosexual/transsexual agenda, etc. Gorsuch has shown himself to be the most conservative Supreme Court justice so far (tied with Thomas), but Clinton would have nominated a far-left "living Constitution" (aka. interpret it however you want to) advocate. I'm sure many, if not most, politicians of all political views are moral misfits (besides, see Romans 3), so, as Greg Gutfeld recently said, "it's better to have a competent jerk in office than a charming failure," particularly a jerk who has the right policies. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:45, 29 October 2017 (EDT)
Also, I find it interesting that leftists -- most of whom reject and abhor biblical morality -- are lecturing Christians and other social conservatives on how to be moral people. A vote for a politician endorses their policies (not necessarily their morality or lifestyle) and shows faith in their ability to be a good leader.
Besides, if the opposite were the case, it would have not only utterly disqualified Clinton, Trump, and Johnson (the only candidates with any chance of winning), but also Romney (a Mormon) and Reagan (divorced). What you're seeing is Christians understanding that it's substance (policies) that matters rather than relatively superficial characteristics. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:18, 29 October 2017 (EDT)
Son, I've watched conservatives, evangelicals et al fight tooth and nail for years re. the importance of character, faith and principle in their elected representatives. As fundamentally as I've disagreed with their worldview, I've always respected their consistency and the strength of their convictions. To see them suddenly bend over for this "jerk" has been a profound disappointment, to say the least. PhillipKD (talk) 17:23, 29 October 2017 (EDT)
The reason is because the alternative is even worse -- she wants to restrict the liberties of Christians (force Christians to pay for abortions, bake wedding cakes for homosexuals, etc. etc.), while Trump strongly supported religious liberty and has policies that are actually good for religious liberty (rather than not horrible). This was a very urgent election (Supreme Court, etc.) at a time where the Left has become much bolder than it was during the Bill Clinton years and now openly wants to reduce the religious freedom of Christians. Trump and Clinton's policies could not be more different, and his actions as president (Supreme Court, Mexico City rule, etc. etc.) show that electing him was worth it. Sure, I do wish he had a Christian character (for example, celebrating Reformation Day instead of Holloween, or less swearing), but it's much better than Clinton (both of them) who not only has a horrible character but has horrible policies that would negatively affect the religious liberty of Christians. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:49, 29 October 2017 (EDT)
In the 1920s, the evangelical movement was led by William Jennings Bryan. He was a populist and a Democrat. Nowadays, the Democrats tell us that they don't want anyone who opposes abortion in their party. You can't square that position with Christianity. Trump is America's president, flaws and all. King David, God's "man after my own heart," was not free of sin. The Russia-Trump conspiracy theory is an attempt to delegimize the last election. It's an attack on the democratic process by an anti-Christian party. PeterKa (talk) 18:37, 29 October 2017 (EDT)
And by the way, PhillipKD (aka JohnZ), you continue to ignore the fact that evangelicals solidly voted for Reagan in 1980 and 1984 and for Romney in 2012 -- so much for the lie that there is a "major shift" going on with evangelicals. If we followed your opinion of what we should do, we would have solidly rejected those two people for their obvious moral failings. I'm sure we could name other people as well. If we listened to your opinion, Clinton (a corrupt politician "married" to a rapist and pervert and who defended him) would now be president (even if we voted for a third party candidate), and she would be making policy.
In political elections, we choose politicians, not pastors -- and that's a statement I've heard a lot from fellow Christians years before Trump ever declared his candidacy. Evangelicals have known this when voting for Reagan (a divorced man, and this fact was much more significant than it would be today), and for Romney (a Mormon). We know the other side is at least just as bad, regarding their personal lives, and much worse regarding their policies. And evangelical Christians are very relieved Trump defeated Clinton and is now making policy in a way they were not when the Bushes won, or if McCain or Romney won. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:18, 29 October 2017 (EDT)
PhillipKD/JohnZ, Democrats (and liberals as a whole) have no claim to moral authority, period, so they're in no position whatsoever to lecture conservatives on morality. Creating a sock to get around the indefinite block of your original account just so you can make your hypocritical comments regarding morality only proves what I and others have said here regarding Democrats/liberals and their specious claims to morality. Northwest (talk) 23:19, 29 October 2017 (EDT)

Obama and Bill Clinton made an effort to woo white evangelical voters. Hillary chose not to and it cost her the election.[21]

And to make matters worse, a top spokeswoman for Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign mocked Catholics and evangelical Christians in a 2011 email exchange.[22] Thanks to Wikileaks (and perhaps Vladimir Putin who attends a Russian Orthodox Church), we know about this matter. :)

Obama won reelection in 2012 while bashing Christians. Secularists thought they had won the culture wars at that point. If Clinton had reached out to Christians in 2016, there would have been a backlash. PeterKa (talk) 21:43, 30 October 2017 (EDT)
Pride cost Hillary the election. And pride keeps Hillary from putting the blame squarely on her shoulders for losing the election. Conservative (talk) 22:10, 29 October 2017 (EDT)
1990sguy, it is rather remarkable that PhillipKD/JohnZ attempted attempted to lecture evangelicals on morality. After atheists recently took many large bites out of the forbidden fruit of the tree of bestiality, you would have thought he would have known better (see: Atheism and bestiality).
Bernie Sanders was so ashamed of his atheism in 2016, he lied and totally denied being an atheist - even though he is one.[23] Yes, the cock didn't even have to crow once before Sanders denied his atheism! If Sanders had admitted he was an atheist, he would have been a less competitive candidate in the Democratic primary. But he lied. It's obviously Sanders fault that Hillary lost the 2016 election!
A study showed that even atheists don't trust their fellow atheists (see: Distrust of atheists). Why do so many atheists distrust their fellow atheists? Because atheists know that atheists lie so much! Conservative (talk) 23:36, 29 October 2017 (EDT)
1990sguy, another important point is that there is no such thing as objective morality under the atheistic worldview of PhillipKD/JohnZ (see: Atheism and morality). PhillipKD/JohnZ has to borrow from Christian worldview in order talk about moral matters in meaningful manner. But if he does this, then he is being hypocritical/inconsistent (see: Atheist hypocrisy). Conservative (talk) 02:34, 30 October 2017 (EDT)
PhillipKD/JohnZ wrote: "Conservative Christians who throw their lot in with Trump can kiss goodbye to any claims of moral authority for a generation. I can see the T-shirts now: I voted Trump and all I got was that lousy Gorsuch".
The truth is that theologically conservative Christianity can and does thrive in communist China, Latin America or in the Western democracies. Biblical Christianity is not dependent on the state or any politician to thrive. For example, the BBC recently indicated that pentecostal Christianity is growing fast in Britain (see: Life and Death the Pentecostal Way Full BBC Documentary 2016). Evangelical Christianity is growing fast in France.[24]
JohnZ's secular leftism, however, is very dependent on the state. It needs the state to push evolutionism. It needs to the state to push secular leftist dogma on the religious (see: Atheist indoctrination). According to the University of Cambridge, historically, the "most notable spread of atheism was achieved through the success of the 1917 Russian Revolution, which brought the Marxist-Leninists to power."[25]
The truth is that JohnZ is sweating. The Guardian recently reported that Britain may have hit "peak secular".[26] The British police just used public resources to produce a 12-minute video promoting Islam in the UK.[27] British atheism is incredibly doomed. It won't be long before the anti-evolutionist Lord Kelvin is put on British currency!Conservative (talk) 05:55, 30 October 2017 (EDT)
Thanks for your points. It's true that atheists have to borrow from Christianity to make any moral judgments. JohnZ does just that when he makes moral judgments about Trump and Christians voting for him. --1990'sguy (talk) 10:52, 30 October 2017 (EDT)

1990sguy, given the low morale and fundraising difficulties that atheist organizations are experiencing (see: Atheist organizations and fundraising), you would think that JohnZ would take a play from the playbook of the Boy/Girl Scouts of America and sell candy bars or cookies in front of supermarkets to support atheist organizations instead of wrangling with Christian conservatives at Conservapedia.

