Talk:Main Page/Archive index/164

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The DNC hackers were Russian after all

Turns out that DNC hacker Guccifer 2.0 was a Russian military intelligence agent: ""Lone Hacker” Guccifer 2.0 Goofs, Accidentally Reveals Himself To Be A Russian Intelligence Officer." Cyber security firm ThreatConnect was able to see through Guccifer's commercial VPN service. See, that's the kind of thing we learn when someone applies the level of technical expertise used in a Wikipedia troll investigation to a national security issue. Why didn't Obama's vaunted "17 intelligence agencies" think of doing this? Perhaps they didn't look too closely for fear that Guccifer might not turn out to be Russian. PeterKa (talk) 00:11, 23 March 2018 (EDT)

I'm not certain on this one, or ready to believe it. The point is moot anyway, as the emails are authentic and the DNC has never denied that. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 00:41, 23 March 2018 (EDT)
Russia is well known for the hacking/technological prowess of its people. Russia is the country that most wants to break up NATO. Given Russia's past and given that America has interfered in foreign elections, it doesn't make sense that Russia didn't want to interfere in American/European elections through surreptitious/stealthy methods.Conservative (talk) 06:04, 23 March 2018 (EDT)
This story sums things up: Putin Won. But Russia Is Losing. Russia needs to: diversify its economy; increase the fertility rate of its native population; allow significantly more political freedom and get over the breakup of the Soviet Union. But these things are unlikely to happen during Putin's lifetime.Conservative (talk) 06:20, 23 March 2018 (EDT)
See how the world has changed: Russia is number 12 in world GDP behind UK, France, India, Italy, Brazil, Canada, and South Korea (no wonder they got booted out if the G8). Yet Russia remains #1 in nukes and #2 in missile defense spending.
I disagree Russia wants to destroy NATO. Russia wants to join NATO, but views it as a threat because of NATO's refusal to allow them membership. And NATO can no longer pretend to be a defensive alliance after Obama, Hillary, Sarkozy & Cameron used it offensively to attack Libya. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 17:52, 23 March 2018 (EDT)

5 Reasons Why Russia Will Never Join NATO, Moscow Times.Conservative (talk) 08:31, 24 March 2018 (EDT)

Russia can't become a NATO power because the rules are written to exclude Russia. Let's begin with "3. China. If Russia ever became a NATO member, it would extend the alliance’s territory to China, which has a 4,000-kilometer border with Russia. This would upset the tripolar global security balance between NATO, Russia and China," This is the primary reason.
1. NATO requires that its members have civilian and democratic control over their armed forces." Another joke. Is the argument that Turkey (with the largest manpower commitment to NATO) is democratic? Or Hungary? Or Poland?
2. "Russia needs NATO as an enemy, not as an alliance partner" can just as easily be read as "NATO needs Russia as an enemy" for the reasons stated in No. 3.
5. "Russia’s global ambition." Russia doesn't have global ambitions. This should be obvious since it withdrew from East Germany & Cuba. Russia wants respect for its Near abroad (a Russian version of the Monroe Doctrine).
Face facts. NATO is no longer a defensive alliance against Soviet ambitions. Liberal Communists Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, and Samanatha Power have turned it into an offensive force with aggressive designs on Africa, and have openly violated American law by using the US military for objectives totally unrelated to national security. No. 4 wouldn't be an issue at all if Russia was extended the same hand of friendship that has been offered to former Soviet Republics and Warsaw Pact allies, but No. 3, the tripolar balance with China, applies to Russia as well. Russia is afraid of isolating China and making China feel threatened, just as NATO has isolated Russia and made Russia feel threatened by encroaching upon its Near abroad. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 15:19, 24 March 2018 (EDT)
To be fair, Putin DID request re-establishing ties with Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Angola, all of which are Communist countries, and Putin has made clear he loves Communism (heck, even banned The Death of Stalin), so while the Soviet Union may be gone, a Communist Russia is still in play (that should be obvious when they still have a Karl Marx statue on Moscow Square). Pokeria1 (talk) 16:04, 24 March 2018 (EDT)
You couldn't be more wrong. Putin is more of a capitalist oligarch than any you'll find in the West or the United States. Putin has allowed elections, unlike China which just abolished term limits and succession. Tell me, what is the difference between what Putin did - framing up an opponent with a crime to bar him from competing in an election - and what Hillary Clinton, the DNC, and Obama did trying to throw an election? And NATO's ostracizing Russia drives Putin into the arms of Kim Jong Un, the Ayatollah Khameini, Venezuela, Cuba, etc.
As cited above, Russia is falling behind in GDP & defense spending yet maintains the largest nuke stockpile & is number 2 in missile defense spending. This is how the tripolar world has been structured since 1972 when Nixon and Kissinger created these arrangements. The cost of maintaining a large military becomes more burdensome and costly in a static or shrinking economy (Russia & North Korea are the prime examples). No one is suggesting Russia give up its nukes; Russian nukes are needed to maintain the tripolar balance with China.
Putin has been unequivocal - he does not want a nuclear or missile defense arms race. He wants partnership with NATO (as happened against ISIS). But this is not reported in the Western controlled media. He'd gladly give up Kim & the Ayatollah for partnership with NATO against the Jihad and growing Chinese military strength. The Germans certainly understand this, and only give lip service to the Neo-Cold warriors. But Germany doesn't want a new Cold War or hot war with Russia. Neither does Turkey. Only the entrenched military-industrial complex of the UK & US does (which is why they have been trying to destroy Trump). RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 16:41, 24 March 2018 (EDT)
These sources beg to differ:
And while I'll admit Newsweek and the LA Times have a leftist bias, the New American and Western Free Press are very much conservative news mediums, so it's pretty clear we've got something there. Besides, do I really have to point out how The Death of Stalin was banned in Russia? Or how they still have that Karl Marx monument? Not to mention, even Vladimir Lenin advocated for a supposed return to Capitalist principles via War Communism. Pokeria1 (talk) 18:03, 24 March 2018 (EDT)
Ideologically, Marxism is disgraced in Russia. The Russian Federation has a peculiar brand of multicultural nationalism (which doesn't square with the West's notion of nationalism) going back to Czarist times, and an authoritarian, non-democratic tradition. Russia would be ungovernable as a democracy has been the consensus of historians for a long time. Russia, and the ethnic groups that identify as part of Russia, have always looked to a strong man leader.
While Marxist ideology is disgraced, Russia under Stalin has a proud tradition as anti-Fascist. It was Stalin and Russia's Communist leadership that destroyed Hitler - a fact your Western propaganda sources ignore. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 20:31, 24 March 2018 (EDT)
Russia's strongman, non-democratic tradition (and the ethnic groups that identify as protectorates of the Russian regime) is probably the result of having faced Chinese, Mongolian, Islamic, and Nazi hordes over the past 1000 years.
Bottomline: Those following the Western propaganda line to demonize Putin as a Communist and next bogeyman after Saddam & Gadaffi fall into the trap that only Fascists would criticize Communists. Russia still has many anti-Fascist ordinances on the books that Western countries never had, even in Hitler's day. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 20:49, 24 March 2018 (EDT)
Blaming Russia for the DNC hack, and not Seth Rich, is reminiscent of the Reichstag fire. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 20:51, 24 March 2018 (EDT)
First of all, I have no support of Hillary Clinton, nor for that matter do I think that the Russian were trying to back Donald Trump (actually, if anything, it would be in Putin's best interests to back Hillary Clinton). So don't imply that I think that he wanted Trump to win.
Second of all, I'm no Fascist (actually, if anything, I view Communism and Fascism as being under the exact same spectrum: That of the far-left), and if anything, I'd wipe BOTH out, make sure both ideologies are rendered extinct for what they did to us Christians.
Third of all, Western Free Press and The New American had various bones to pick with the French Revolution and, heck, many cherished left-wing icons, and in fact, Western Free Press has even pegged the true roots of the American Left to Fascism (not to mention they exposed Antifa as being the Fascists they truly were), so no, it's not "Western Propaganda" in the form of ABC, NBC, or CBS. If anything, you're the one falling for his propaganda, just as many Americans fell for Stalin's propaganda about Katyn being caused by the Nazis.
Lastly, I think the fact that Putin outright comparing Communism to Christianity in a glowing light, not to mention quoting Vladimir Lenin's view of the belief in "the power of man", not to mention giving outright solidarity to the 19th World Festival of Youth and Students Communist event, hosting it and all of that, and has voiced a desire to reconnect with Latin America shortly before supplying arms and materiel to Nicaragua as well as North Korea, and has even supplied arms and material to open Communist groups like those in Angola. Had I been in his position, and were I truly anti-Marxist, I'd go so far as to commit genocide against Marxists, especially as revenge for what they tried to do to us Christians. I certainly wouldn't back or support them in any way (heck, one of the first things I'd do is make sure that Karl Marx's statue is torn down). And I wouldn't do the same for the Fascists either. Actually, I'd fight a two-pronged war against both, like General Patton and Sir Christopher Lee planned to do with the USSR during World War II. Pokeria1 (talk) 21:10, 24 March 2018 (EDT)
The Communist Party was never outlawed (as the Nazi Party was) after the regime fell. The Communist Party was invited to participate in the democratic parliament and has about 17% of public support. In an election year, is it surprising for a candidate to reach out to voting blocs for support? Putin didn't say that stuff, he quoted Communist talking points that even Communist trolls in Conservapedia have used for years. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 21:31, 24 March 2018 (EDT)

The Death of Stalin was banned because often countries want to whitewash their histories. It is not because the Russians want Communism again. It is due to nationalism. The ancient Egyptians, for example, touted their victories, but downplayed their defeats. The Japanese leave out things in their school history books.[1] It's human nature to engage in denial when it comes to mistakes, character flaws, etc. Adam blamed Eve. Eve blamed the serpent.

