RationalWiki will be going through an upgrade cycle this weekend. This will cause some down time, details are at the tech blog. As a reminder, we try and add information to the tech blog during any outage, you can always refer to it for details or as a form of communication if the site is down.

from Tmtoulouse (Talk), group Site wide (urgent) at 15:23, 18 April 2014

Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?

From RationalWiki
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Hey Kendoll...)
(JPatt on GWash)
Line 273: Line 273:
 
::::::::That's right. What unstated here, and a matter of ''interpretive history'', is the underlying racist sentiment that both slaveholders, and colonists above (what later became) the Mason-Dixon line, blamed King George for bringing black Africans to American shores for economic exploitation. A consensus majority, north and south, may not have liked it at the time, and most probably wanted to stop the growth in numbers of African slaves brought to America (perhaps because they were racist, or other reasons), but regarded the British ships unloading slaves for sale as a large part of the problem of being part of a political system (the British Empire) in which they had no rights, (or themselves becoming slaves).  [[User:RobSmith|nobs]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!'']]</sup> 04:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 
::::::::That's right. What unstated here, and a matter of ''interpretive history'', is the underlying racist sentiment that both slaveholders, and colonists above (what later became) the Mason-Dixon line, blamed King George for bringing black Africans to American shores for economic exploitation. A consensus majority, north and south, may not have liked it at the time, and most probably wanted to stop the growth in numbers of African slaves brought to America (perhaps because they were racist, or other reasons), but regarded the British ships unloading slaves for sale as a large part of the problem of being part of a political system (the British Empire) in which they had no rights, (or themselves becoming slaves).  [[User:RobSmith|nobs]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!'']]</sup> 04:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 
::::::::::Except it was a spanish priest who suggested using black slaves in masse in the americas... and there was slavery north of the mason dixen line... in some states til the 1810's. --[[User:Mikalos209|<span style="color:#990000">il'</span>]][[User_Talk:Mikalos209|<span style="color:#000099">Dictator</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Mikalos209|<span style="color:#009900">Mikal</span>]] 04:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 
::::::::::Except it was a spanish priest who suggested using black slaves in masse in the americas... and there was slavery north of the mason dixen line... in some states til the 1810's. --[[User:Mikalos209|<span style="color:#990000">il'</span>]][[User_Talk:Mikalos209|<span style="color:#000099">Dictator</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Mikalos209|<span style="color:#009900">Mikal</span>]] 04:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 +
:::::::::::Were black ''slaveholders'' north or south of the Mason-Dixon?  [[User:RobSmith|nobs]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!'']]</sup> 11:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
  
 
== Sharky Ken ==
 
== Sharky Ken ==

Revision as of 11:26, 22 February 2012

What is going on?

(talk) (talk) (talk) (hic)

As a point of etiquette, please use the [add section] tab above, or the "Add new section" link below, when adding a new topic, and the appropriate [edit] tab when commenting on existing topics. This will lessen the incidence of edit conflicts. Thank you.

When adding a link to Conservapedia that is not already on What is going on at CP? please place <capture></capture> around the link.

For non CP-related talk, please mosey on over to the saloon bar.

This page is automatically archived by Pibot
Archives for this talk page: Archive list

Conservapedia Forum
  1. What if CP gets a lot of its data from RW...? (13:35, 5 Jun 2013)
  2. Conservapedia ruined my life (16:08, 21 Apr 2013)
  3. I think karjou likes star wars and dr who. (22:49, 12 Mar 2013)
  4. Making Karajou funny, part duh (09:45, 16 Oct 2012)
  5. "Socialist" Spanish soccer team (11:43, 30 Aug 2012)
  6. My impending ban from Conservapedia (09:54, 30 Aug 2012)
  7. Andy on Twitter (01:45, 23 Aug 2012)
  8. Andy's Psychological Well-being (22:59, 25 Jun 2012)
  9. 2010 Conservapedia Day Awards (08:26, 3 Apr 2012)
  10. Captioning Kenny-style (07:09, 6 Dec 2011)

RationalWiki:Community Chalkboard

Contents

Read this, then give us the money. (sticky)

If you enjoy our continued take down of the worst that the Internet and reality has to offer, please read this and think about throwing some support our way. Thank you, and godbless.