JohnZ, see: Decline of the atheist movement. Game over. Fantasies of the secular left to attain hegemony in future are now effectively over.
"We’re saying merry Christmas again." - Donald J. Trump.[28]Conservative (talk) 22:37, 2 November 2017 (EDT)

Manafort indicted

Manafort's job as a democracy consultant in Ukraine turns out to be a cover for a scam. Who would have thought? What he was really doing was helping wealthy Russians transfer $75 million of their ill-gotten gains to Cyprus, the U.S., and other offshore havens. This happened from 2006 to 2014. None of that is a violation of American law, so he is being prosecuted for not declaring income on his tax returns and other forms, and for not registering as a foreign agent. Democratic consultant Tony Podesta, John's brother, was apparently doing much the same thing. Not to minimize such paperwork violations, but they rarely result in extended prison time. After all, it's the Russian economy that's out $75 million, not us. The New Republic called the Black, Manafort law firm "state-of-the-art sleezeballs" back in 1985.[29] In short, the Mueller indictment has little to do with the Trump campaign or the 2016 election.[30][31] PeterKa (talk) 03:18, 31 October 2017 (EDT)

Andrew McCarthy ponders the question of why Manafort was charged only with technical paperwork violations rather than, say, tax evasion. DOJ regulations say that all tax charges must be approved by the Tax Division. Perhaps the Tax Division thought this issue was Mueller's problem and didn't want to get involved. PeterKa (talk) 00:45, 2 November 2017 (EDT)

Robert Mueller in 1971

Robert Mueller appearing with John O'Neill, author of John Kerry's bio, Unfit For Command and Founder of the Swiftboaters, June 10, 1971 on the Dick Cavett Show. https://youtu.be/TXi1XUjGPAQ RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 21:47, 1 November 2017 (EDT)

Russia organized large anti-Trump protest

If the Russians supported Trump, they sure had a funny way of showing it: "How the Russians Got 10,000 People to Turn out for This One Protest and Got CNN to Cover It". This protest was organized on Facebook by BlackMattersUS, a Moscow front. It was held November 12, 2016 in Manhattan. PeterKa (talk) 06:55, 2 November 2017 (EDT)

All I can say on that matter is, if the Russians didn't even bother to topple Karl Marx's statue at Teatralnaya Square in Moscow back when the USSR collapsed, then we really shouldn't dismiss them regarding Communism even if the USSR collapsed. In other words, if Russia is truly sincere in desiring to get rid of any elements of communism, we should make SURE they topple Marx statues in addition to Lenin statues, just so they can prove they have stopped adopting Communism. This whole thing only reinforces the fact that we should put the screws on Russia to force them to get rid of Communism from their country, settling for absolutely nothing less than the complete and total toppling and destruction of any and all communist icons. I could care less if it results in the Czar returning, as long as Communism is as dead as a doornail. Pokeria1 (talk) 07:29, 2 November 2017 (EDT)
On October 31, 2016, the New York Times headline was "Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia." A year later, liberal reporters are so devoted to the Trump-Russia conspiracy theory that there are uprisings by employees at Fox News and the Wall Street Journal demanding an end to skeptical commentary. So what's changed in the year since? I am not aware of any breakthrough revelation, something that we now know about Trump's Russia connections that we didn't know then. Shattered explains that within hours of learning the election result, Hillary, Mook, and Podesta got together and decided they were not taking the blame. They were going to put the blame Russia. The country's has quite an appetite for Trump news. When there isn't any, CNN is happy make it up. PeterKa (talk) 10:33, 2 November 2017 (EDT)
  • The bulk of the so called "Russian meddling" in the election happened after the election and was intended to undermine Trump.[32] The BlackMattersUS protest is thus a representative example. PeterKa (talk) 02:46, 3 November 2017 (EDT)

MPR: "Allahu Akbar"

maybe it doesn't really matter, but in the news section is written that "Allahu Akbar" means "god is greater." While this is a more or less accurate translation, I would argue that:

  1. The implied meaning is "greater than them all", which means "greatest"--to say "greatest" would be more clear to readers. Using "great" or even "greater" masks the meaning that they see all others as inferior.
  2. Although Allah is their god, is it not a proper name? Therefore, would this not be better translated as "Allah is greater" (or greatest)? Removing his name from the translation seems to be an attempt to make Islam and all other religions (most notably, Christianity) appear more similar.

It seems that even as terrorists are proclaiming in essence, "Allah is greater than them all! *BOOM*" the left keeps protecting them even by mistranslating this phrase. --David B (TALK) 15:33, 3 November 2017 (EDT)

"God is great" is a common phrase in English while "greater" and "greatest" sound odd in this context. Allahu akbar is the equivalent phrase in Arabic. It's a conventional phrase and the people who use it are not parsing the -er versus -est issue. I'd translate it as, "Allah is great." PeterKa (talk) 17:19, 3 November 2017 (EDT)
Merriam-Webster gives "God is great." PeterKa (talk) 23:52, 3 November 2017 (EDT)

"The Resistance" collapses

The good people of Virginia will deliver their verdict Tuesday. But early signs suggest that a year of nonstop Russia conspiracy mongering will not be the election winner that the Hillaryistas assumed it would be.
Donna Brazile's book accusing Hillary of rigging the primaries has temporarily displaced Russia as the talk of the town. We all knew DNC Chair Wasserman-Schultz was a Hillary tool, so in a sense this is nothing new. That there was actual contract between the DNC and the Hillary campaign requiring the DNC to serve as a tool of the campaign is a jaw dropping revelation. This contract was signed right around the time that the FBI investigation of Hillary's emails was upgraded to a "criminal probe." Bernie was not yet on the horizon, but Biden was still a viable alternative to Hillary. That the Brazile book can now be published suggests that the Dems are pretty much fed up with Hillary.
Ken Starr says the Mueller investigation will soon shift its focus to Hillary. I don't know how Starr would know such things, but Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein, Mueller's immediate supervisor, and Trump do seem to be making nice to each other in the last few days. Mueller and Rosenstein may be trying to head off the appointment of a second independent counsel who might, for example, investigate the Uranium One sale. The public has low confidence in Mueller,[33] so his position with respect to Trump is not a strong one. PeterKa (talk) 07:49, 5 November 2017 (EST)

The swamp votes

America's greatest economy in forty years and do Virginians want more? Apparently not: "BREAKING: Historic Democrat Wave Wiping Out Virginia GOP." Northern Virginia is the Deep State's heartland, the only area that boomed under Obama. This election was all about the bureaucrats who live in the DC suburbs, as this map shows. Trump lost Virginia by five points in 2016. Northam won by nine points on Tuesday. This type of off year election generally has a low turnout, and it seems the swamp was outraged and mobilized. PeterKa (talk) 23:27, 7 November 2017 (EST)

The Republican Swamp got the loss they wanted so they can take back the GOP from Trump. They will use the elections to try to promote their globalist agenda and say that the GOP must become a Democrat-lite party to win, even though the Virginia candidates who supported Trump the most performed the best. --1990'sguy (talk) 10:46, 8 November 2017 (EST)
Very good insights. Indeed, it was the swamp itself that was voting.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 11:20, 8 November 2017 (EST)
It turns out that Gilespie outperformed Trump. He got 45 percent of the vote compared to the Trump's 44 percent.[34] Northam got a bigger share of the vote than Hillary because there weren't any leftwing third party candidates in the race this time around. Virginia's new governor sounds like quite a piece of work: "'Sickening' VA Gov video shows minority kids hunted down by Gillespie voter" PeterKa (talk) 10:00, 9 November 2017 (EST)

A massive blow to the atheism movement in Australia

A recent massive blow to the organized atheism in Australia.[35]

The 2018 Global Atheist Convention was cancelled due to poor ticket sales. The marque speakers that were scheduled were Salman Rushdie and Richard Dawkins. This was called a "massive blow" to organized atheism in Australia.[36]

The founders of the two leading creationist organizations - namely Answers in Genesis and Creation Ministries International - both came out of Australia. Johns Hopkins University Press reported in 2014: "Over the past forty years, creationism has spread swiftly among European Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Hindus, and Muslims, even as anti-creationists sought to smother its flames." (see: Global creationism). What little funds the national American atheist organizations have they spend to address church-state issues and creationism (see: Atheist organizations and fundraising).

Australian militant atheists, over and over again you have failed!Wisdomcriesout (talk) 22:06, 10 November 2017 (EST)

New Poll: Atheists in Britain, Canada Are Losing Faith in Evolution

New Poll: Atheists in Britain, Canada Are Losing Faith in Evolution.[37]Wisdomcriesout (talk) 00:48, 11 November 2017 (EST)

Another Donald Trump achievement: Prayer in the House of Representatives remains untainted by atheists

Another Donald Trump achievement: Prayer in the House of Representatives remains untainted by atheists. Atheist Dan Barker's attempt to lead prayer in the House thwarted.[38] Wikignome72 (talk) 03:28, 13 November 2017 (EST)

Moore leads Jones by 10 points

Moores's lead in Alabama has narrowed to 10 points compared to 22 points before the WaPo smear.[39] There is no way the liberal media would report these kind of allegations if the accused was a Democrat. Ted Kennedy was as big a pig as Weinstein, but he's still a liberal hero. Newsweek and the rest of the liberal media refused publish the allegations against Bill Clinton. We know about them only because of Drudge. When Trump brought them up in one of the debates, there were dozens of trending articles along the lines of, "What's he talking about? Has Trump gone mad?" And then there is Weinstein. His claim to fame is just that he's a Clinton donor. But NBC wouldn't publish and Farrow had to look elsewhere. PeterKa (talk) 06:42, 13 November 2017 (EST)