And for all many major faults of the murderous, cruel tyrant Joseph Stalin, Stalin did industrialize Russia which was a vital component in defeating Nazis. Also, Stalin was the leader of Russia when they defeated the Nazis. So it is not uncommon for Russians to look at Stalin favorably. The BBC documentary Stalin: Inside the Terror at its ending said that millions of Russians wept when Stalin died. When you downplay all the cruelties/barbarity of Stalin, it is not surprising that many Russians don't have a very unfavorable view of Stalin. In addition, Stalin was an ally of the USA/Britain during WWII so our press and educational system (which leans to the left) never heaped on Stalin disparagement like they did Hitler.Conservative (talk) 21:32, 24 March 2018 (EDT)

Look at the facts - Russia doesn't have much to be proud of other than the defeat of Hitler. Repudiating Stalin (as it was in the McCarthy era in America) is tantamount to embracing Fascism. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 21:37, 24 March 2018 (EDT)
Not really. Had I repudiated Stalin in Putin's position, I'd also make sure to restore Christianity back to what it rightfully was before the Communist takeover, and also make sure that future Russian generations learned that the Communists were evil, as were the Fascists, and in fact, I'd even make completely sure to note the Molotov-Ribbentroff agreement and Stalin's role in there to rub in how they were ultimately one and the same, despite their feuding. Under that way, Christianity would be properly avenged by exterminating Marxism in all of its forms. And BTW, I would heap a whole LOT of disparagement on Stalin as he rightfully deserves for the slaughter of various Christians. The Russians can go back to the Russian Tzars, and actually honor Nicholas II, for example. No need to support Stalin. There's no defending Stalin. And as far as that, not true, Germany fully acknowledged its mistakes with the Nazis. Heck, even America has fully acknowledged its mistakes in history. And BTW, had I been Russia, I'd make DARN sure that the Communists are banned (and the Communists being 17% of the voting bloc is not an excuse. Let me remind you that Donald Trump and various Republican candidates DIDN'T try to reach over to the side of the Communists during their elections. In fact, had I been Putin, I'd deliberately tick off the Communists, alienating 17% of the electorate, with full confidence that I'd still need at least 83% of the electorate to win.). Pokeria1 (talk) 21:47, 24 March 2018 (EDT)
(A) Comparing Christianity to Communism can be seen as a call for national reconciliation and healing in an election year, rather than in the dark light you and Western propagandists paint it. (B) "America has fully acknowledged its mistakes in history." It has, huh? Does America owe Joe McCarthy an apology for calling out American Stalinists? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 21:57, 24 March 2018 (EDT)
Germany accepted its WWII history because it had too. It is a Western country and other Western countries (many of which have been influenced by Protestantism and its democratic ideals) would not allow Germany to whitewash its history. In addition, the Jewish people are also a very clever and determined people and there is no way that the Jews would stand for the Germans to whitewash their history in relation to the Holocaust.Conservative (talk) 22:03, 24 March 2018 (EDT)
I never said we acknowledged ALL of our sins (you are unfortunately correct about McCarthy and how he's being ignored and demonized), just that we acknowledged sins in our History (such as Jim Crow and slavery). Heck, if anything, we're focusing on our sins too much, even those "sins" we WEREN'T responsible for, based on the education system. And I don't buy the whole "Jews being clever and determined people." By that logic, the Jewish people would have made sure to remind Russia for future generations to come that Stalin ALSO tried to exterminate the Jewish people via the Doctor's Plot, or that Karl Marx advocated for a genocide against Jews long before even Hitler got the idea (and in fact, the "final solution" was in reference to the Jewish Question posed by Marx and his ilk). Also, there IS no reconciling with Communism and Christianity. Even Putin knows that, because Marx, the guy who invented Communism, made it VERY clear it was meant to supplant Christianity. There's no "reconciliation" to be had. Pokeria1 (talk) 22:09, 24 March 2018 (EDT)
The Nazi Party was outlawed and its leaders ended up on a rope. Not so with the murderous regimes of Russia, East Germany, etc. In fact, Communists were invited to participate in democracy.
As to Putin's comment on Communism and Christianity, we endure that rot daily from liberals in America. After the disasters of liberal policies - abortion, sex education, federal mortgage subsidies, Obamacare, etc. etc. etc., - the response is "they meant well," or "don't judge us by results, judge us by our intentions". Putin sounds like an American liberal - Communists really care about people as the Christian church does. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 22:20, 24 March 2018 (EDT)
You don't need to remind me about that. In fact, I also have the same ire against Liberals that I do against Communists, wanting them dead. And for the record, Western Free Press and New American were against Western-style democracy, or have you forgotten that they have spoken out against the French Revolution repeatedly, and that's literally considered the epitome of Western Democracy with all the rapes and murders done for a sick laugh, which even the Founding Fathers realized (that's actually one of the reasons why the Founding Fathers NEVER wanted democracy for America). If anyone wanted Western Democracy, it's Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin, since they specifically stated that socialism, if it isn't the same as democracy, then it's at the very least on the same road as democracy and inevitably leads to socialism. Pokeria1 (talk) 09:13, 25 March 2018 (EDT)
Ok, you raise all valid points. Let's refocus the discussion: Is Putin a communist? I say 'No' and argue Western propaganda mouthpieces are twisting facts to demonize Putin as the Bogeyman of the Month, impugning him as a communist, using vulgar anti-Russian and xenophobic stereotypes cause it's convenient for their purposes right now. My point is, not only is this silly and will backfire (as the WMD, Trump-Russia, and Vietnam War scams all backfired), it basically plays into Russian anti-fascist (the true founders of the anti-fascist movement) hands. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 10:59, 25 March 2018 (EDT)
I have a dentist who is Russian, actually, and she also agreed with me that Communism needs to be purged from Russia, fully. And just as an FYI, Putin IS communist, when you speak at a Communist event, you're communist, it's that simple. If I were Putin, and I were anti-Communist, I'd sic police on the Communist gathering and have them arrested, even shot, while declaring communism to be for psychopaths and anyone who adheres to it must die (yes, you read me right, I'm so anti-Communist that I'm practically genocidal against communism as a whole, knowing what it did to us Christians). And BTW, Ion Mihai Pacepa, the guy who defected from Romania, made it VERY clear that Putin hasn't given up on his Communist ways (and he'd know, he fled Romania and Ceausceau specifically to avoid the KGB and Communism as a whole, and has been invaluable in exposing it). Heck, Putin actually still has his KGB card, while his contemporaries at least made sure to burn theirs. Pokeria1 (talk) 11:08, 25 March 2018 (EDT)
If you think Putin is a communist, you're the victim of CIA mind control techniques and brainwashing. Communism and communist symbols, like the Hammer and Sickle, have become part of a proud Russian history (which saved the world from Hitler) as the Confederacy and Confederate flag have become part of American history in the interests of national healing and reconciliation (among white people at least, of previous generations). RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 11:29, 25 March 2018 (EDT)
Pokeria, you don't recognize the absurdity of your argument: you claim a guy who attends Orthodox Russian Christian church services, prays in public, and encourages his fellow citizens to do the same is a communist. While communists are known for deception and lies, in this case your argument more resembles traditional communist agitprop than anything Putin says. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 11:40, 25 March 2018 (EDT)
I've never even visited a CIA site once other than to get world statistics. Not to mention the stuff I've played and watched regarding videogames and TV shows that generally depicted the CIA as the bad guys or at least are portrayed negatively, so no, I am NOT brainwashed by the CIA (and use common sense: If the CIA wanted to put us under mind control, why would they allow for people to paint them in a bad light? If I wanted to put mind control on people, I would not afford to paint anything about me in a bad light. After all, if I painted myself in a bad light, people wouldn't be brainwashed into my line of thinking.). Actually, if I was nearly brainwashed by anyone, it was the leftist academic circles and even the leftist games like Peace Walker where they painted Che Guevara as a good guy (and BTW, Che Guevara's a Stalinist, and he had no good things to say about the CIA). And newsflash, Communism is also what allowed Hitler to become as powerful as he did (and in his private remarks, Hitler glowed over Marx himself). Or do I have to remind you of the Molotov-Ribbentroff truce? And the Confederacy is NOT at all comparable to the evils such as Communism. Yes, the Confederacy was evil and ultimately needed to be stopped, but at least the Confederacy actually had enough respect towards Christianity to not try to exterminate it, or any other religion for that matter, just for it existing, while Communists have done exactly that.