Andy Gets Excited Over Gay Marriage

NJ Governor Chris Christie vetoes the bill passed today by his state's legislature, Andy reacts predictably.img This took a lot longer than I thought it would to reach CP's Main Page. Also, Andy basically saying "give it up liberals, go build a hospital" reminds me a lot of thisimg. --Tabrcg23 (talk) 01:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

One victory against... several states which look to be passing gay marriage/cheap cope out civil unions? I'd say the liberals are on the run.--il'Dictator Mikal 01:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Is Andy suggesting that we liberals should strive to construct some sort of free, accessible-to-all healthcare system? Hmmm... I think he might have a good idea going there. ONE / TALK 10:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I think someone linked to this ages ago, but in case newcomers haven't seen it, this is a great debunking of the whole "atheists don't build hospitals". Not that it really needs debunking, but still... TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 10:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I just feel sad for Andy. He cares deeply about this, but he can't but see the numbers on this issue: in 20 years, gay marriage will not just be law, but will also be happily accepted by America. The old bigotry is dying a slow and twisted death, and its adherents can see their belief system wither on the vine.--ADtalkModerator 11:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Now there, I disagree. I delight in Andy's discomfort - purely because he's one of those evil little men who thinks that granting other people the same rights as he enjoys, will somehow erode his own rights. The man is a small minded bigot and I delight in watching his world crumble around him. --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 12:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure he's really experiencing discomfort though. Isn't he of the belief that the world is getting more conservative? ONE / TALK 12:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Nah, that's just a brave face he puts on to keep the sysops at his blog and to keep the children he mentally abuses coming to his basement. Deep down Andy knows the liberals have won and he cries himself to sleep over it. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 12:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that the government calls a union "marriage", when it's not. Marriage is something that happens in a church; a secular government-issued piece of paper is a union. As an NJ resident, I hope Christie is happy that he just spit in the face of 10% to 15% of the states population so that he can be a strong VP candidate for Romney. He is a self-serving prick. Senator Harrison (talk) 16:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Marriage is something that happens in a church; a secular government-issued piece of paper is a union. No. Wrong. Wrong wrong wrong. Wrong. No. Cow...Hammertime! 01:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
I know it's called a marriage. My point is that the government should stop calling it a marriage and call it a civil union. Senator Harrison (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
The government? So I'm not married and my kid's a bastard. Only Christians can get married? Or will you allow other religions to bestow this gift from their gods as well? Whoover (talk) 18:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Bastard? What? Stop reading into what I said so much. The piece of paper you get from the government is just that. Do whatever your religion allows. Senator Harrison (talk) 19:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
It may have something to do with the entire-magnum-of-red-wine hangover I have, but the CP main page seems really fucking whiny today. "ooooh, go build a hospital, Gays!" "oooh, NO ONE at USA Today talked about how much Jeremy Lin LURVES Jesus. Liberals!" and so on. I do think we ought to build a hospital (St. Sebastian's) where we recruit children to gaydom and refuse to allow straight people to see their spouses. In fact, we'll make them divorce their spouses and force them to marry goats and dogs. Mother of Shit-Fuck Space Overlord Xenu. I'm going to find my sunglasses. GayGator (talk) 16:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm wondering if Christie is being shrewd here in an effort to have his cake and eat it too. His response to this has been "you want gay marriage? Put it to the voters." Well, I believe polls show in New Jersey it might well pass (though the anti- side will likely have a better ground organization and more money). And if the voters do support it in the end, Christie will sort of have to sign it, or he'll have to face that his "put it to the voters" stance was a cheap ploy. In such a case, he can say to conservatives "yeah, I signed it, but only after promising I'd support the will of the voters" helping him save some face there. To the other side he'll look like a good guy for being the only Republican governor to sign such a law. Could be a win/win for him. Or it could be a lose/lose, if the conservatives don't think the will of the populace is a good enough reason to sign such a law, and if the other side still condemn him for his initial veto. But I think this might be a clever move, though, should he eventually sign it, it might doom his chance for a Presidential run in 2016. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 16:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