The race has tightened according to a Sunday poll and the Democrat is now favored by 4 percentage points, but that is within the margin of error.[40]
"Forty-six percent of likely voters polled said they would vote for Jones, while 42 percent said they would vote for Moore, according to the Louisiana-based JMC Analytics and Polling."
The poll of course could be wrong and be underestimating the people who will vote for Moore despite the accusations. The pollsters were wrong when it came to Trump vs. Hillary.Wikignome72 (talk) 07:55, 13 November 2017 (EST)
One or more of Roy Moore's accusers might be telling the truth, but perhaps it is a conspiracy and they are all lying. But Moore might be elected anyways due to: Right-wing media and other media bashing down the credibility of the 4 women [there are only two accusers (VM)] (his main accuser having 3 divorces, etc. etc) and/or confirmation bias/"tribalism"/political polarization.
I wouldn't trust the polls. Many people did not want to admit to pollsters they were going to vote for Trump due to press demonization of Trump, yet they did vote for Trump. The same thing could be happening with Roy Moore.Wikignome72 (talk) 10:45, 13 November 2017 (EST)
WaPo spent weeks coaching the main accuser and persuading her to go public. This is the media creating the news instead of reporting it. If you think about the allegations against Kennedy, Clinton, etc. the smear against Moore is pretty small beer. There is no law against dating underage girls, especially not with their mothers' permission. National Review and the Never Trumpers seem to be focused on what good people they themselves are. You don't see Democrats sacrificing winnable elections. The left dinged Hillary for not being left wing enough, but they were fine with her criminality and corruption. Back in the 1960s, the FBI peddled stories of Martin Luther King's sexual crudeness and misbehavior to reporters. No one was interested. Thank God for Drudge and the new media. PeterKa (talk) 13:05, 13 November 2017 (EST)
Here's an even better example: U.S. Senator Robert Menendez is currently on trial for financial corruption. The prosecutors also think he had sex with underage hookers in the Dominican Republic. What media coverage there has been has focused on whether or not he will lose his senate seat, and what effect that might have on the partisan balance in congress. No one is disappointed in him or expects anything but more sleaze from a New Jersey Democrat.[41] PeterKa (talk) 18:23, 13 November 2017 (EST)

The Drudge Report is heavily promoting stories relating to Roy Moor being a sexual predator of teen girls and the stories contain new information. See: Drudge Report.

At this point, Moore is unlikely to win.Wikignome72 (talk)

Gadsden locals say Moore's predatory behavior at mall, restaurants not a secret
Judge Jeanine is indicating that the women are telling the truth and Roy Moore is guilty (the fifth woman [there are only two accusers (VM)]'s testimony [not testimony in a court, nor certain whether sworn, nor in the course of any kind of trial (VM)] and Moore's alleged signature in her high school yearbook was the tipping point).[42]
Roy Moore is not going to back down until he absolutely has to.
The alt-right figure Vox Day and Steve Bannon/Breitbart are still sticking with their man Roy Moore.[43][44]
At some point in a battle, you have to recognize a defeat and cut your losses.
Liberals nearly always double down. Post 2011, many atheists have been living in denial that the atheist movement was imploding and was effectively dead.
Right-wingers and conservatives have had a string of successes in the USA/world, but you can't win all the battles.Wikignome72 (talk) 08:24, 14 November 2017 (EST)
It's Roy Moore versus the Left/MSM/GOP establishment (everybody who's not a conservative). If he drops out, conservatives would lose and the GOP will nominate another establishment do-nothing to the position. If Roy Moore loses to the Democrat, the GOP establishment also wins. The only good option is to stay in the race and stay strong. Moore needs to be able to change the narrative, like how he successfully did yesterday when he called on McConnell to resign after vice-versa happened. --1990'sguy (talk) 09:09, 14 November 2017 (EST)
I may have been premature in my judgment about the matter. See comments below.Wikignome72 (talk) 10:22, 14 November 2017 (EST)

Thomas Wictor

...Or maybe there's hope for him yet. This is a message for User:1990'sguy, who has written material for the Roy Moore article, and others seeking more background, or primary, material on Roy Moore. Thomas Wictor is a libertarian? who put us conservatives to shame last night by investigating the latest string of demeritorious accusations against Roy Moore and carefully presenting the results way past his bedtime.

He reports Moore's activity since his service in Vietnam of fighting corruption, a record whose desert of praise—and not the least of which—is due to his care in choosing and courage in pursuing appropriate channels through which to take the reforms he felt called to carry out, and presents disputations of his accusers' evidence.

Here is one of his summaries, though his whole feed right now while he is asleep has attracted intelligent commentary and is pretty devastating for those portions of Moore's opposition to which it pertains. Part of his arguments were picked up by the Gateway Pundit. But regarding the summary and its comments: if you choose to quote it, bear in mind that the implied "forger" in that part of the story (about the yearbook), possibly, could have been the teenage girl featured there herself.

These are reformatted additional narratives by Wictor found under Wictor's name on a website originated for the purpose of presenting serial Twitter narratives. VargasMilan (talk) 09:13, 14 November 2017 (EST)

Thanks for the heads-up! This is great analysis. I will post this in the article and alert others to it. --1990'sguy (talk) 09:17, 14 November 2017 (EST)
—[expecting a reply tomorrow morning] It's about time. I can't wait all day.
Really though, thanks for replying, but be careful what you promise to; there's a boatload of material that mushroomed there. VargasMilan (talk) 09:28, 14 November 2017 (EST)
Some good points were made.
And it was odd that the 5th accuser (Beverly Young Nelson) [there were only two accusers (VM)] had that ultra-liberal attorney (Gloria Allred) by her side.[45] Nelson claimed she voted for Trump.[46]
But this matter has still not been resolved:Gadsden locals say Moore's predatory behavior at mall, restaurants not a secret.
There is no need to rush to judgment.
There was a time when the press was more competent and more trustworthy. But those days are gone.Wikignome72 (talk) 10:15, 14 November 2017 (EST)

If this story "Gadsden locals say Moore's predatory behavior at mall, restaurants not a secret" originates from the material obtained from the Washington Post, then it is really the credibility of the Washington Post that is the issue. And lately, the credibility of the Washington Post has taken some serious hits. Post 2016 presidential election and onwards, the mainstream press has a serious credibility issue.Wikignome72 (talk) 10:44, 14 November 2017 (EST)

Sean Hannity interview

Moore's detractors do make good points when it comes to Moore's Sean Hannity interview.[47]

Moore had some odd responses to Hannity's questions if he hadn't dated one or more teenagers when he was much older. Wikignome72 (talk) 11:00, 14 November 2017 (EST)

That's not even a misdemeanor. People who disagree with that should try to change the law, rather than ambush someone who obeyed it.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 11:52, 14 November 2017 (EST)
Bill Mitchell has made some more solid hits than the media:
—According to the Media, Moore’s preference for teenage girls was “common knowledge, and yet for 40 years and 5 heated elections, NOT ONE PERSON EVER MENTIONED IT?
—Amazing. The Establishment dropped $30 million trying to beat Moore and not one allegation of impropriety? I mean, their oppo people must have been crawling all over AL.
—Think about this. If this accuser’s story is true, as [Moore being] the [asst.] DA, Moore attempted to rape her AFTER signing her yearbook, basically implicating himself at the scene of the crime? Just wow.
—Jerry Seinfeld openly dating a 17 year old when he was 39. Don’t you remember the condemnations from the Left? Neither do I. He was 7 years older than Moore who is being called a “predator” for the same thing.
—Media Lies: They claim that this “Allred Victim” is the 5th woman to accuse Judge Moore of sexual misconduct. Actual, 3 of the “accusers” did no such thing. LIES.
Bill Mitchell Nov. 13-14, 2017
Wikignome, are you refuting Bill Mitchell and his 1.2K retweeted tweet (the fifth one)? If not, you probably ought to acknowledge that it’s not generally accepted yet as a description of the evidence presented in these dubious trials-in-the-media. VargasMilan (talk) 13:30, 14 November 2017 (EST)
Roy Moore has one big thing in his favor as far as these media reports. We live in post 2016 presidential election world where Trump has helped bash down the credibility of the mainstream news.
Just 3 hours ago, the BBC reluctantly admitted that Moore will probably win by merely saying this is all "fake news".
Dan Rather and Brian Williams were fired for misconduct. The mainstream media totally botched their coverage of the 2016 presidential election. Trump has a knack for destroying his opponents with labels like "Lying Ted", "Little Marco" and "fake news". Megyn Kelly is a shadow of what she was before. Trump's put downs of Wolf Blitzer, George Stephanopoulos and CNN are classic.
If Roy Moore wins, it will be because Trump significantly diminished the stature of the mainstream media.Wikignome72 (talk) 14:39, 14 November 2017 (EST)
Imagine if Moore was held to Hollywood standards. Yes, I know that sounds bizarre. But many liberal commentators have been holding up Hollywood as a model of virtue lately. Seinfeld once had 17 year old girlfriend. He was 39 at the time. Nobody gave him grief about it: "Shoshanna Lonstein was a senior at the prestigious Nightingale-Bamford School on the Upper West Side when, on a spring afternoon, she was approached by one of the most well-known comedians in the country." That was their meet-cute.[48]
Moore should use this line: She "is a person, not an age....We just get along. You can hear the click.” PeterKa (talk) 20:28, 14 November 2017 (EST)

Alabama: Sodom and Gomorrah party vs. corrupt GOP

Roy Moore is still the favored candidate.

A lot of Alabama voters are poor, religious people who are not politically engaged. They are complacent and don't care too much about politics. Studies show that most Protestant cultures have low levels of political corruption. Alabama is one of the exceptions. New York, Louisiana, Illinois and Alabama are among the most politically corrupt states in the nation. Sad to say, Alabama is red state that is unfortunately politically corrupt.

As long as Roy Moore checks off certain conservative positions and runs on family values, he will probably be elected. The alternative is electing a member of the Sodom and Gomorrah/baby killing/gun grabbing/Democrat Party. That probably will not happen in Alabama. I would not underestimate the power of political party loyalty in Alabama.