And as far as Putin being part of the Russian Orthodox Church, let me point out that the current head of the Russian Orthodox Church is a communist. Heck, even Stalin did exactly the same thing Putin did during World War II, all in a cynical attempt to raise morale against the Nazis. And let's not forget that Lev Lebedev of Kursk was assassinated in April 1998, with former KGB agent Konstantin Preobrazhensky strongly suspecting Putin of being behind it. ]http://catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2017/11/11/how-communism-corrupted-the-russian-soul/ This actually goes into a bit more detail] on how the ROC cannot be considered reliable evidence against Putin being a Communist. I once thought that the Russian Orthodox Church was free of Communism, but not anymore, not after reading up on how the Communists infiltrated even that (heck, forget that, just look at how Gramsci had Communists infiltrate the Catholic and even Protestant Churches). Pokeria1 (talk) 11:50, 25 March 2018 (EDT)
(1) If you absorb CNN news reporting, you are the victim of CIA mind control techniques; (2) just as white American society was divided by the Confederacy to the point of bloodshed, in the interests of national healing displaying the Confederate flag was tolerated as a symbol of a patriot who loved their homeland to the point of defending it to death. So too has the Hammer and Sickle been tolerated as a "national" symbol in contemporary Russia, which many Russians still view as a symbol of oppression (and believe should be outlawed as the Swastika or Confederate flag) yet it boasts a history as the symbol which defeated fascism, and in Muslim Republics of the Russian Federation, is a symbol of secularism and multiculturalism. (3) The current Roman Catholic Pope is a communist. (4) Yes, Stalin realized the Russian people would not fight and die to defend their communist slave masters, and did tolerate the reopening of churches. Russians fought Nazis to defend traditional Mother Russia and the church - albeit under their communist slave masters. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 12:28, 25 March 2018 (EDT)
Two points should be noted here: "Russian nationalism" is unlike Western notions of nationalism. There are actually several "Russias" (Belarus, Ukraine, Great Russia) as well as dozens of smaller ethnic groups that all collectively identify as "Russian". Secondly, while the KGB as a domestic police force is defunct, Russian Military Intelligence (GRU) is still in business. One primary function of the KGB as the "Sword and Shield" of the communist party was to compel the GRU to do the party's will, as the Soviet military was staffed by Russians nationalists, and not ideological Marxists. That's why the GRU survived and the KGB fell. Among those survivors is Vladimir Putin whose allegiance is to the peoples of Russia and the Russian state, and not Marxist ideology. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 12:54, 25 March 2018 (EDT)
1. I don't even WATCH CNN at all, in fact, I absolutely refuse to watch it when they basically claimed Russia colluded with Donald Trump (NEWSFLASH, they're more likely to collude with Hillary Clinton than with Donald Trump), so if you're going to claim that I'm somehow brainwashed by the CIA via that, forget it. 2. The Soviet Union was founded by people who hated the concept of Russia and its Christian heritage under the Russian Orthodox Church, and even after giving up on outright exterminating it on the onset of World War II, they decided to corrupt it from within via Gramsci. It is NOTHING like the Confederacy barring that there was a civil war. 3. Yeah, I'm far too aware of Pope Francis basically espousing Communist principles, and I'm none too happy with it, either. In fact, I'm so angry that I really am hoping God just sends a beam of light to incinerate him in front of everyone and screams at them to not try that again. 4. In 1946, he required that those entering seminary register as KGB agents. And I don't care if they fought against Nazis or not, they're one and the same to me, and if it were up to me, I'd wipe out both, to avenge Christianity.
As for your two points, true, but the fact that Putin still tried to support the Communists at home and abroad should make very clear that he's not a "nationalist" by any Russian standard (ie, either ethnic groups or literal nations), and the fact that he has kept his KGB card instead of burning it like the other ex-KGB co-workers he had did should be pretty big evidence that he hasn't given up on Communism (like you said, KGB enforces Marxist ideology). Pokeria1 (talk) 13:01, 25 March 2018 (EDT)
Your not grasping the point on national reconciliation. German democracy outlawed the Swastika, as many Americans today (150 years after the fact) seek to shame or outlaw the Confederate flag. Throughout the 70 year lifespan of the USSR dissenters claimed when the day of reckoning would come, communists would be stood up against the wall and shot. This didn't happen. Not only were communists embraced as fellow participants in democracy (as Southern whites were after Reconstruction) their symbols are tolerated as patriotic (and even 'multicultural'), as the Confederate flag was for 150 years. I never made a comparison between the ideology of the Confederacy and the USSR.
Secondly, there is no evidence Putin was KGB. In fact, evidence suggests he was/is GRU. Repeating these unverified claims implies you are a victim of traditional CIA and/or KGB propaganda techniques. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 13:22, 25 March 2018 (EDT)
Oh, I'm grasping national reconciliation, alright. The problem with that, however, was that the Confederate States of America was, officially, a separate nation of the United States of America in the most literal of terms (ie, right down to even the time period it existed in), and the whole conflict with the Civil War dealt with States Rights of secession (which, BTW, even Jefferson never advocated for any state barring Virginia). This is completely different from the USSR, which actually WAS Russia during that time, not simply half of Russia like with the CSA was with the United States. National reconciliation is more applicable to, say, the reunification of East and West Germany. It's an extremely poor example comparing the USSR and the CSA in even that regard.
And as far as Vladimir Putin, Putin made it very clear in a speech he made that he does in fact still keep his KGB Communist card here: https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/putin-his-communist-party-membership-card-i-still-keep-it-home And he also specifically mentioned, in the same speech, that his contemporaries actually burned their cards. Pokeria1 (talk) 13:32, 25 March 2018 (EDT)
No, you're still not grasping the thought. I'm referring to reconcilation after a national calamity, such as the Civil War or collapse of the Soviet Union, not the structure or ideological underpinnings of either former state.
Secondly, all Soviet military officers were required to be party members, although few if any adhered to Marxist ideological indoctrination (see Victor Suvorov's Inside the Red Army or Inside Soviet Military Intelligence, for example). The Red Army was a bastion of Russian nationalists, and the KGB was a strong arm outfit to force them to toe the party line. The 1938 Red Army Purges being the most famous example. Throughout WW2 party Commisars were attached to units to insure officers carried out party directives. Not to get too far afield, but modern Communist China displays the exact opposite phenomena - the Peoples Revolutionary Army is the only government organization the communist party completely controls, which it uses to compel the civil apparatus and people to do the party's bidding. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 14:02, 25 March 2018 (EDT)
You're assuming that the USSR's Collapse was not planned. That's where you're wrong. Parastroika was actually formed around the 1950s as a way to trick us Westerners into thinking Communism is dead and letting our guard down. Also, Using the Confederate States of America is STILL not a good comparison because that was actually formed as a secession of the United States, while the USSR under Stalin was more the exact opposite. And BTW, if the Russians truly learned their lesson regarding Communism, they would have banned it and made sure any Communists still around were rendered extinct. It is not the same in any capacity as the Confederates, many of whom didn't necessarily support slavery or use slavery as a doctrine (General Lee didn't).
And Vladimir Putin was formerly KGB, which means he definitely was closer to being a Communist than if he was GRU. Just read this: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/02/vladimir_putin_and_the_return_of_the_kgb.html Pokeria1 (talk) 14:22, 25 March 2018 (EDT)
Yes Khruschev, Stalin's successor in the 1950s was a reformer and advocate of more openness which caused him to be removed. Gorbachev continued the reform movement Khruschev began. You've ignored my comments twice now. I never spoke of an ideological and/or structural comparison between the CSA and USSR. I have several times discussed national reconciliation in the post Nazi, Confederate, and Soviet regimes.
Furthermore, Google away. You cannot find any source to support the claim Putin was KGB, other than unverified conjecture from NYT or CNN going back twenty years. Even if you can find a more recent Russian source, you will note in Putin's alleged KGB photographs he appears in uniform. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 14:36, 25 March 2018 (EDT)
Anatoliy Golitsyn actually addressed this bit in 1984, and made clear it was not to Communism's detriment, even warning that Parastroika is yet another attempt at Communism to trick the West (and Communism is an inherently evil ideology that needs to be destroyed). As far as those sources, I can name sources from the likes of dailymail and the telegraph, plus American Thinker, CNS, Western Free Press, and The New American, among others (ie, sources that clearly aren't part of the same political view as CNN and the New York Times) that make very clear that Vladimir Putin had been a KGB agent. Heck, he actually gave birthday salutations to his KGB boss. If he were merely GRU as you insinuated, why give a birthday salutation to a KGB official? Why not a GRU official? And lastly, I'll say this yet again, the only time the CSA/USA situation in terms of national reconciliation is even REMOTELY comparable is with East and West Germany's reunification during the 1990s. It is not comparable at all to the USSR and Nazi Germany (not to mention as you pointed out earlier the Nazis were banned in Germany, which the Russians should have done with the Communists to prove they've given up their ways.). And just an FYI, I use Bing, not Google. Pokeria1 (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2018 (EDT)