It may appear to be shrewd election-year politics for Christie, because it gives the appearance of Conservative credibility while he's being considered as a VP candidate and party leader. If it passes in a referendum, it also allows him to say, "Hey, this was the will of the people - what can I do?". Unfortunately, he really just comes off like George Wallace in the 1960's saying, "Hey, if black people deserve rights then it's up to the white voters to give it to them, not me". Like Rick Perry, he's more popular with conservative strangers from other states than with the residents who know him better. He'd never make it in the big leagues. --DinsdaleP (talk) 19:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
As an aside, I don't think there's much of a contest for VP; it's either Santorum/Romney or Romney/Santorum. Time will tell. nobsWe Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!! 00:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Romney seems like he might be an ideal compliment to Santorum, but I have a different theory. Santorum is polling very badly among one of the most important demographics: women. That's more than 50% of the population. He needs the woman vote, so I'm guessing he'll pick a female VP. Right now I'd wager the current governor of New Mexico or Arizona. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 01:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Here in NM some say Susana Martinez is in over her head (kinda Palinesque) but she's got enough smarts to know her own weaknesses; Jan Brewer would be like nominating the Wicked Witch of the West. The GOP needs a unity ticket, kinda like the GOP in 1980, the Dems in 1992 & 2004, you know, where the nominee picks the loser. nobsWe Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!! 01:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
If Martinez has any smarts at all she's head and shoulders above Palin (and Santorum too). She can also appeal to the Hispanic voters (another place Senator Frothy is lacking) and can probably move NM back into the Republican column (which it's been out of for a little while). The Wicked Witch of the West seems she'd appeal to the Republican base quite well. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 04:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Arizona's a peculiar state, and the anti-immigrant thing doesn't really even exist there. The redneck law 'n order, plant EIDs & landmines, build a fence, and shoot em at the border thing is more of a Texas thing, and Southern Baptist anti-Catholic thing at that.
The borders fears down here have more to do with the ongoing siege warfare and potential to spill across the border. Juarez, a city the size of Chicago, has had 1600 homicides per year for the past several years. The violence is very real, and is not a racial-ethnic thing at all. nobsWe Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!! 09:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Um no, you're wrong. I know from first-hand experience (as an Arizonian) that the redneck law 'n order exists very strongly here. Ever heard of Sheriff Joe? Cow...Hammertime! 15:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

"Arizona's a peculiar state, and the anti-immigrant thing doesn't really even exist there..." Rob, you are such an idiot. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 15:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

SARAH PALIN?!?!??!??!?!?!1111?

Really, Andyimg? REALLY? Sarah Palin? He's off his fucking nut. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 19:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Did it ever occur that Andy's against global warming, because it's nice and cool on his personal little world? --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 19:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
... well then. --il'Dictator Mikal 19:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
He's trying to give a "voice to the people", but it's nice the STOP MITT movement admits that Romney's bought his way onto the ticket. nobsWe Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!! 19:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Rob, nothing you ever say makes any god damned sense. Either in context or as a standalone statement. Your brain is defective. Go get it fixed. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 19:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
You better hope Mitt is your candidate, no one else is going have a chance.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
@Jeeves: Punditry 101: Inside the GOP, Palin is regraded by some as a "voice of the people"; Andy is the forefront of the anti-RINO, STOP MITT movement. Romney has the biggest campaign warchest of all GOP candidates. It would be foolish for any GOP nominee to overlook this fact, given Obama is well ahead of even Romney in fundraising at this point. Similar considerations were used by Democratic nominees in 2004 & 1988. nobsWe Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!! 20:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
I didn't know know that Andy was at the forefront of anything at all. I thought he was still bewailing the introduction of gunpowder and that electric zappy stuff by them durned libruls. As for Palin being seen as the voice of the people by the GOP, pardon me whilst I laugh myself sick... Darkmind1970 (talk) 20:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
No, Rob. No one in the GOP believes Palin is a "voice of the people." Everyone has realised by this point she's a self-serving grifter. She has no chance of being elected to any political office ever again. The only people who still like Palin are weenies like JPratt, for whom Beck-Palin 2012 is the dream ticket. These people are morons who nobody takes seriously. Also, Andy is not at the forefront of anything. The only thing foremost about Andy is resplendent size of his ego. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 20:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
"Andy is the forefront of the anti-RINO, STOP MITT movement." BWAHAHAHA! Usually, delusions of grandeur about Andy come from Andy. We and FSTDT are pretty much the only people that pay attention to him and that's just to point and laugh. All those Republicans voting 'NOT ROMNEY' haven't even heard of the guy and would be embarrassed if they did.--Night Jaguar (talk) 20:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
(EC)Per Palin: You know that. I know that. I know you don't know jackshit about the GOP. As to Jeb, last week this page had several lengthy discussions about why Andy was touting Jeb (see Archive); this morning, Chris Wallace (FOX News) and David Gregory (NBC) both talked about GOP insiders touting Jeb (probably from here). So maybe Andy knows a little bit more about GOP politics than you give him credit. nobsWe Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!! 20:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Andy doesn't know anything about anything. ONE / TALK 21:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
A governor unprepared for a Presidential campaign being unexpectedly put on the ticket? Please, GOP, be stupid enough make that error twice in a row. Hell, forget Jeb, you can use the original mistake! --Night Jaguar (talk) 21:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Rob whats it like living in you're world?--il'Dictator Mikal 21:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Christian Science Mumbler from one week ago: Sarah Palin wows CPAC, but godvoter.org disses her, "pending evidence that the Lord is blessing her with Presidential intellect. But in all this you can't forget, She is not Barack Hussein. nobsWe Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!! 21:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