The press has stained its reputation in recent years and probably will not tip the election in the Democratic candidates favor. Wikignome72 (talk) 23:14, 14 November 2017 (EST)

Cease and desist order

(Exclusive outside of Facebook) Roy Moore's lawyer, Trent Garmon, officially responded recently to one of the evidentiary roots concurrently up to that point securing the inaccuracy in the Chief Justice's portrayals, an article at AL.com:

Dear Mr. Thompson,

Please allow this to serve as notice that our firm has been retained to represent The Foundation for Moral Law, it's President Kayla Moore and Chief Justice Roy Moore. We also represent Roy S. Moore and Kayla Moore individually. We do, therefore, alert you to the duties and notices provided herein for your client the Alabama Media Group operating as al.com. This letter is provided in anticipating of our firm preparing and filing a lawsuit against your client and its agents.

Your client has engaged in making false reports and/or careless reporting that has adversely affected my clients, to include but not limited to reporting that a "fifth woman" has accused Roy Moore of sexual misconduct or assault which is untrue. Inaccurately reporting the income paid by The Foundation. Inaccurately reporting the travel expenses and accommodations of my clients, to include alleging that a private jet was used which is untrue.

Your client as an outlet is carelessly and perhaps maliciously reporting that my client, Judge Roy S. Moore, noted and signed a Yearbook of an accusers as "DA" and in a manner which experts, to include our own, have confirmed is not consistent with his handwriting (To wit: structure, strokes, slant, base alignment, etc.) and does not comport to his typical vernacular.

Your client as an entity has also carelessly and perhaps allowed general slander and libel to the reputation of my clients by seeking out, and/or reporting from those who did, individuals who falsely portray the reputation of Roy S. Moore in northeast Alabama, to include Etowah County. This careless and/or malicious reporting includes reports that Judge Moore was "banned" from the Gadsden Mall, was on a watch list for the Gadsden Mall, had a general reputation of "predatory behavior", that he badgered teens and had a general bad reputation. Such is untrue and is due to be recanted.


Note that your client, to include its agents, have a duty to preserve and maintain evidence. We do, thus, demand that you preserve and protect any potential evidence. Refusal or failure to do so could result in a legal presumption that the spoliated evidence was adverse to you, your company and it's [sic] interests.

Please also note that per Alabama law there is a Third Party Tort for Spoliation. Thus, even if your client is not a [sic] held to have defamed or otherwise worked civil damages upon our clients, your client may remain responsible in a Court of law for damages caused by the failure to preserve evidence. This is often times [sic] referred to as "Adverse Interference".

Note, our request includes all tangible and digital evidence such as, yet not limited to, handwritten notes, yearbook(s), journalist pads, spiral reporter pocket pads, text messages, sms messages, instant messages and any other tangible or digital evidence.


Also be aware that we believe the publication(s) and report(s) made by your client's organization were made with knowledge that the matter published are false, or they were published with a reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. We are providing five [5] days for a full and fair public retraction in as prominent and public a place or manner as the matter published.


As you may know "Defamation" is, among other things, an injury to reputation. In Alabama, defamation is considered to be a false statement of fact, published or spoken with some degree of fault, that tends to harm the reputation of another so as to lower him, her, or, for an entity, "it" in the estimation of the community. This includes damages to the reputation of them individually, as an entity, to their marriage and to a person's overall standing. These statements can include "Libel" (written) and/or "Slander" (spoken), which are both types of defamatory statements.

Your client's organization has made and/or supported defaming statements. This is due to the careless and/or intentionally refused to advance the truth regarding our clients. We also believe that your client, by and through its agents, have damaged our clients by being careless in how they handle headlines and report the contextual of the allegations.

Meaning your client has used terms in reports maliciously or carelessly which has falsely portraying [sic] our clients [Richard Jewell v. New York Post]. Specifically your client's reports have indicated there are five [5] women accusing Chief Justice Roy Moore of sexual misconduct when in fact only two [2] women have made accusations of sexual misconduct. And both of those women have made false statements which your client has yet to publish. The other ladies which were rounded up in the witch hunt merely allege they perceived him to have made advances, but do not accuse him of any sexual misconduct.

Thus, do note this clearly [sic], yet significant difference which your client's publication(s) have failed to distinguish. And the legal requirement that your client retract the stories, to include the details which clearly are false. It is also clear that your client's organization is attempting pre-election to conspire and orchestrate a "trial by media" and is playing to a "mob mentality". We demand this circus cease and desist immediately.

We believe it is clear and convincing your client consciously and deliberately engaged in oppression, fraud, wantonness, and/or malice and again as stated above we do requested [sic] a retraction. With regards to Judge Moore it is clear that your client's reports were done with malice and with regards to the Foundation for Moral Law and Kayla Moore your client failed to exercise reasonable care.


Please also note that we are presuming the proper genre and/or legal categorization of all your reports and/or articles is that of "news" and not satire. If we are incorrect, please note that you have five [5] days to specify otherwise.

If you or someone with your office have any questions, please feel welcome to contact us.


Trenton R. Garmon, JD MA

Garmon reports he has sent a similar letter to the Washington Post.

While Chief Justice Moore may look more forgivingly towards friendly websites, that may oblige us all the more not to print things adverse to his reputation. Therefore I am going to mark out as incorrect Wikignome's accusatory over-weighting in three places— whether he is ready to or no—and light as the accusatory weight still is—against Chief Justice Moore. VargasMilan (talk) 18:34, 15 November 2017 (EST)


Personally, I think people are putting too much into this special election for the remainder of the term. The primary for a full six-year term is July 17, 2018.

It's pretty obvious what's going on here. McConnell is getting Democrats & Moore critics to do his dirty work. Meanwhile, Trump & McConnell are on the same page to drain the swamp, using the Clinton's own tactics. It was obvious when Trump appeared at the debate with six Clinton accusers that he was willing to spend his own money to give the legal defense and personal protection needed to speak up.

The GOP has already drained 16 of its own House members and 2 Senators. The hit list of sex allegations started at the top with Democrat Hollywood mega-donor Weinstein, on down (Ben Afflek has since taken over management of the donor list to coordinated which candidates and organizations Hollywood celebrities give money to). Roger Stone gave advance notice on Franken. Axios claims many more to follow. Moore is a rogue element, that with the Allred claims against Trump giving a partisan nature to the purging.

The Moore allegations, like FusionGPS, the birther movement, or Willie Horton ad, began with opposition research within a candidates own party that was picked up and used by the opposition in a general election. McConnell, Sessions, and Strange do not want Moore on the July primary ballot, which Trump has already ascented to. Even if a Dem wins the special election, he'd have to coddle McConnell and distance himself from Schumer for any hope to survive. Meantime, the GOP candidate on the July ballot will be either Sessions or Strange.

Charlie Rose today was the next to go down, and the list is quite extensive. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 00:46, 21 November 2017 (EST)

"Ginned up": What Obama would say

Let's say it together: The allegations against Roy Moore are "ginned up." That's the way the Dems talk about their own candidates when they are accused of improprieties. Check it out: "President Obama Calls Hillary Clinton’s Email Controversy ‘Ginned Up’ (Video)."
After the congressional baseball massacre, the Vegas country music concert massacre, and Texas church massacre, it's clear that today's left is out to kill us. It turns out that Obama actually wanted our criminals armed and dangerous: "EXCLUSIVE: Obama Rarely Prosecuted Criminals Who Sought To Buy Guns Illegally." As Benjamin Franklin said, “We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.”
What kind of conduct is becoming for a Democratic senator? Al Franken wrote about how proud he was when his son watched bestiality videos and shared them with his classmates. To Franken, it was another great example of the magic of technology applied to porn: “The next millennium will be such an exciting time for pornographers and for us, the consumers of pornography,” he concludes. This is from an article he wrote for Playboy in 2000. See The American Spectator. In other words, Minnesota Democrats knew Franken was a pervert when he was first elected, and they were all in. PeterKa (talk) 08:47, 17 November 2017 (EST)

All this, along with what's happened in the months since Donald Trump's election, has me thinking that serious thought should be given to outlawing and disbanding the Democrat Party. If the Nazis could be outlawed in post-WWII Germany and the CPSU outlawed following the breakup of the USSR, why not do the same against the Democrats here? Northwest (talk) 10:56, 17 November 2017 (EST)
I'm not so sure I'd go that far. But I do want to see the boom come down on Hillary, Antifa, Black Lives Matter, Al Sharpeton, the hockey stick climate fraudsters, etc, etc. PeterKa (talk) 06:12, 18 November 2017 (EST)