The facts:

  • Putin walks with a military swzgger, giving him away as GRU. GRU regard KGB as unprofessional drunks.
  • Former Red Army officers Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Oleg Penkowsky, Victor Survorov and a host of others attest to the Red Army officer corp's hatred of the Communist Party and their strongarm goons - the KGB - efforts to keep them in line.
  • GRU & the Russian military hate communism, the party, and the KGB and blame them for destroying their country.
  • GRU and not KGB survived the collapse, and took control.
  • Because of nuance, Western and particularly English speaking media have never described the animosity between Russian nationalists in the Army and the Communist party (little different than labeling Rommel as a Nazi), and rely on bigoted stereotypes to stoke Cold War antagonisms.
  • Putin, a Russian nationalist and GRU survivor, has advocated reconcilation with Russian communists since he ascended to power. Polls show Russian communists consistently number about 17% of the Russian electorate since the collapse the Soviet Union, almost the identical number of non-African Americans who identify as liberal among the American electorate. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 15:23, 25 March 2018 (EDT)
Yeah, I'm very much familiar with the GRU and KGB feud (Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater actually alluded to that feud). I also know that if he were truly anti-Communist, he would never, EVER compare Lenin and his works to "Christian relics", or compare the 12 laws of Communism to the 10 commandments (at least one of the laws for the former specifically stated they are to demonize Christians). And there's at least one ROC archbishop who advocated that they not vote for Putin precisely BECAUSE of that choice comment. And for the record, Putin already demonstrated quite a few evidence that he was in fact KGB, NOT GRU, and that he if anything is continuing the Christian persecution started by the Communists long ago. And BTW, it's documented fact that he was recruited into the KGB during his university years, and had spent five years in Dresden of what was then East Germany. Pokeria1 (talk) 15:47, 25 March 2018 (EDT)
Very good. I've been studying this question for 22 years since the name Putin entered the public lexicon. I've studied virtually all sources available. The Business Insider link above presumably relies on some Russian sources accumulated over 22 years. Note the photo crops out his uniform. Yes, there were uniformed KGB, but not in the Foreign Intelligence Directorate. This doesn't square with some of the narratives. (It would help to see the color of his collar tabs, either red or blue, identifying him as either with the Ministry of the Interior or Red Army). Additionally, it refers to him as one of Andropov's "outsiders" which could mean a KGB plant in the GRU. Alternatively, he could have been a GRU plant in the KGB. GRU officers could not pursue political ambitions (this is why the KGB was created). The whole "Putin was ex-KGB" narrative reeks of a modern GRU disinformation campaign swallowed hook-line-and-sinker by Western media and intelligence services, which as of now defies definitive interpretation based on available Russian sources. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 16:58, 25 March 2018 (EDT)
Maybe, but I still don't trust Putin, he still reeks of being a Communist, regardless of whether he is GRU or KGB, based on statements and actions he himself did and said. Pokeria1 (talk) 17:12, 25 March 2018 (EDT)
I would agree Putin, Obama, Hitler and Hillary Clinton all have used communist police state methods. Whether any of them are Marxists is debatable. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 17:22, 25 March 2018 (EDT)
Technically, none of the French Revolutionaries were Marxists either (since they existed well before Karl Marx was even born), so even if they aren't Marxists, they certainly aren't friends of Christianity. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who doesn't kowtow to Christianity needs to be gone. I've had it with the atheistic persecution of Christians since the French Revolution. Religious persecutions at least comes with the territory of Religion, so while I don't like that aspect at all, I know to at least expect that to occur, but the atheistic persecutions are a whole other ballgame since they seek to exterminate religion altogether simply because it exists. Pokeria1 (talk) 17:28, 25 March 2018 (EDT)
But all the evidence points to Putin's support for the Russian Orthodox Church and Christianity in the face of the Muslim jihad and the gay rights movement. This is one of the primary reasons globalists demonize him. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 17:40, 25 March 2018 (EDT)
You for example, cannot point to any evidence of Putin persecuting or murdering Christians. In fact, you seem to acknowledge he openly attends Christian services. But you insist he's a communist with scant evidence, and by extension imply he's guilty of the sins of a previous generation. That's no different than saying someone who displays a Confederate flag is guilty of lynching Blacks. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 17:45, 25 March 2018 (EDT)
First of all, him attending Christian services openly is NOT evidence that he's a genuine Christian. Do I really have to remind you that Joseph Stalin of all people attended Christian services openly during the World War II period (and that guy is obviously not a Christian, being a staunch atheist prior to, after, and especially during the war)? I suggest you rethink using that as evidence, unless you want to be consistent and act like Stalin became a Christian during World War II? As far as evidence that he's still a communist, I gave you PLENTY of evidence, like for example his giving solidarity to the Communist Youth Movement a year ago, his openly stating that he still keeps his Communist Card at home, while pointedly noting the contrast regarding his fellow KGB co-workers who either threw theirs away or otherwise burned them, or how he compared Vladimir Lenin's relics to Christian relics, which had enough controversy that a ROC bishop warned people not to vote for Putin for him committing blasphemy, even calling him Dark Putin. And as far as Muslim jihad, actually, recent reports indicate that he's actually bringing about Muslim schools into the country, so there goes the claim he's against Jihad. Also, I actually DID cite examples of Christian persecutions occurring within Putin's Russia. Or do I have to post the link again? Fine: https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3626842/posts#32 The links are in that post, and they give lengthy links about how Christians were being massively persecuted by Putin. And for the record, I don't give a darn about the Globalist Agenda. The only one I might support is a Christian empire ruled by God and Jesus alone, with us as footstools to them. Pokeria1 (talk) 18:26, 25 March 2018 (EDT)
Bill Clinton, Jesse Jackson, the Son of Sam, and Jeffrey Dahmer all attended church srtvices, too. Ours is not to judge. A servent rises and falls to his own master. You should know this. "[H]is giving solidarity to the Communist Youth Movement" - the Communist party openly supports Barack Obama, too. Big deal. "[K]eeping his Communist Card at home, while pointedly noting the contrast regarding his fellow KGB co-workers;" - there is no established proof he had KGB co-workers. The subject of Lenin's remains will continue to be a domestic issue in a secular state. And frankly, advocating extermination of non-Christisns and vengeance isn't really a Christian doctrine, unless you can support your thesis chapter and verse. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 19:11, 25 March 2018 (EDT)
And your freezer link brings up little more than election year rhetoric. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 19:20, 25 March 2018 (EDT)
Here's an excerpt from the RT article:
"There were those years of militant atheism when priests were eradicated, churches destroyed, but at the same time a new religion was being created. Communist ideology is very similar to Christianity, in fact: freedom, equality, brotherhood, justice – everything is laid out in the Holy Scripture, it’s all there. And the code of the builder of communism? This is sublimation, it’s just such a primitive excerpt from the Bible, nothing new was invented.”

Putin went further by comparing the Communists’ attitude to the Bolshevik leader Lenin to the veneration of saints in Christianity. “Look, Lenin was put in a mausoleum. How is this different from the relics of saints for Orthodox Christians and just for Christians? When they say that there’s no such tradition in Christianity, well, how come, go to Athos and take a look, there are relics of the saints there, and we have holy relics here,” Putin concluded. [2]

Putin is not advocating anything here, other than national reconciliation. He's quoting the consensus of scholars and historical narratives on both sides of the former Iron Curtain since Lenin's death. There nothing new here, other than the fact Putin sounds like Nelson Mandella urging his fellow citizens to embrace their former oppressors. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 19:29, 25 March 2018 (EDT)

1. Yeah, and I don't think Bill Clinton is a good example of a Christian. Even if he does attend religious services, the fact that he has repeatedly supported stuff that goes AGAINST what God stated in the old and new testament, not to mention conducted various acts that certainly aren't what God supported, should be a pretty big hint that, while he may formally hold to a church, he certainly isn't living the walk (and that's of course assuming he just faked being a church-goer for votes, which is always a possibility). As far as Jesse Jackson, I'm pretty sure race-baiting is against what God wants, so while he might be a bit more religious than, say, Al Sharpton (who pretty much is a scam artist in all but name), the fact that he sold out the pro-life movement for Democrat votes should put a damper in whatever "Christianity" he may espouse (which is even worse considering that he KNEW Blacks were being exterminated via Planned Parenthood). Can't comment on Son of Sam since I'm not familiar with him, but as far as Jeffrey Dahmer, I think he became an atheist by the time he did his horrific acts, stopped attending church services by that time. 2. As far as Barack Obama being supported by the Communist party, yeah, and I never voted for him either (in fact, both times, I voted for McCain and Romney, heck, his communist ties actually acted as even MORE reason why I voted for the latter, as before then, the only thing I knew for sure was that he certainly wasn't pro-life). Heck, Hillary Clinton had support from various Communists in both elections, and I for one voted for Donald Trump (and he wasn't even my first choice: Ben Carson was). That doesn't change anything regarding Vladimir Putin, whom I have immense disdain towards precisely BECAUSE he supported the Communists (ie, he doesn't just get support from the Communists, but he if anything actually SUPPORTED them, openly, in return). I have consistently avoided voting for Communist candidates since the 2008 election, the first presidential election I have EVER participated in. 3. You mean, aside from the fact that he wished his KGB boss a happy birthday? 4. Lenin's remains are NOT Christian relics, so Putin has absolutely no right to label them such, not unless Lenin is designated as a Saint in the Church. 5. There's "An Eye for an Eye, a Tooth for a Tooth" in the Old Testament, and that's also not getting into how God exterminated Sodom and Gomorrah as well as ordered Saul to eliminate the Amalekites "down to the last man, woman and child." And quite frankly, we've shown the Communists FAR too much mercy as it is, especially when they exploited that and ensured we'd be taken down from within via Gramsci's long march through the institutions. Heck, we showed Voltaire and his ilk far too much mercy when they did their acts against the Church during the Enlightenment, with the director of the Librarie at the time, Malesherbes, even going as far as to warn the Encyclopedists in advance of an oncoming raid against their works, allowing them to leave without punishment. So no, I refuse to show them mercy, since I know the Communists will just see that as a form of weakness that they'll exploit, like they have repeatedly done since the Age of Enlightenment. 6. You might want to elaborate on the "freezer link" you mentioned, because that doesn't ring a bell beyond it must be something I posted. And in any case, Nelson Mandela wouldn't prove your point because he was an unrepentant communist. He's pretty much advocating we let our guard down. Even in 1991, he was still expressing Solidarity to Communist movements abroad, even attending a rally at Johannesburg Square, and he has also continued to advocate for White Genocide u p to his death, heck, if anything, he just switched signposts of who oppresses who regarding Apartheid (and that's saying the very least, as Apartheid didn't do nearly as bad for blacks as what Mandela did to whites). Pokeria1 (talk) 19:51, 25 March 2018 (EDT)I
Again, you distorted and misrepresented your Moscow Times source. It reads
President Vladimir Putin has promised government backing for Islamic religious education in Russia, in a bid to stave extremism and cater to Russia’s large Muslim community. [3]

Another election year promise advocating government funding and control of education to to combat violent jihad. You seem to be arguing communists advocate religious education. Your Telegraph link doesn't say Putin wished "his" boss happy birthday; you added the "his". Nowhere does Putin claim Lenin's remains are holy relics. He cites the fact that the ROC has their own holy relics and asks them to respect what they claim is another religion. If anything, Putin is mocking communists for treating Lenin's corpse as a holy relic. Finally, you have no understanding of Christian doctrine. We do not live by commandments. We live by faith in the saving grace of the blood of Jesus. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 21:32, 25 March 2018 (EDT) Pardon me. I meant freeper = free republic. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 21:49, 25 March 2018 (EDT)