Roman Catholicism, Protestantism, and centralization

The USA government was founded by men heavily influenced by Protestantism. Protestantism is more decentralized and less authoritarian than Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox branches of Christianity. The USA government's founders believed in checks and balances (decentralized government) and limited government.
The U.S. Constitution, given its Protestant influence, is not set up to ban political parties. Your idea of banning political parties is not practical at this point.
The USA has experienced a lot of non-Protestant immigration and it is becoming more authoritarian. That is one of the reasons why the Supreme Court's and Obama's lawlessness in relation to doing unconstitutional actions have been tolerated.
This is not to say that all Catholics are authoritarian and against big government. The are exceptions. For example, Justice Scalia and Phyllis Schlafly were defenders of the U.S. Constitution.Wikignome72 (talk) 00:27, 19 November 2017 (EST)
Technically, there is an argument to be made about the US Constitution arguably being even MORE authoritarian than Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, being based on Locke and Hobbes' philosophy (and it also makes the case that Locke himself actually argued for authoritarianism just as much as Hobbes, just under a different manner). You can read all about it here: [49] [50] (I'd also suggest reading the book itself. It does raise some pretty valid points) Certainly, it does come across as odd that the US Constitution makes no direct reference/credit to God at all. The Declaration of Independence does, yes, but the US Constitution itself does not. And bear in mind, the NRA group (not related to the National Rifle Association or even the National Recovery Act) that tried to advocate getting the nation back to Christian roots isn't even Catholic, it's Protestant, meaning even Protestants were seeing that there was an inherent problem in not having any direct acknowledgement of Christianity. And personally, I get irritated when people advocate for "Decentralization," even ignoring my Catholicism (and for the record, God in his various actions and to some extent words in the Old and even New Testament showed himself to be VERY authoritarian and certainly undemocratic/an advocate for decentralization). Decentralization, to me, is the French Revolution where people killed other people left and right, even their own allies, for sheer fun, or the Days of Rage in Chicago. Pokeria1 (talk) 06:11, 19 November 2017 (EST)

Pokeria, please examine these 3 links:

1. http://elaine.ie/2009/03/31/will-10-more-protestants-lead-to-less-corruption/

2. http://www.ebenezeroldhill.org.uk/articles/Christianity%20and%20Democracy.pdf

3. Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism

Thanks. Wikignome72 (talk) 22:34, 19 November 2017 (EST)