I'm not at all inferring that Communists want religious education (I know full well Communists want religious people dead). However, what he's failing to understand, if he actually doesn't understand, is that giving Muslim education is NOT going to deter violent jihad. Heck, violent jihad is literally mandated in the Quran. If anything, Muslim education is just going to make violent jihad even WORSE. And actually, the Telegraph link, or at least the link that popped up in the search engine, specifically said he wished "his" KGB boss a happy birthday (and BTW, I just accessed the actual link, and yes, the title of the article does in fact say that he wished "his" KGB boss a happy birthday. Most likely, a word got dropped from the hyperlink. It's happened before.). And I DO understand Christian doctrine, having been born and raised an Episcopalian and then converting, willingly, to the Roman Catholic Church, at a young age. And in case you haven't noticed, the Ten Commandments, heck, the books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, even, play a very key role in Christian doctrine, just as much as grace under Jesus. If it truly wasn't required, the commandments, and only by grace of Jesus alone would have achieved it, Jesus would have gotten rid of those laws a LONG time ago, specifically to make that point clear. So no, as Christians, we MUST live by commandments, as God himself demanded. Okay, thought you were referring to "freeper." And it did give a LOT of links showing religious persecution. And quite frankly, if he was mocking Communism for its adherence to Lenin, he shouldn't have ticked off the ROC and nearly gotten himself voted out of office via that choice of mockery. No, actually, he IS a communist. Pokeria1 (talk) 08:26, 26 March 2018 (EDT)
There you have it in a nutshell - the communist leader of the world's leading nuclear power is an advocate of government subsidized religious education and opposes gay rights. Okay..... RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 14:53, 26 March 2018 (EDT)
Look, as good as he is that he's against gay rights, that doesn't mean he's NOT communist. Do I really need to point out how the likes of Che Guevara and Joseph Stalin ALSO were against Gay Rights, at least within their actual countries? It's naïve to think that someone who doesn't support gay rights is automatically not a communist. I'll give you the religious education bit, though. However, it was only for Islam, and I'm doubtful making them educated in Islam is going to stop radicalization (actually, if anything, it's more likely to make them MORE radical). Pokeria1 (talk) 14:59, 26 March 2018 (EDT)
The US government has since 9/11 spent billions on educating Muslims (both globally and domestically) on spiritual jihad vs violent jihad. Where has the ACLU been? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 15:23, 26 March 2018 (EDT)
Yeah, I get that (heck, I've got an aunt who is educating Somali Immigrants in English at Minneapolis, Minnesota, at least, I THINK that's what she's doing), yet last I checked, the violent jihad hasn't gone down even a notch despite educating muslims, and if the Boston Marathon bombing is of any indication, it arguably got even worse. And don't get me started on Florida, or the husband and wife duo who shot up California, or all of that stuff that happened recently. And quite frankly, I'd rather NOT have the ACLU get involved at all, they'd inevitably take the side of the violent jihadi people. Pokeria1 (talk) 16:20, 26 March 2018 (EDT)

The Jews and Nobel Prizes

The Jews are a clever and determined people. They win more Nobel Prizes per capita than other ethnic groups. They made much of the Israeli desert bloom again (which the Bible prophesied would happen). The rebirth and current existence of Israel is a modern day miracle (I believe God has had his hand in this matter). In addition, Israel is a very entrepreneurial country and a leader in cyber security.

The Jews, Germans, Russians, Americans and Japanese are all very tenacious and determined people. The German Nazis underestimated the Russians. The Japanese underestimated the Americans. And Hillary Clinton underestimated Putin/Russians.

Lastly, human cleverness and tenacity have their limits. The Germans and Japanese ultimately lost in WWII. The Soviet Union collapsed and lost the Cold War. America has been bogged down in Afghanistan just like the British/Russians were.Conservative (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2018 (EDT)

Honestly? They could win awards in astrophysics and thermodynamics for all I care. The fact that the Jewish people do not condemn the USSR despite the Doctor's Plot shows they aren't as clever and determined of a people as one may claim. Heck, even I could easily put two-and-two together and realize that the USSR is as murderously anti-Semitic as the Nazis were when Stalin pulled the Doctor's Plot, and denounce them both as the same sort of evil. And for the record, I doubt for one minute that Hillary and Putin were enemies, if anything they're closer to allies. My objection isn't that the Russians did or did not interfere with the election (even if they did do an intelligence operation against the election, I doubt they truly cared about Trump winning, especially when he'd actually upset Putin's plans anyhow and he'd know it. More likely than not, it's to ferment revolution by making it seem as though the election results were shoddy at best. That would have happened regardless of who won). Pokeria1 (talk) 09:13, 25 March 2018 (EDT)

Right-wing blogosphere turns on Trump

Here is Trump's latest tweet: "As a matter of National Security I've signed the Omnibus Spending Bill. I say to Congress: I will NEVER sign another bill like this again."[4] This feels too much like 2008, when Bush and McCain agreed to the banking bailout:

I wish the U.S. military all the best in whatever undertaking Trump has in mind. There is no denying that both Yongbyon, North Korea and Bushehr, Iran would be greatly improved if U.S. tactical nukes were appropriately deployed. But if barbarians overran the homeland, it would be all for nought. There is still time to avoid the fate of Britain, a former great power now overrun by Muslim grooming gangs. Mandatory e-Verify laws are a whole lot cheaper than blowing stuff up on the other side of the world. PeterKa (talk) 08:01, 24 March 2018 (EDT)

The omnibus bill funds national defense.
Trump says the wall is part of national defense.
Therefore, the omnibus bill will fund the wall.
VargasMilan (talk) 12:09, 24 March 2018 (EDT)
It's Trump's own screw up. It started last fall when he rejected the regular annual budget process and signed on to a Schumer/Pelosi 90 day continuing spending bill from October to December. The government has been funded by 30 day bills since. More evidence of what an amatuer he is. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 14:34, 24 March 2018 (EDT)
Regarding VargasMilan's latest comment on the wall and national defense, why doesn't the Department of Defense have any role in border security? We spend so much on our military, but that massive spending doesn't seem worth it if we don't defend our very own borders, one of the most important things there is to defend. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:00, 24 March 2018 (EDT)
Largely related to the Posse Comitatus Act. The Civil War and Reconstruction are the only times the US military have been used in the United States (with the exception of the Indian Wars & Mexican-American War in federal territories, and War of 1812). There is a great fear of the federal government using its military against the states or the people. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 15:53, 24 March 2018 (EDT)
Alternatively, National Guard units could be empowered in border states, receive federal funding, and assist Homeland Security border enforcement. There already are federal-state joint task forces with DEA & state and local police that receive federal money in the drug war. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 16:00, 24 March 2018 (EDT)
My solution is to make illegals ineligible for welfare and work. If someone without a social security number that passes e-Verify is hired, their wages should not be deductible on the employer's taxes. Forty percent of illegals crossed the border or flew in legally as tourists and then stayed. So increased border security can't solve the problem, at least not by itself. PeterKa (talk) 18:29, 24 March 2018 (EDT)

PeterKa wrote: "There is no denying that both Yongbyon, North Korea and Bushehr, Iran would be greatly improved if U.S. tactical nukes were appropriately deployed."

Why don't you apply to be the "use of U.S. tactical nukes" salesman to South Korea. South Korea would no doubt receive nuclear fallout. Remember, the USA/South Korea relationship is a partnership. Without South Korea support, the USA's objectives become much more difficult to achieve.

In addition, if nukes were used by the USA, USA exports could drop because the USA brand could be tarnished.

After all is said and done, tough sanctions (with enforcement) and mutually assured destruction as far as nukes are probably going to be the foreign policy tools to be employed when it comes to North Korea. Personally, I think the "all options are on the table" by Trump is just bluffing and being used to keep the North Koreans guessing.Conservative (talk) 19:17, 24 March 2018 (EDT)

More likely, North Korea & Iran blackmailing the rest of the world will continue, and encourage other regimes to pursue nuclear weapons, as well. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 20:15, 24 March 2018 (EDT)
In the debate over whether Kim Jong-un is brilliant or crazy, the psychology of the Korean people gets overlooked. What North Korea wants is money from the South under the "Sunshine policy." People in the South get excited and happy whenever the target of North Korea's wrath is the U.S. or Japan -- somebody other than them. The idea of North and South uniting to fight against Japan is a popular fantasy. The North Koreans restarted their nuclear weapons program in 2002, which is to say right after 9/11. This attack got an enthusiastic response from South Koreans. If Pyongyang sees itself as the new Al-Qaeda, there is no deterring it. PeterKa (talk) 20:29, 24 March 2018 (EDT)
The South Korean leadership expressed condolences after 9/11. Leftists are all over the globe though. It wouldn't surprise me if molotov cocktail wielding type leftists in South Korea were happy about the 9/11 attack.Conservative (talk) 20:45, 24 March 2018 (EDT)
"North Koreans restarted their nuclear weapons program in 2002." What a joke! North Korea tested its nuclear device in 2002 that it developed between 1994 and 2002 with the $400 million the Clinton's gave them in blackmail money to not create an international disturbance on Clinton's watch. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 21:19, 24 March 2018 (EDT)
The U.S. announced that NK was in violation of the 1994 Agreed Framework in October 2002. North Korea's first "nuclear" test was in October 2006.[5] That blast was 0.48 kilotons. It was just a stunt -- too small to be a real nuke. They got an ICBM motor from Putin last year. That suggests that they still don't have the expertise to do this stuff by themselves. In short, NK was quite far from having a working nuke back in 2002.
Sending condolences to the U.S. and feeling admiration for terrorists are not mutually exclusive options. September 11 made this 2002 song a big hit. With the exception of Chosun Ilbo, the South Korean media is generally is pro-North, or at least pro-Sunshine policy. Of course, not everyone feels the same way. The country has a left/right political spectrum and a full range of opinion. Park Geun-hye, president from 2013 to 2017, was anti-Sunshine policy and pro-American. PeterKa (talk) 22:45, 24 March 2018 (EDT)
It all amounts to nuclear blackmail. Two historic events should not be overlooked: (1) Bill & Hillary Clinton paid North Korea to build a nuke provided North Korea would refrain from creating an international crisis during Clinton's term; (2) North Korea will never disarm after watching Hillary Clinton & Barack Obama stick a bayonet up Muammar Gadaffi's rectum. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 23:09, 24 March 2018 (EDT)
From this trade chart, it looks to me like North Korea decided to go for broke sometime near the end of 2010 or the beginning of 2011. Kim Jong-un took over from his father after a party conference in October 2010. He started purging associates of his father in January 2011, although dad was still nominally the boss until he died in December. PeterKa (talk) 00:58, 25 March 2018 (EDT)
The chart shows China has been paying North Korea the nuclear blackmail money since 2010, after North Korea tested an operational device and Kim Jong un's assession. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 11:17, 25 March 2018 (EDT)
I agree with Conservative on us not actually using our nuclear arsenal because can you imagine what the consequences would be? Us using nukes as anything less than an absolute last-resort self-defense mechanism (NOT a preemptive strike) would be a war crime of the largest magnitude, ESPECIALLY when used on a country like North Korea, the citizens of which have never had the opportunity to learn about the wonderful news of Jesus Christ. Sending someone to damnation because of their own choices is one thing, but sending a whole population out of unwillful ignorance is a whole other ballpark. Hell, it ain't even the same sport. And all that isn't even taking into account the damage done by our ally South Korea by nuclear fallout (as mentioned), the wind, the heat and the EMP all resulting from making North Korea into glass. China (which also has nukes) would be none too pleased about it as well. --Pious (talk) 01:25, 25 March 2018 (EDT)

Taylor Swift gets political

Up to now, Taylor Swift was notable as one of the few celebs who stayed out of politics. Now she has announced a donation to the March for Our Lives pro-gun control crowd. It's hard to imagine a cause that would be more hypocritical. Her entire career would be impossible without the constant presence of armed guards to protect her. PeterKa (talk) 23:28, 24 March 2018 (EDT)

Guess what? The money will go to a bunch of fat cats who also have armed guards: "Gun Rights For Me But Not For Thee: The Hypocrisy Of Gun Control Activists." "Gun control" is a bottomless pit of double talk. PeterKa (talk) 23:40, 24 March 2018 (EDT)
It should be noted, Taylor Swift's victory in her sexual harassment lawsuit which won her $1 was the beginning of the modern #MeToo movement. She said at the time she hoped it would encourage other young women to follow suit, although her suing for $1 as being symbolic of forgiveness, understanding, and not trying to exploit victim status to destroy an offender seems to be forgotten. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 12:04, 25 March 2018 (EDT)


March for Our Lives rally

Over at the Wikipedia article for the March for Our Lives rally, Wikipedia editors made these bogus claims about the rally and reactions to it:


“ Hundreds of thousands of protesters around the world participate in March For Our Lives rallies for tighter gun control in the United States. ”


“ On March 21, NRA TV host Grant Stinchfield falsely stated that "March For Our Lives is backed by radicals with a history of violent threats, language and actions." Fact-checker Politifact has rated this statement as "without merit" and "Pants on Fire" indicating that it "makes a ridiculous claim".[6] ”

The fact that said editors would claim that Stinchfield's statements about the rally were "false", coupled with their use of the liberal-biased PolitiFact (which, as its article states, is not trustworthy or reliable for that reason), tells me that Stinchfield is most likely right on the mark and that the WP editors are trying to cover for the organized protestors at the rally with the usual dismissiveness and claims of "fake news", etc. against critics of the rally (which is being reported as actually having a much lower turnout than being claimed by the liberal media, and that the liberal media are using camera tricks [CNN, MSNBC, etc.] and Photoshopped photos [via the Associated Press] to make their claim of a larger rally turnout than there really was). Northwest (talk) 00:43, 25 March 2018 (EDT)

I also took note of this article at the Gateway Pundit: "HOGG WILD! David Hogg Rallies Democrats in DC" On a humorous note, I had a look at the photo of one of the protest organizers, David Hogg (the same kid who claimed to have been at the Parkland shooting), in the photo below that article's headline and noticed just how much of a resemblance he bears to Malcolm in the Middle actor Frankie Muniz. Northwest (talk) 00:48, 25 March 2018 (EDT)
This doesn't surprise me any more. Remember Hillary saying "when they go low, we go high"? Must've been Opposite Day at that debate.--Pious (talk) 00:49, 25 March 2018 (EDT)
These idiot protestors claim they are marching for "school safety", but they show themselves to be yet another group of left-wing anti-Trump protestors who wish to do away with unalienable Constitutional rights, mainly the right to defend oneself.[7][8]
Joel Pollak is right when he argues that these protestors are dangerous for the Constitution. It's the Left that radicalizing -- the Right is either remaining the same or also drifting to the Left at a slower pace.
But like other leftist protests, they don't care about cleaning up after themselves. If we don't act fast, this is America's future (to paraphrase Reagan, liberty is only one generation away from disappearing). --1990'sguy (talk) 14:30, 25 March 2018 (EDT)

Free transportation and food brought hundreds of thousands to D.C

No Andy, free transportation and food brought about 100 (One Hundred) people to DC. The other 499900 + people got neither free food or transportation. Nice try (In fact it was a pathetic try).--MarkAl (talk) 12:39, 25 March 2018 (EDT)

I wonder how this compares to the March for Life each year (which has a lot of church or KofC-supported attendance). GregG (talk) 13:30, 25 March 2018 (EDT)
To MarkAl: your post on Karajou's talk page aptly describes yourself. Leftists love to call people they disagree with "hateful", "bigots", etc., but they show themselves through their comments/actions to be what they claim to rant against. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:09, 25 March 2018 (EDT)

Mark Anthony Conditt

What is happening on the Main Page? After reading about Conditt, the ‘jobless slacker’, I clicked on the link the author thoughtfully provided. I was greeted by this headline, ‘Why gay marriage should be illegal’. Conditt had clearly expressed a conservative viewpoint. After reading his views on abortion, the release of a senior Al-Qaeda terrorist, and the death penalty it is clear this man expressed conservative opinions on at least four of the main issues affecting our country this decade. If attending church is a requirement to be a card carrying conservative, why didn’t the patron saint of conservatism, President Ronald Reagan, attend services on a regular basis? I just happen to notice Conditt provided links to the Drudge Report and Free Republic. Why weren’t these conservative websites used to bolster the argument Conditt was not a conservative? By the way, Conditt hadn’t updated his blog since April 2012, could it be his political views had changed over the past several years prior to killing seventeen people? Just asking.--JerodT (talk) 14:45, 25 March 2018 (EDT)

I didn't write the MPR post, but I'll make some comments on some of your points.
First, Conditt did not kill 17 people -- you're mixing up incidents from different states.
Second, Ronald Reagan is not, or should not be, "the patron saint of conservatism" -- that's something that RINOs and token conservatives love to say. Reagan never challenged the bloated budgets the Democrats gave him, he gave amnesty to illegals in exchange for insignificant measures that left-wing courts later struck down, and he completely caved into the gun control lobby. Reagan is not any sort of "patron saint", and that has been common knowledge to actual conservatives for years. He's a relatively decent president, but by no means an exemplary conservative.
Also, Drudge and Free Republic are two sources, and the guy linked to ten news sources altogether. The other eight are mainstream/leftist sources. Even Drudge has been drifting to the Left for years -- I don't consider it a consistently conservative site.
With all of this said, in addition to the fact that this guy had no job, described himself as "not that politically inclined", and did not appear to be a practicing Christian in the time leading up to his actions (correct me if I'm wrong on that), I don't see anything wrong with the MPR post. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2018 (EDT)
The mainstream press and liberal commentators are making it seem as if Mark Anthony Conditt is a Christian conservative. We don't know if he is a Christian. We don't know if he is a practicing Christian since the press is not reporting on his recent church attendance (The Apostle Paul said do not forsake the assembling of the saints). As far as his politics, we know that he was a "self-described conservative" six years ago who confessed he didn't have enough information to defend his views. Given that he is a young person who admitted six years ago that he didn't have enough information to defend his views, his political views could be very fluid and his political views could have changed in six years.
Next, JerodT didn't address the issue of the liberal links that were on his blog roll.
Lastly, is JerodT a parodist?Conservative (talk) 16:23, 25 March 2018 (EDT)
Nuts, I goofed, Conditt is the serial bomber, not the school killer, the mass killings in this country kind of blur together. Reagan is still considered the one true conservative to emulate according to the conservatives that count. Just ask Coulter or Hannity, though I should warn everyone to ignore their flip-flops. That being said, what you are saying about Reagan is true, except for the part about him being a decent president. Reagan had one of the most corrupt administrations since Grant. As for Conditt’s news sources, my original post pointed out how the man had conservative views about marriage, abortion, terrorists and the death penalty. I may be wrong but I think his position about these matters is hard core conservatism. As for not addressing the liberal links, I merely pointed out the original post obviously glossed over the conservative opinions this killer had about marriage, abortion, etc.--JerodT (talk) 18:08, 25 March 2018 (EDT)

Mark Anthony Conditt, the Austin bomber, in his video confession described himself as a psychopath. [9]

Given what we know about atheism and psychopathy and given that the press is not reporting on his church attendance as an adult, did Mark Anthony Conditt become an atheist before his killing spree? Did he lose control of his emotions after losing his job? See: Atheism and anger and Atheism and depression and Atheism and negative emotions/thoughts and Atheist serial killers

Did the 23 year old man Mark Anthony Conditt have strong views on marriage in recent times? Did he have a fiancee or a job? As of November 2017, Austin, Texas had an unemployment rate of 3%.[10] It was reported that Mark Conditt lost his job. But surely if he had a good attitude and was able to work and had plans for marriage, he would have quickly replaced his job instead of focusing on being a serial bomber. By the way, see: Atheism and sloth and Protestant work ethic and Atheism and marriage.Conservative (talk) 18:35, 25 March 2018 (EDT)

USA Today: Mark Anthony Conditt, Walked away from his faith several years ago

USA Today on Mark Anthony Conditt, the Austin bomber, "Raised by both parents in a Christian home, Conditt reportedly walked away from his faith several years ago."[11]

More and more the evidence is pointing to Conditt being a psychopathic, nonreligious/irreligious, serial killer. He said he has a psychopath in his video confession in which he showed no remorse.[12] See also: Atheism and psychopathy and Atheist serial killers

Mark Anthony Conditt appears to have have a bitter, nonreligious/irreligious, beta male who angrily lashed out at the public in a homicidal rage rather than face/tackle his problems with the help of God.Conservative (talk) 19:34, 25 March 2018 (EDT)

Once again, atheist hopes that a serial murderer would turn out to be a young earth creationist, Christian, conservative is utterly dashed. Conservative (talk) 07:49, 26 March 2018 (EDT)

The socialist mentality: "we need to save you from yourself"

This comment aptly illustrates the socialist/nanny state mentality these protestors (both the kids and the powerful lobbyist groups supporting them) have. When asked about the millions of young people who are responsible gun owners and who value 2nd Amendment constitutional rights, their answer is "I say we’re marching to protect you from other people like you who have guns ... "we are running away from people like you."