First of all, considering that Protestantism right now (or at least various sects of Protestantism if not the whole thing itself) IS promoting stuff that Jesus made clear should never be embraced such as divorce and remarrying, even abortion, I'm pretty sure that 10 more protestants won't make much of a difference towards ending corruption.
Second of all, I really wouldn't suggest you tell me to compare Christianity and Democracy to each other, or say they're comparable, considering that it was democracy under France that led to many of us Christians being slaughtered simply because of our even believing in a God, and bear in mind, Timothy Dwight, the one who shone a light at the Christian persecution in France as well as French Enlightenment philosophy playing a key role in that persecution, is himself a protestant. In fact, what I think of in regards to democracy is a mob of malcontents beating up people and slaughtering even their own friends, let alone their enemies, simply for fun, just like the French Revolution and every other leftist revolution.
And third of all, Catholics, and I presume Eastern Orthodoxy, had the whole Protestant Ethic, and by extension Capitalism, down before Protestantism itself existed. [51] [52] Pokeria1 (talk) 07:09, 20 November 2017 (EST)
Protestants (those who believe the Bible, like Luther, Calvin, Know, etc.) oppose divorce and abortion. I think you're confusing conservative evangelical Protestants with the theological liberals that sprang up relatively recently that most theological conservatives don't even believe to be Christians.
More importantly, about with the French Revolution, the French government actually centralized because of the French Revolution. The revolution was a major step toward centralization. Before the revolution, France had many independent enclaves, and the country was divided up in the way it had been since the middle ages. While the government was more centralized than it had been in the 1500s, it was still very decentralized and the government structure of the feudal Middle Ages remained. During the French Revolution, mainly in the early 1790s, all the enclaves were annexed into France, and in 1790, the new system of departments (equally-sized administrative units with much less freedom than U.S. states) was established. France centralized, not decentralized, during the French Revolution.
Also in Ancient Israel: Israel was very decentralized during the period of Joshua and the Judges (I also don't think they had to pay any taxes), and God wanted it to remain that way. However, the Israelites, in their rebellion against God, demanded a king and (essentially) a centralized state in order to be like the other nations. If you read the Bible's account of Solomon in 1 Kings, it's clear that the Israelites now faced ridiculously high taxes and other regulations.
I think that just as long as whatever government we have is one that submits to God, it doesn't really matter what form we choose. However, since we live in a sinful world, I think a mixed government (one with checks and balances and which equally/fairly represents different major social groups), like what we have and the founding fathers promoted, is the best type of government to guard against man's sinful tendencies and the destruction and tyranny that results from it. --1990'sguy (talk) 09:11, 20 November 2017 (EST)
The Catholic Church and most Catholic countries have very major problems with corruption. Latin and South America are extremely corrupt. The Philippines has a recent history of very extensive political corruption.
George Pell is the 3rd ranking official in the Catholic Church and faces multiple counts of very credible charges of child molestation (And the Catholic Church has had big issues with child molestation).
Right now, due to the length of Christianity in their country, probably the least corrupt Catholic countries are Ireland/Poland. Unfortunately, Poland faces a fertility rate of 1.32 births per woman (far below replacement level of 2.1 births per women) in 2015 which is nearly impossible to reverse for the very foreseeable future. So their culture might be effectively dead. Poland will be economically severely crippled for about 80-100 years and relatively few young people will face a huge burden of supporting many older people (who largely may have to work until they are no longer able to). Perhaps, the Poles have never fully recovered being ruled by the godless Soviets. Things have gotten so desperate that the Polish government is encouraging people to "breed like rabbits".[53][54]
It is very hard to turn around cultural decline relative to not being pro-natal (and feminism is growing in Poland which does not bode well to them turning around their fertility rate crisis). The Poles best option would be to open the floodgates of immigration to Filipinos. At least the Filipinos are pro-family and have a fertility rate of 2.94 births per woman. The Poles are clearly against Muslim immigration.Wikignome72 (talk) 10:40, 20 November 2017 (EST)
Right now, the Catholic country with the brightest future is the one in which evangelical Christianity is growing fast - namely Brazil. In 2012, Forbes ranked Brazil as possessing the 5th largest number of billionaires in the world which is much larger other Latin American countries, and even ahead of United Kingdom and Japan. If only Britain hadn't put Darwin on their currency!
What is behind the economic dynamism of Brazil and China in recent years? A fast growing evangelical population. See: Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism and Protestant cultural legacies. Wikignome72 (talk) 11:21, 20 November 2017 (EST)
First of all, the Phillippines is currently run by an atheist, so if there is corruption, it's stemming from that, not Catholicism, and in fact, there's plenty of genuinely faithful Catholics fleeing that country to head over to America.
Second of all, I'm pretty sure the fact that the French Revolutionaries slaughtering each other on the streets, with one general even openly stating, without any orders transmitted from Robespierre I should add, that they kill anyone they find regardless of whether they're allies or enemies, would in fact suggest decentralization, not centralized. Or to put it another way, look at May 1968, or the Days of Rage, or even what Foucault and Sartre advocated which was pure anarchy akin to the Wild West where people killed and committed all sorts of crimes they ever wanted. And bear in mind, they were called a Democracy, which is the ultimate form of decentralization short of anarchy, and even the Founding Fathers were so horrified against it that they specifically avoided making America a democracy in part because of that. And correct me if I'm mistaken, but I don't recall Robespierre giving explicit orders to Grignon to slaughter everyone they can find (which is what centralization means: It means only the guy up top gives orders which are transmitted down the chain of command). Heck, France wasn't even centralized again until Napoleon came to power.
Third of all, you guys DO realize that God, being the absolute ruler of everything, would have been more likely to support centralization rather than decentralization, right? Last I checked, God did NOT simply say "do whatever" and relegate no authority to anything, which is what decentralization implies. Heck, morality ITSELF is centralized. If you are to accept decentralization, you ultimately have to accept post-modernism and moral relativism as good precisely BECAUSE it's decentralized. To sum it up, this is what decentralization ultimately amounts to, the wild west, with no law and no order, no morality whatsoever.
Lastly, decentralization is EXACTLY what led to that whole mess within Protestantism regarding whether we should or should not support abortion. Heck, that sort of problem even occurred with King Henry VIII, where he legalized divorce after splitting with the Roman Catholic Church because they refused an annulment, despite it being explicitly against Jesus's statements. And I suggest you read this as well, also this. Also, I gave links in my earlier posts that showed that Catholics, if anything, got the protestant ethic and capitalism down well before Protestantism was even a thing. Pokeria1 (talk) 11:46, 20 November 2017 (EST)
About the French Revolution, there was clear centralization. Mob rule is not synonymous with decentralization -- the Committee of Public Safety had significant sway on the crowds. The notion that the "people rise up" in revolutions is garbage -- the people are led by leaders, and the Committee had significant power. Also, modern socialism first began during the French Revolution, particularly as the revolutionary government dealt with the foreign invasions ("total war," etc.). Remember that most of Europe of decentralized before the French Revolution (the German city-states, the fact that nobles in France and other countries had significant power, etc.) -- but there was nothing like the French Revolution before that. And look at Nazi Germany and the USSR -- the epitomes of centralization (totalitarianism).
Second, it seems we're talking about two different types of centralization. I'm talking about earthly politics, not about the obvious fact that God is the absolute ruler of everything and that He sets absolute moral standards. Just because these facts are true doesn't mean that we need an absolute monarchal government in this world. The Israelites were bound by the Mosaic Law and were required to absolutely obey it, but they still had a decentralized political government, and God clearly wanted it to stay that way (read 1 Samuel 8, particularly verses 7 and 11-18). The effects of having a centralized monarchy were negative for the Israelites (1 Kings 4:7, 12:4). Psalm 33:12 says "Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord," but as long as this is the case, the specific form of earthly government that nation prefers is not much of an issue. The main issue then is finding a sustainable government that can resist the pull to corruption/tyranny/decline.
Decentralization did not lead to people who happened to belong to Protestant denominations from rejecting biblical teachings. It is a heart issue, not a denominational issue. The Roman Catholic Church, particularly during the Middle Ages, was very centralized, but that did not stop the church from adopting practices that even it rejects today. The centralization of the Roman Catholic Church also is apparently not stopping many Catholics from adopting leftist positions on abortion and homosexuality (look at all the "Catholic" politicians, like Joe Biden, John Kerry, and Dick Durbin, for example -- they haven't been excommunicated). Also take a look at this, coming from the Catholic university Georgetown: [55][56] You'd think student organizations that follow the church's official teachings would get better treatment than this.
And about Henry VIII, no Protestant actually considers him one -- this is a guy who attacked people like Martin Luther, split from Roman Catholicism for purely personal reasons, left the structure of the Roman Catholic church and doctrine largely in place, and whose new denomination clashed with the Puritans and Separatists, who were real Protestants. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:49, 20 November 2017 (EST)
You're missing the point (and yes, I agree that the whole "people rise up" bit in revolutions is complete garbage.). The fact of the matter is, the various mobs started killing each other simply for FUN, had absolutely NOTHING to do with law and order (which ultimately REQUIRES centralization to even work). To put it another way, decentralization is closer to what Jerome Valeska advocated in Gotham. In true centralization, it's the one on top who dictates commands to the rank and file, and there's only ONE person up on top, like with Nazi Germany or the USSR as you pointed out. Something that WASN'T in France until Napoleon took over. And in fact, what happened in France is EXACTLY why the Founding Fathers didn't want a democracy.
And as far as God, let give you a bit of common sense, if God didn't want kings other than himself, the people who dared even try to beg for a human king would quickly find themselves incinerated by God's hand, and then God would then tell them "anyone else want a king besides me?" and everyone would fall into line as he laughs. God wants absolute control over His creation (that's the only He created us, to lord over us), even WITH His giving us free will. And He gave us FAR more than just the Ten Commandments, BTW. There's also the Laws of Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and Numbers. In other words, ultimately, God IS a tyrant. He may be a benevolent tyrant, but he's STILL a tyrant, a dictator, and would be disgusted at even the mere CONCEPT of democracy. He's omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. That means no one can restrain him, not to mention, he most certainly can reject anyone he disagrees with and can even kill them just to show he disagrees with them, and even do it in a spectacle unnatural manner in front of a whole crowd of people to terrorize them into complete submission to His own will.
And yes, actually, decentralization DID lead to exactly what happened to the Protestants, especially when the denominations ARE the heart (why do you THINK God gave us the Ten Commandments? Because He wanted all of humanity to be bound to HIS denomination, his world view, alone). When you have centralization, you have only ONE set of laws, that people are BOUND to follow, forced to believe in, just as God forced the people who were freed from Egypt to follow. And yes, ultimately, what King Henry the VIII did IS become a protestant. And if you read those links, you'd fully realize that Protestantism ultimately DID reject quite a few stuff from Christ's teachings. When you have decentralization, you ultimately have moral relativism, nihilism, post-modernism, all the kinds of things that result in a meaningless existence and especially very bad things happening. And for the record, if you read the distributivist reviews for Liberty the God that Failed or even the book itself, you would have noticed that the US Constitution if anything actually LED directly to centralization far more than even under King George III. And for the record, there are a LOT of stuff about Protestantism, even right back to Luther, that are just bad, as you can read here. Pokeria1 (talk) 16:37, 20 November 2017 (EST)
Regarding the French Revolution, you're assuming you need a centralized superstate in order to have law and order. Look at the hundreds of German city-states, or France during the Middle Ages or even the Old Regime (1600-1700s), when local leaders had considerably more power than after the French Revolution. There was law and order. It doesn't matter how centralized a country is -- if the citizens are discontent with the government, they will riot and revolt (Bastille, march on Versailles, or for a non-French Revolution example, the USSR in 1989). If you look at the actual government structure of the French state, there was clear centralization and even socialism. The radical Jacobins supported the reign of terror, and if you're referring to the riots when Louis XVI still reigned, that was due to public discontent that I just mentioned.
About God, hopefully you read 1 Samuel 8, because God clearly disapproved the Israelites' demand for a king, which they did out of their rejection of God as their king. Just because God obviously could have destroyed the Israelites if He wanted to doesn't mean He must have supported a centralized monarchy (1 Samuel 8 clearly says otherwise, and the Israelite government, solely under God and the Law, was politically decentralized). God had a plan in giving the Israelites what they wanted, and it was not weakness. However, you continue to confuse earthly political decentralization with absolute truth and morality -- these are two different things. I strongly believe that God is in absolute control, absolutely sovereign, and absolutely true -- but He doesn't need earthly monarchies to legitimize His rule. Remember Psalm 33:12 -- it does not say "Blessed is the monarchy whose God is the Lord." If a Republic, oligarchy, mixed government, or even a democracy submits itself under God and the Bible, that government will be blessed. Either way and in any circumstance, God is the absolute and undisputed ruler of everything, and absolute truth and morality still exist.
It seems you're ignoring my points about Protestantism -- Roman Catholicism is very centralized, but that hasn't stopped it from changing its official doctrines (indulgences, etc., etc.) and seeing individual members and churches from adopting liberal theology (look at all the Roman Catholic political people today -- it's a heart issue, not a centralization or even a denominational issue.
You completely ignored my points about Henry VIII. He attacked real Protestants, split from the RCC for petty personal reasons, continued most of the doctrine/traditions of the RCC, and fought against the real Protestants (Puritans) over what doctrines to accept. No Protestant Christian (and I'm not talking about the liberal "in name only" ones) considers Henry VIII a real Protestant. Also, Roman Catholics did atrocities just as bad as the Protestants -- read about the deaths of Zwingli, Jan Hus, Tyndale, Cranmer, or the Saint Bartholomew's Day Massacre. And it was the RCC that operated the inquisition. And no, it is the Roman Catholic Church that is far off, doctrinally speaking. But considering who I'm talking to, I'm not going to say more than that, at least for the moment.
Lastly, about the Constitution, read the 10th Amendment. The founding fathers would be shocked to see what our government has become -- and it's not the Constitution's fault -- it's the fault of left-wing activist judges. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:15, 20 November 2017 (EST)
Yet again, you haven't noticed, say, Days of Rage, where the people rioting actually WERE doing it for fun and games, and not due to mere discontent. And where ELSE could laws come from? Even GOD, who BTW, IS pretty much a totalitarian ruler in all but name, demanded that people follow his laws or else. And as far as the French Revolution, it was a precursor to Socialism, yes, but ultimately, it came from the exact same works as Hobbes and Locke, which also were the same as ours.
And yes, I'm familiar with Samuel and that passage. However, in case you haven't noticed, God IS that centralized government, and if he didn't want a human king, he would have slaughtered ANYONE who insisted on Israel having it, and probably even slaughter any other countries that had them simply to spite anyone who tried to insist on it. That's what I would have done if I were in his position, and I've seen plenty of instances in stories of nigh-omnipotent individuals constantly muscling people into submission and reveling in their power, going so far as to slaughter anyone who dared disagree with them on even a minor issue.
As far as your last point, I suggest you read the distributivist review, specifically the following passages:
"How the ideas of a philosopher inspires culture and movements is a difficult question for an author to answer since it is hard to prove that philosopher “x” had so much sway that he actually caused “y”. Yet Ferrara indeed delivers.
"The American Revolution fought to achieve objectives most people particularly didn’t care about. In response, the revolutionaries threatened despotic power that would rival their own invective against King George III, who couldn’t even raise an army or tax without Parliament. Merely thinking anti-revolutionary opinions was considered treasonous. Propaganda was used wholesale, and threats of force or force itself, confiscation of property, and imprisonment rather than a yearning for “liberty” stimulated revolutionary support. Once the American Republic had been set up, the old radicals became the new monarchs persecuting those who would do as they had done previously. Ferrara presents the stark reality of the Whiskey Rebellion, Shays’ Rebellion, and others where colonists resisted taxation imposed by the new government, exceeding the previous burden placed on colonists by King George.
"The Founding Fathers also threatened the private opinions of their adversaries. In the section “The Tyrannical Apostle of Liberty”, Ferrara notes the following about Thomas Jefferson:

"The Loyalty oath statute Jefferson drafted for the Virginia legislature is typical of these totalitarian measures. The purpose of the loyalty or test oath was, of course, to flush out suspected Tories whose hidden thoughts were threats to the revolutionary cause. Jefferson’s definition of a Tory, written in defense of the loyalty oath, is supremely illustrative of the manner in which he and his fellow radicals imposed what they called Liberty on those who would dissent even inwardly from their program: A Tory has been properly defined to be a traitor in thought, but not in deed. The only description, by which the laws have endeavored to come at them, was that of non-jurors, or persons refusing to take the oath of fidelity to the state.3
"He goes on to document the oath of allegiance compelling every man over the age of 16.