Never mind the fact that the questioner was referring to responsible young gun owners -- they're still considered the enemy and there's no difference between them and mass shooters. To these leftists, responsible gun owners are just too dumb/backward/unenlightened to understand that they are all dangerous threats and that for their own good, they need their guns taken away from them. It's the socialist nanny state mentality: the government and liberal coastal elites know what's best for all Americans, and they need to regulate everybody's lives for their own good, even if those people don't see why it's necessary or good. The fact that millions of Americans live in a completely different culture and have completely different fundamental values is irrelevant.

It seems that every mass shooting that the media obsesses about happens in a left-wing area -- Sandy Hook, Parkland, etc. Shootings that happen in conservative areas, where people actually value the Constitution and understand that the issue is far deeper than guns -- Sutherland Springs, TX, etc. -- get a completely different reaction from the people there. People ignore this fact and act like that young socialists like David Hogg represent mainstream America (actually listen to his comments -- he's doesn't). --1990'sguy (talk) 14:50, 25 March 2018 (EDT)

This quote by Margaret Thatcher is very relevant to the push for gun control by these anti-Constitution socialists. And forget about the Trump-Hitler comparisons Leftists love to make -- they should focus on the similarities between national socialism and leftism. I found these to be humorous: [13][14] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:39, 25 March 2018 (EDT)
Another illustration of the socialist mentality: "the Second Amendment at this time is outdated". God-given rights (as the founding fathers saw them) do not become outdated, as God does not change, thus no right in the Constitution can become outdated (and who decides when they are "outdated"?). But these protestors apparently follow the European/utilitarian concept of "rights" and no intention of abiding by the Constitution. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:11, 26 March 2018 (EDT)
John Paul Stevens got it right: if these protestors are ever going to achieve their demands, they'll have to outright repeal the Second Amendment. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:37, 27 March 2018 (EDT)
Great op-ed on Fox News today: "If the Second Amendment falls, our entire Bill of Rights falls". Problem is, socialists want to do away with more of the Bill of Rights than just the 2nd Amendment, at least effectively. The founding fathers saw the rights in the Bill of Rights as God-given and thus irrevokable. Socialists and other leftists want government, not God, to be the guarantor of freedoms (which would then become an arbitrary concept). --1990'sguy (talk) 23:35, 28 March 2018 (EDT)

The Children's Crusade, then and now

With the rude and stupid on the march in Washington, it's worth remembering the ideas backed by youth movements have not always been the best and the brightest. This is from Runciman's account of the Children's Crusade of 1212: "At Rome Pope Innocent received them. He was moved by their piety but embarrassed by their folly. With kindly firmness he told them that they must now go home. When they grew up they should then fulfil their vows and go to fight for the Cross." The leader of the German children was named Nicholas. "Only a few stragglers found their way back next spring to the Rhineland. Nicholas was probably not amongst them. But the angry parents whose children had perished insisted on the arrest of his father, who had, it seems, encouraged the boy out of vainglory. He was taken and hanged."[15] PeterKa (talk) 18:06, 25 March 2018 (EDT)

It's ironic that these suburbanite kids want their 2nd Amendment rights taken away from them (by raising the age to buy guns) -- they say they're too immature to know how to handle guns (many other young adults would strongly disagree). However, they're somehow mature enough to dictate our gun policy -- and not to mention (if over 18) voting rights and the death penalty? It's also interesting that these kids say nothing about the Constitution when they advocate for their socialistic policies. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:33, 25 March 2018 (EDT)
How can any adult think that high school students leaving their classes to march around for a cause they don't understand is a good idea? That entire schools are marching together to support what is otherwise a controversial view sets a totalitarian precedent. Unlike his medieval predecessor, today's pope is not acting as a voice of reason, but siding with the child marchers, or at least that's what this Reuters' story suggests. PeterKa (talk) 01:00, 26 March 2018 (EDT)
Unlike the kids in 1212, the kids today are only puppets -- tools of the gun control lobby we've been hearing about for decades: [16][17] --1990'sguy (talk) 17:16, 26 March 2018 (EDT)

The end of school discipline quotas?

The racial discipline quotas that prevented the school from taking any action against Zachary Cruz, the Broward County killer, are being reconsidered: "Trump might scrap Obama-era rule that turned schools into ‘war zones’." PeterKa (talk) 02:14, 26 March 2018 (EDT)

Thank you, Peter. Ann Coulter had something to say about that:
On CBS's "60 Minutes" Sunday night, Lesley Stahl asked Education Secretary Betsy DeVos about the "institutional racism" in school discipline.
It was like neither of them had ever heard of Nikolas Cruz. The Parkland, Florida, school shooter is our most recent case study of what happens when liberals start babbling about "institutional racism."
There's never been such an incredible paper trail as there is with Cruz, leading straight from idiotic liberal ideas directly to mass murder. We know that Broward County Public Schools knew about Cruz's felonies. We know that his behavior wasn't reported because it would negatively impact the record of a student of color. The school district bragged about the policy.
Perhaps having no criminal record would have helped Cruz get a good job someday. But it is a fact that one of the consequences of not reporting his crimes was that HE COULD GET A GUN.
VargasMilan (talk) 07:15, 26 March 2018 (EDT)

Anglophobia

What is it with all the UK hate people? In the time that 100s of girls have been raped in The UK countless 1000s of kids have been murdered by guns in The USA. How about you put your own house in order before you start vilifying others.--Anglo2 (talk) 20:11, 26 March 2018 (EDT)

Then again you people thrive off phobias. Anglophobia, Islamophobia, Liberalphobia, every one who does not fall in step precisely with you phobia. is it hatred or fear? I guess both.--Anglo2 (talk) 20:15, 26 March 2018 (EDT)
Deny Britain has been in marked decline since its embrace of Darwinism and lose all credibility!Conservative (talk) 20:17, 26 March 2018 (EDT)
I deny it. Have any of you ever read Terry's Quora page. In it he virtually says he will commit murder if the law is changed to his dislike. Nice man. Credibility indeed--Anglo2 (talk) 20:18, 26 March 2018 (EDT)
Conservative, I am Mercian. You have admitted that I have credibility and we both gained a begrudged respect for each other, or so i thought.--Anglo2 (talk) 20:21, 26 March 2018 (EDT)
Before we "embraced Darwinism" my country allowed millions of Irish to starve on more than one occasion, oppressed people throughout the world, did not allow women to vote and was a major player in the slave trade. Since we have "embraced Darwinism" we stood alone against the greatest threat free people have ever experienced. Tell me we are worse now.--Anglo2 (talk) 20:26, 26 March 2018 (EDT)
PS Conservative, the person most responsible for the decline of the British Empire was Harry Truman. He was prepared to allow Britain to starve and go broke when he rebuilt and fed his former enemies, Germany, Japan and Italy. That cannot be denied.--Anglo2 (talk) 20:31, 26 March 2018 (EDT)
Your premise is flawed. Rape of minors is much more common than gun deaths, and rape by immigrants in the UK is higher than in the US. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 21:00, 26 March 2018 (EDT)
And a substantial portion of "gun deaths" of minors in the US are accidents, not murders. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 21:05, 26 March 2018 (EDT)
@"Anglo"/Mercian/whatever: you might want to see this discussion. But before you criticize the U.S., keep in mind that your country is seeing a massive increase in knife crime.
Also, please support your claim that "1,000s" of kids are being murdered by guns in the U.S. Most gun deaths are no doubt occurring in the inner city slums, where gangs (who have zero respect for the law) reign -- these cities have very strict gun control laws and have been run by leftist Democrats for decades. The Parkland shooting was the only major school shooting so far this year, in a county that voted 66% for Hillary Clinton with only 21% of its active registered voters being registered Republicans as of January 31, 2018.
Also, most shootings happen either by people with serious mental/psychological issues, or who are either (non-integrated) immigrants or sons of immigrants. Gun control is a superficial solution to both of those problems. Gun control also buys into the Idea of Progress and misses the fact that evil happens because of sin. All it does is make law-abiding people defenseless while not getting to the root of the problem of why evil things happen.
Also, people like you don't take into account the fact that the U.S. Constitution protects gun rights and puts them at the same level as the rights to free speech and religion (of course, European countries view the concept of "rights" as something that's arbitrary and subject to whatever the government defines them as). --1990'sguy (talk) 21:15, 26 March 2018 (EDT)
Liberal areas, inner city slums, Democrat controlled areas aside, they are still happening in America. Rotherham itself is a poor urban town run by left wingers, very very different to where I live. It is still a town in England--Anglo2 (talk) 21:22, 26 March 2018 (EDT)
Thanks for responding to only one of my points, but the fact they occur mainly in leftist areas shows that the problem is not guns (besides, guns are literally a normal/regular part of life in rural areas), but rather poor governance.
Also, there's a town in Georgia (population of about 30,000) that requires gun ownership that has had only one murder in six years: [18][19] --1990'sguy (talk) 21:27, 26 March 2018 (EDT)
I am not anti gun, If I were American I would support the second amendment. I might wish to rain it in a bit. I am anti gun in the UK because the bad guys don't have them, hence the knife crime. That would not work in The USA.--Anglo2 (talk) 21:38, 26 March 2018 (EDT)
"Reining in" the Second Amendment sounds like a euphemism for nullifying it in a way that still allows a "Second Amendment" remain in the Constitution. The founding fathers saw rights as coming from a higher power and thus being unalienable. Thus, "reining in" the Second Amendment in a way not envisioned by the founding fathers would be unconstitutional -- just like "reining in" the rights to free speech and religion. Being also a citizen of a European country and seeing the many laws restricting free speech and religion (not to mention gun rights, which the British government highly regarded in the 18th century), I know that Europeans don't view rights the same way.
Here's a good article showing that the number of murders is heavily concentrated in specific portions of urban areas (the article shows that gun ownership rates in rural areas is significantly higher than urban areas, showing that there's no correlation between guns and murder).
And this study is interesting, showing that several European countries have higher mass shooting deaths per capita: [20] (the U.S. has many more people than Europe). --1990'sguy (talk) 22:21, 26 March 2018 (EDT)

Compare the standard of living in Switzerland, a beacon of European, biblical creationism, with the economic laggards in Darwinism loving Britain. There is really no comparison! Take your countries defeat like a man. There is no shame in admitting defeat. See: Switzerland, a beacon of European creationism, has the world's most competitive economy. Also, America (a land of creationists) is expected to dominate the world economy for years. Why are evolutionists such slackers?.