"[S]wear or affirm that I renounce and refuse all allegiance to George the third, king of Great Britain, his heirs and successors,, to profess absolute allegiance to Virginia as a free and independent state, and to turn over to the authorities anyone known to be involved in treasons or traitorous conspiracies which I now or hereafter shall know to be formed against this or any of the United States of America.
"Ferrara continues,

"Whoever refused to take the oath was disarmed, stripped of his voting rights and barred from holding public office, serving on juries, suing for money or acquiring property. Jefferson also participated in drafting a statute that subjected non-jurors to triple taxation.4
"One of the shining examples is that people voted for Jefferson to avoid the oppressive regime of Adams’ government, however, in his second term Jefferson declared “We’re all federalists now” and pursued the same policies as Adams.5
"Meet Thomas Jefferson
"One of the more interesting elements of this book is the level to which Ferrara deconstructs Jefferson from primary sources. Far from the libertarian “limited government” hero, in his second term Jefferson is a big government ogre. Ferrara provides countless examples of Jefferson’s overreach which, in contrast, makes the caricature of King George look positively saintly:
"1. His call for the shooting of Tory counter-revolutionaries who should have been treated as prisoners of war, pursuant to a bill of attainder he himself drafted and pushed through the Virginia legislature.
"2. Jefferson’s support for the early Jacobin massacres as expressed in the “Adam and Eve” letter.
"3. His lifelong ownership of slaves, some of whom he had flogged for attempting to escape, and his continued slave trading while President.
"4. Endorsement of state law prosecutions for “seditious libel” against the President and Congress.
"5. His approval of an expedient and quite illegal “amendment” of the Constitution by the Republican-controlled House to expand the definition of “high crimes and misdemeanors” in order to facilitate the impeachment of his Federalist opponent, Judge Pickering, for drunkenness.
"6. Jefferson’s declaration that “where the laws become inadequate even to their own preservation… the universal resource is a dictator, or martial law.”
"7. His embargo of American shipping, including the federal seizure of ships and cargoes, without due process.
"8. His instigation of “treason” trials and his demand for the death penalty for American citizens who had merely attempted to recover their own property from federal agents.6
"In popular culture, Jefferson is presented to us as the quintessential Founding Father whose model we ought to follow. He has become the archetype of “liberty”. Yet when Jefferson came to power, he brought into being the truth of the words uttered by David Starkey in his monumental documentary on the English Monarchy, “What is a president, but a king?” Jefferson’s power was greater than that of medieval kings, unchecked by tradition, custom or the Church, and Jefferson far from following any concept of limited government ruled like a tyrant. Likewise Robespierre, whose terror Jefferson approved of in the “Adam and Eve” letters, committed greater crimes and exhibited a vastly greater tyranny than even the lies about Louis XVI!
"Constitutional hegemony
"Ferrara’s legal analysis is especially prescient when we consider most of the Founding Fathers were lawyers, and that they constructed a legal framework that cannot be easily navigated by the rest of us. Ferrara does a superb job of discussing the supremacy clause, states rights and nullification.
"Today, those who oppose traditional Catholic social order in favor of Americanism argue that the system itself is not at fault. Our failures are a consequence of bad maneuvers by those who have not truly applied the constitution, and healthy remedies to nullify bad federal laws is the right of the states. This is the argument of “tenthers”, that is, those who see the Tenth Amendment as granting the rights of the states to nullify federal laws, based on the opinion of Jefferson and Madison.
"Ferrara demolishes this myth. As unfortunate as it is, because it would in fact be a potent defense against the system, Ferrara shows how the Hobbe-Lockean principles of absolute supremacy of the state guarantee obedience to legal positivism.
"In the Kentucky Resolutions, where that state complained about the Alien and Sedition Acts, contemporary libertarians tell us that Kentucky, with Jefferson contributing to the resolution, threatened to nullify the law based on the Tenth amendment. As Ferrara points out in his book, Jefferson did not oppose the Alien and Sedition Acts, believing that the states should carry them out. The Kentucky resolution as a whole, did not say each state can nullify laws they do not like, but that all the states together could.7 Kentucky implicitly acknowledged that it would follow all the laws of the Union. This makes sense, because it would be a recipe for anarchy if some states followed laws and other states did not. Madison, the “Father of the Constitution”, argues likewise:

"In some of the States, the carriage-tax would have been collected, in others unpaid. In some, the tariff on imports would be collected; in others, openly resisted. In some, lighthouses would be established; in others denounced. In some states there might be war with a foreign power; in others peace and commerce. Finally, the appellate authority of the Supreme Court of the U.S. would give effect to the Federal laws in some States, whilst in others they would be rendered nullities by the State Judiciaries. In a word, the nullifying claims if reduced to practice, instead of being the conservative principle of the Constitution, would necessarily, and it may be said obviously, be a deadly poison.8
"Moreover, the remedy Madison argues for is more or less a protest to Congress, not the idea that each state should nullify laws it doesn’t like.
"Thus, the American founders built their Leviathan well, with no possibility of resistance, unless of course if you should successfully revolt, which we will pick up in the second part of this review.

"3.Christopher A. Ferra, Liberty, the God That Failed (Angelico Press, 2012), 160.
"4.Ibid., 160.
"5.Ibid., 213.
"6.Ibid., 237-239.
"7.Ibid., 207.
"8.Ibid., 206."
And for more on who their inspirations were, read these:
"Tradition and its destruction
"It is important to make the distinction that when Ferrara describes “monarchy” in the Catholic tradition he is describing what is a limited monarchy, restricted principally by the Pope and the Church, but secondarily by nobles and the people themselves, since kings receive their authority from God to do good, not to resort to despotism. By removing the Church from that equation, the Reformation made Her subservient and removed one of the balancing forces against abuse of power.
"This is no more evident than in England where Henry VIII created the act of Royal Supremacy (which violated Magna Charta and his coronation oath which promised not to interfere in the rights of the Church), making him the head of the English church. This conflict produced two English Civil Wars over monarchical limits of power, the question of “popery” and the red-red hand of Rome—a non-issue turned into a major issue by Puritans believing Charles I was secretly Catholic.
"As the country divided itself between King and Tradition, a new edifice was created for the temple of liberty with the eventual overthrow and execution of the king, the establishment of an even more dictatorial “liberator”, and a short-lived restoration before Enlightenment principles were put into place to make the monarchy subservient to “liberty”.
"The major philosophers to influence the thought of liberty, Hobbes and Locke, likewise were divided, but not on the core issue of their philosophy: complete political power to guarantee security, namely, Leviathan. They simply disagreed on where that Leviathan resided. Hobbes believed that the absolutist King, judged by none save God, could protect our security, while for Locke it was the sovereign will of the “people” provided in some representative assembly.
"This is not, of course, how it is normally presented. It is usually depicted as though Hobbes supported tyranny as a safeguard for society while Locke supported “freedom”. Ferrara takes the issue head on with a careful examination of Hobbes and Locke, their religious views, their political ideas and concept of the popular will. From there he shows us the influence of the principles of Hobbes and Locke on the French philosophes and the American founding fathers, principally the ideas in Essay on Toleration and An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, both which deconstruct and reject the Ancient Greek and Catholic metaphysical and epistemological tradition in favor of the Enlightenment’s radical doubt.
"The social theory of Locke provided the framework for Rousseau’s The Social Contract, which in turn, also influenced Thomas Jefferson. Locke’s social theories flowed from their denial of substance and with his Unitarian “clockmaker god”, rubs out natural law just as it does metaphysics and the soul. As Ferrara notes,

"For Hobbes, natural law in the state of nature is not God’s law written on man’s heart, but merely “a precept, or general rule, found out by reason, by which a man is forbidden to do that which is destructive of his life, or taketh away the means of preserving the same, and omit that by which he thinketh it may be best reserved.
"According to Hobbes, while God has decreed the laws of nature, man has no innate understanding of them, as is shown by varying human opinions over what the natural law requires. Hence, man must be guided solely by the decisions of the civil authorities… Hobbes then, is a legal positivist and a voluntarist: right and wrong are determined solely by the will of the legislator upon emergence from the state of nature, for ‘Where there is no common power, there is no law; where no law, no injustice.’ The doctrine seems shocking until we realize that it represents the juridical status quo of political modernity: the will of the majority trumps the objective moral order.1
"This would find its way into Locke’s thought, but slightly changed.