Britannia once ruled the waves, but very recently its navy flagship badly leaked. If only it hadn't embraced Darwinism! See: HMS Queen Elizabeth leak: Navy's new £3.1bn warship 'takes on 200 litres of sea water an hour', December 2017. Conservative (talk) 20:41, 26 March 2018 (EDT)

P.S. The British abolitionist William Wilberforce was a staunch Christian - not an atheist! Put that in your atheist pipe and smoke it!Conservative (talk) 20:45, 26 March 2018 (EDT)
What has a leaking ship got to do with Charles Darwin? Even when our admittedly poor ships got a hammering off the Falklands 8000 miles from home we were still victorious. We will fight anyone, anywhere and at any time. We will never surrender.--Anglo2 (talk) 20:46, 26 March 2018 (EDT)
PS. Look up Littoral Combat ships. A multi billion $ project that produced ships that could not even do what they were designed for. Or the USS Zumwalt, a huge white elephant that was less effective than the Arleigh Burke class.--Anglo2 (talk) 20:51, 26 March 2018 (EDT)

The British abolitionist William Wilberforce was a staunch Christian - not an atheist! Put that in your atheist pipe and smoke it!Conservative (talk) 20:45, 26 March 2018 (EDT)

Millions and millions of women love Jesus. But women dislike atheism and the majority of atheists are men. See: Atheism and women. If only atheist men didn't treat women so badly! See: Atheism and sexism and Atheism and rape. Conservative (talk) 20:52, 26 March 2018 (EDT)

Those articles were written by you and lets face it, you are biased. I was hoping to have a sensible discussion with you. Guess I was wrong.--Anglo2 (talk) 20:56, 26 March 2018 (EDT)
You are in complete denial. The people most responsible for the decline of the British Empire is not the Truman family, it is the British! Empires generally crumble within.
An analogy. We were boxing alone to round 8. The USA then came in and beefed up our corner. We were then victorious until we were knocked out by a sucker punch from our own side after the final bell sounded.--Anglo2 (talk) 21:10, 26 March 2018 (EDT)
You don't frighten me, English pig-dog! Go and boil your bottom, son of a silly person! I blow my nose at you. I don't want to talk to you no more, you animal food trough wiper! Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries! Now go away or I shall taunt you another time!Conservative (talk) 21:02, 26 March 2018 (EDT)
Very nice:) but aren't The Pythons horribly liberal?--Anglo2 (talk) 21:06, 26 March 2018 (EDT)
You seem to think we love this terrorism! I was disgusted that the immigrant who tried to blow up a train only got 34 years. I am disgusted that another immigrant slaughtered kids as young as 8 at a pop concert. Children that Conservapedia favourite Theodore Shoebat described as "Pro sodomite sluts and whores". Do you really think we like this holes? And we are doing something about it, ever heard of Brexit?--Anglo2 (talk) 21:32, 26 March 2018 (EDT)
Hey, give us Conservapedians some credit, a lot of us actually DO support Brexit, and are in fact looking forward to when Brexit passes (and good luck. I mean it, considering the government in Britain is not exactly likely to pass it despite the people wanting it. And make no mistake, I want Brexit passed, especially if it ends the EU). I can't comment on whether Shoebat actually said that about those kids or not, because if he did, that's just tasteless. Pokeria1 (talk) 21:46, 26 March 2018 (EDT)
I voted stay but have since changed my view.--Anglo2 (talk) 21:50, 26 March 2018 (EDT)
I strongly agree that Brexit was a good decision if you want to reduce the violence, mainly being caused by non-integrated immigrants and social instability. However, your government has caved into the EU on several issues -- I wish you well. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:21, 26 March 2018 (EDT)
My two cents. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 22:35, 26 March 2018 (EDT)

According to Annika Mombauer, senior lecturer in history at the Open University in Milton Keynes and the author of numerous books and articles on World War I: "Many of the decision makers and, in fact, many ordinary Europeans did feel that war would eventually come. You have to think of another "-ism" -- social Darwinism, this belief that nations and peoples are subject to the same biological laws as animals and that they are going to either rise to the top or they are going to be eliminated in a vying for power."[21] See also: World War I and Darwinism

Charles Darwin's book On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life was published in 1859. The Financial Times reports that Britain has had a productivity problem since its relative economic performance peaked in the mid-19th century.[22] There were signs in the latter part of the 19th century that the British empire was in decline. In 1899, wars with the Boers broke out. The numerically inferior Boers inflicted a serious of humiliating defeats upon Britain.[23]

Deny Britain has been in marked decline since its embrace of Darwinism and lose all credibility!

Darwinism, which had its birthplace in Britain, sowed the seeds of the decline of the British Empire. In terms of temporal power, the British Empire's peak was up until the beginning of WWI at the very latest. After WWI and WWI (two wars created in large part due to Darwinism[24][25]), a weakened Britain could not maintain its hold on its various colonies.

As far as Islamic terrorism, Britain is asking for trouble due to its Muslim immigration policy which is bringing in masses of Muslims into Britain. "Can a man take fire in his bosom, and his clothes not be burned?" - King Solomon.Conservative (talk) 00:00, 27 March 2018

I think in context that verse refers specifically to lust. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 00:15, 27 March 2018 (EDT)
A French firm wins the contract to print British passports and beats out its British rivals who simply could not compete. It has been called a "national humiliation".[26]
First France helped America win the American Revolutionary War, then Napoleon Bonaparte pushed Britain to the side in European politics and now this! Conservative (talk) 04:34, 27 March 2018 (EDT)
France couldn't defend its own borders in 1812, 1871, 1914 or 1940; only in America do people still think France is a Great Power. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 12:41, 27 March 2018 (EDT)
Yeah, which reminds me, we probably need to do something akin to the common "Britain's current failures due to Darwinism" for France regarding the Enlightenment. Let's face it: Since adopting the Enlightenment principles in the prelude to the French Revolution, France hasn't been doing too hot, arguably doing worse than Britain in some regards (at least Britain's still consistently a monarchy, so it still has some positives and strengths there: France has gone through no less than nine shifts in government since the French Revolution within the past two centuries alone.). Pokeria1 (talk) 14:22, 27 March 2018 (EDT)
You're right. But to express the thought more accurately and clearly it should be phrased, "France has gone through nine regime changes since the French Revolution." RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 17:19, 27 March 2018 (EDT)

I read an article about the Irish potato famine, and it formed a horrific picture in my mind of Irish politicians so committed to protecting Ireland's vanity that they refused charitable food assistance from Queen Victoria and insisted that the transaction must take the form of Great Britain beginning enormous public works projects and paying workers from Ireland to do the work.

But now Mercian insists that we deny that picture that history presents to our senses and just accept that Great Britain "allowed millions of Irish to starve on more than one occasion".

Mercian's description allows for an enormous range of possible culpability from the trivial to the Holodomor, where millions of Ukranians starved to death, so why would he choose a description of an event so vague that it can't be relevant to anything, while yet presented as if it were intended to prove something?

I don't think Mercian is a poor arguer; I think Mercian is too controlling; he presents that which we have thought about particular historical events using his propositional speech in such a way as to normalize basic mistrust of Great Britain, the subtext being that the indignity of being the object of such a range of possible outcomes in meaning regarding its blame is appropriate enough to its subject.

When Mercian presents these hints about an odiosity in Great Britain's behavior, like the boy who cried wolf, you either investigate in order to contradict him well, and he could say "see, you agreed it was appropriate enough", or you confront the attempted intervention between the passage of Great Britain's reputation to its national observers, and he could say "You didn't have the compassion to even look to see if the worst were true. You can't believe your eyes and ears when you look at the picture formed in your mind (or even evaluate your common experience in passing) upon reading the recitation of ordinary historical facts indicative of Great Britain's virtue." There's no downside for him!

I propose to dub this weak defense of one's propositions through this kind of ambivalent playing of the informant together with the potential of asking us to deny our sensations (applying in this case to sensations of those images presented by our historical narrators) the "Mercian"—as it was I who discovered it. VargasMilan (talk) 05:43, 29 March 2018 (EDT)

Mercian, is one of at least 3 British atheists who have been obsessed with my internet writings. One thing that atheists are known for is their poor grasp of history and/or their historical revisionism. See: Atheism and historical revisionism. Of course, this is not surprising as it is very apparent that that Jesus Christ had on an extremely positive effect on the world and the best explanation of this was that He was God in the flesh and that He rose from the dead.Conservative (talk) 14:46, 1 April 2018 (EDT)
"When an Englishman is arrested in England for quoting Winston Churchill, one can only regard the culture as beyond deranged."[27]Conservative (talk) 03:57, 8 April 2018 (EDT)
I put up some posts about Britain recently to give a few smug British atheists a comeuppance. The truth is that although I think Britain needs to take a harder line on Islamic immigration and Islamic extremism, I like the politeness of the British and admire the works of various past British writers. And of course, British common law and the Magna Carta has had a great effect on world history.
I suspected Mercian was type of person who can dish it out, gets easily upset when challenged and also engages in denialism. He did not disappoint.
Lastly, I do see Britain as being in decline and and it does have below average productivity when it comes to the G7.[28] But I hope that biblical Christianity grows in Britain and things are turned around.Conservative (talk) 04:54, 9 April 2018 (EDT)

Mercian, is awfully silent about the essay A British, secular leftist in complete denial.

Not a peep from him at a wiki beginning with an R.

Does Mercian have "User: Conservative-phobia"?Conservative (talk) 07:31, 13 April 2018 (EDT)

Retrieved from "https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index/164&oldid=1414572"