"A few decades later, the “cautious Locke, standing in Hobbe’s shadow, announces the same new doctrine but with far more prudent language, adding a fundamental development regarding private property…Locke’s doctrine is essentially the Hobbesian state of nature with an emphasis on private property as the primary means of defending the right to self-preservation. His description of the state of nature pleasingly presents it as one of “Peace, Good Will, Mutual Assistance, and Preservation”, with ‘Men living together according to reason, without a common Superior on Earth, with authority to judge between them’ only to concede – literally one page and one section later – that it inevitably devolves into Hobbe’s “State of War” on account of the “want of positive Laws and judge with Authority to appeal to…’ Man is born, says Lock with “a title to perfect Freedom, and an uncontrolled enjoyment of all the Rights and Privileges of uncertain and constantly exposed to the Invasion of others.’ The inevitable State of War ‘once begun, continues, with a right to the innocent party to destroy the other whenever he can, until the aggressor offers peace’. No matter what Locke’s apologists in academia labor to find by way of distinctions, Hobbes and Locke are essentially at one in their teaching on a state of nature that is really a state of war, giving rise to a “natural law” that is really a natural right to self-preservation by any means necessary. Like Hobbes, Locke declares in the state of nature ‘every man hath a right to punish the Offender, and be Executioner of the Law of nature’ which is none other than the right to self-preservation.2
"The false concept that the individual precedes society should sound familiar to followers of Lew Rockwell or Glenn Beck. For Hobbes and Locke, whose philosophy Ferrara dubs “Hobbe-Lockean”, man is essentially a brute, free from natural law in the Aristotelian tradition, and does what he wants, with his rights and morality originating from the state (which presupposes they can be taken away). Why is this important? Because this underpins the legal positivism that guided the formation, body and interpretation of the American Constitution.
"1. Christopher A. Ferra, Liberty, the God That Failed (Angelico Press, 2012), 57.
"2.Ibid., 58-59."
Even if we are to argue that centralization is bad (which it isn't, as otherwise, God would HIMSELF reject even being king over everyone and pretty much pull the same stunt King Piccolo pulled), there's no denying, ESPECIALLY from these passages, that the Founding Fathers DID aim for centralization to begin with, as did Locke, being more centralized than the monarchies in Europe. And I don't even want a monarchy, what I is for a world ruled by God as emperor with an iron fist, and ultimately think that God will end up acting like this guy. Pokeria1 (talk) 17:46, 20 November 2017 (EST)
With a ridiculously long comment like this one, I was tempted to just walk away. However, I will say this, since you still seem to misunderstand what I'm saying in several parts:
  • About Samuel, when I talk about the decentralized government, I'm talking about their politics -- the Israelites didn't have an earthly king ruling over them, and political matters were devolved to the 12 tribes. I mentioned above very clearly that God still ruled over all of them and that the Israelites were all commanded to obey the Mosaic Law even with this decentralized government. You continue to ignore this and (falsely) imply that I'm forgetting about God. I'm not, and God remains the absolute ruler over everything no matter what. He is completely sovereign in world affairs. This does not conflict with having earthly governments that are decentralized. Just because God rules over all doesn't mean we need to create absolute monarchies on Earth with human rulers -- these earthly governments are extremely susceptible to the corrupting sin nature, and having a more decentralized and mixed/republican government is better able to protect against this corruption. God is the absolute ruler of everything either way. I see now that you don't support an earthly monarchy, but you speak of God as if He does not already rule with total power -- He already has for eternity past.
  • About with Jefferson and Virginia -- this example shows that in some ways, we're talking about two different forms of centralization. You bring up Virginia as an example -- but why only Virginia and not the United States as a whole? Because the United States was decentralized -- the states could do what they wanted. The situation was similar in France before the French Revolution. The nobles controlled their fiefs and provinces, and some people had independent enclaves in France. They could do whatever they wanted (or significantly more than during and after the French Revolution), rather than listening to the national French government. Same with Virginia -- these "totalitarian" measures were not created or enforced from the national U.S. level -- it was all from the state level. With Nazi Germany and the USSR, as well as France during the Revolution, however, it was the national level.
  • The founding fathers eventually settled for more centralization than they originally wanted, but they still cared deeply about states' rights. They would be appalled if they saw how much power our federal government now has.
--1990'sguy (talk) 09:24, 21 November 2017 (EST)
Two things:
One, I'm not even talking about an absolute monarchy run by humans. In fact, if anything, what I'm suggesting is something akin to what Ferrara stated about monarchies, where they are subservient to the Pope and ESPECIALLY to God, and that God essentially act like Kefka in that video there, since that's what absolute rulers who are omnipotent tend to act like, and God is absolute ruler and omnipotent.
Two, it's NOT JUST how Jefferson ran Virginia. If you actually READ the examples, you'd note that it covered stuff from when he was running the United States itself as its president, ie, when he was running things at the national level. Even there, he did a lot of big government, centralization in other words, that was about on par with the mess we've got right now. For example, the whole illegal amendment thing as well as trying to have POWs executed for Tory sympathies despite it going against a bill that he drafted, or advocating for state prosecutions against seditious libel that were geared towards the president and congress, among others. And don't get me started on how Jefferson actually sang praises for the Jacobins even though he should know better due to actually being present at the time they were doing their antics and thus witnessing them first hand and even endorsing the September Massacres. Or hey, how about his claim of "we're all federalists now" and doubling down on enacting federalist policies despite being elected president under the promise of undoing John Adams' federalist policies. And you STILL haven't addressed Locke and Hobbes' statements, either, which make it VERY clear that they advocated for centralization ultimately. And BTW, there were plenty of other examples in the actual book regarding the founding fathers. Pokeria1 (talk) 10:19, 21 November 2017 (EST)

The Philippines has a history of political violence/corruption throughout the political system (In one region of the Philippines, there were recently bout 1,000 plus political killings).[57][58] Like many poor countries, political corruption/violence is a major reason behind the countries poverty.Wikignome72 (talk) 19:08, 20 November 2017 (EST)

When I was in the Philippines, Duterte sent in the national police to kill the mayor of a small town. It made headlines in the national newspapers and all, but somehow the level of media coverage didn't seem adequate for such an extreme act. Why wasn't there more excitement? Later, I found out that this was Duterte's third mayor. He's got a list 150 "narcopoliticians" and he's going through the names one by one, like the proscription lists in ancient Rome issued by Anthony and other leaders. Rule of law just doesn't seem to be a thing in the Philippines. PeterKa (talk) 22:14, 21 November 2017 (EST)
It takes hundreds and hundreds of years for Christianization to take place in a country. The Philippines was a Spanish colony for about 400 years and Spain is a Catholic country. Not too long ago, the authoritarian Francisco Franco was a leader of Spain.
On the other hand, the United States ruled in the Philippines for awhile in the Philippines until the Filipinos gained independence via a revolutionary war. The U.S. is still very influential in the Philippines. Given the large number of Protestants in the U.S. and the growing public dissatisfaction within Catholic countries as far as Catholicism, it is not surprising that Protestantism is growing as a percentage of the Philippine population. See: Protestantism: The fastest growing religion in the developing world, Manilla Times. If it wasn't for Latin American immigration in the USA (both past and present), the Catholic population would be shrinking in the United States. I hope the growth of biblical Protestantism accelerates in the Philippines. Since research indicates that countries with cultural legacy of biblical Protestantism have less corruption than Catholic countries[59], maybe the situation as far as political corruption will change over time for the better as biblical Protestantism grows in the Philippines.
I believe that the Bible's teachings are what causes biblical Protestantism to have a corruption fighting effect (see also: Religion and crime reduction). The National Catholic Register just published an article entitled Why Are Catholics So Deficient in Bible-Reading? which declared "Catholics don't read the Bible anywhere near as much as evangelical Protestants do, and that is to our shame."Wikignome72 (talk) 02:19, 23 November 2017 (EST)

And they said pigs would never fly...

The liberal media is so desperate to defeat Roy Moore that they are throwing Bill Clinton over the side. Yes, The New York Times has pulled out the hammer, broken the emergency glass, and published "Believe Juanita." That is to say, they are accusing Bill of being a rapist. PeterKa (talk) 07:11, 18 November 2017 (EST)

Dems rush to defend Franken

The Weinstein era of hypersensitivity to sexual harassment claims is already history. How can the Dems justify taking down Moore while giving Franken a pass? Here's Hillary: “Look at the contrast between Al Franken, accepting responsibility, apologizing, and Roy Moore and Donald Trump who have done neither. [That] is the kind of accountability I’m talking about.” Isn't that rich coming from a woman who blamed allegations of sexual impropriety against her husband on a "vast right wing conspiracy"? The Dems loved Hillary's blame-shifting so much that it launched her political career. This is a party that has no concept of what accepting responsibility even means. What has Franken confessed to, anyway? Only to what the notorious photo establishes.[60] PeterKa (talk) 23:42, 19 November 2017 (EST)

Alveda King is against radical pro-abortionist Doug Jones

Dr. Alveda King is against radical pro-abortionist Doug Jones (Roy Moore's opponent).[61]

Doug Jones refuses to condemn partial-birth abortions.Wikignome72 (talk) 11:03, 20 November 2017 (EST)

FiveThirtyEight declares Alabama a dead heat

Despite what the latest MPR item says, FiveThirtyEight is not making any specific prediction with regard to Alabama. In fact, the site notes prominently that the race is currently a dead heat: "Politics Podcast: Alabama Is Tied." The article linked at MPR suggests that as more voters absorb the news of the allegations against Moore, the tide will turn against him. At the same time, the news about Franken makes the Dems look hypocritical.
The senate is currently confirming Trump's judiciary nominees at a rapid clip. We need Moore in the senate to keep the window of opportunity open. If a Dem is elected in Alabama, McCain becomes the swing vote on judicial nominees. That's a role he relished way too much when he had it before. As long as gridlock prevails in Congress, the federal judiciary will retain an outsized role. PeterKa (talk) 01:51, 23 November 2017 (EST)

Guns and vegas

I have to ask - what difference would it have made if guns were allowed at the festival given it was not appearent where the shots were coming from and the shooter was on the 31st (from memory) floor? It wouldn't have been very good to have 10s of people firing wildly into the buildings above them. JohnSelway (talk)