She also isn't ever going to be a candidate for the 2012 election. We all know it, and deep down you know it too Rob. Why are you defending Andy's delusions here? You know he is just fantasizing and his Palin dreams have no rational basis. He isn't on the "inside" of GOP politics, he is nobody in GOP circles.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 22:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Lemme 'splain GOP thinking: there remains great affection for Palin. She, like all noble Republicans. is the a victim of the commie press -- which is a badge of honor. Nevertheless, if she has to be thrown under the bus to achieve victory over the anti-Christ, we're grateful she's goes willingly. nobsWe Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!! 23:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
You for real Rob?--il'Dictator Mikal 23:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
A victim of the 'commie press' Rob? Oh wait, you mean those gits who reported actual facts don't you? Damn their reality-based focus! Darkmind1970 (talk) 00:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Osaka Sun (talk) 00:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Thrown under the bus by who??? SHE. IS. NOT. RUNNING! She has no plans to. She is intelligent enough to know she couldn't win anyway. Besides, she lacks presidential mettle; she quit part way through her gubernatorial term. If she couldn't handle that job, no way she is going to handle being the POTUS. She instead found her perfect niche, being the rallying speaker for social conservatives, because she knows the truth: She can make a whole lot more money off of speaking engagements and books while avoiding the enormous pressure of responsibility of running for, let alone being president.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 00:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Soooo who doyathink a Palin endorsement would help most? nobsWe Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!! 01:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Obama, I'd have thought. Peter Monomorium antarcticum 01:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Seriously, though, a Palin endorsement could help Romney. I doubt it'd impact any other candidates much. Either way it won't carry the weight it did a couple years ago. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 04:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
In numbers for Romney, for Santorum more enthusiasm. For Gingrich its a wash. They both have the GOP faithful already. nobsWe Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!! 05:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Here's the thing about Palin, and I've seen this 10,000,000 times with supporters of prominent GOPers who fall victim to bad press. They bite their lip, and cuss under their breath for allowing themselves to be intimidated by a hostile media and vocal opponents. They plot their revenge, and are willing to vote against persons and ideas as much as for anything positive. nobsWe Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!! 05:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

You do realise that she's probably one of the single biggest reasons Obama's in the White House, right? Every voter with a functioning brain took one look at McCain's VP (who was only a heartbeat away from the Oval Office) and said, "Not a fuck!" --PsyGremlin말하십시오 06:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
One of them, sure, but I wouldn't call her the #1 or #2. In any case, the question Rob posited was which candidate her endorsement would make the most difference for. Considering there are plenty of Republicans who still for some reason think she's all that and a bag of chips, her endorsement could be quite meaningful. Should Romney somehow get it (he won't, until he has the thing sewn up) it could help him among the voters he's had the most trouble connecting with. In the general election it'll be meaningless, and she won't be on the ticket. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 06:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Do I think Palin's endorsement would help a candidate? Yes, at least among the social conservatives. However Andy's original post isn't about how helpful a Palin endorsement is; his post is the chance Palin herself would be the nominee. That is what makes it so mind-boggling.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 07:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Of course. I don't think anyone's arguing that Palin stands a chance, not even Rob (are you Rob?), even as a VP candidate. The topic sort of shifted to whether she has any standing in conservative ranks and of her endorsement would mean anything. I think it's pretty clear that she still has a fair amount of support among the wingnut branch of the GOP (which is not an inconsiderable proportion), but it's not what it was. She was a flavor of the week, in a way and is less relevant every day, in my view, but she still has some influence. She'll likely endorse Santorum, but it won't make much of a difference because her lackeys already support either him or Newt already. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 07:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Likely scenario: she'll hold out til it becomes obvious one candidate or other is inevitable, then cut a deal. Her public endorsement before the convention, in exchange for a speaking role at the convention. If she held out endlessly, and the unlikelihood of a brokered convention ensued, she'd become just another of dozens of prominent figures the GOP faithful would disinherit for not having the balls to stand up when an important decision needed to be made. Someone who just panders to popular perceptions. nobsWe Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!! 09:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Bachmann, Palin, Christine O'Donnell, just a bunch of nutball wingnut woman with shit for brains. AceModerator 09:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
You forgot Angle. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 09:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
She probably will just get invited to speak and won't have to resort of making such deals. Besides her endorsement doesn't count for much. If she endorses Gingrich or Santorum, it is minimal, because those who like Palin, already support one of those two. A Romney one may give him a bump, or may cause TEA party types to view her as selling out.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 10:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
She'll probably speak at the convention, because, fuck it, everyone speaks at the goddamn convention. Those things go on for days. It won't mean jack. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 10:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Ya see. If she were a negative to the GOP or America, they'd kill the idea in the planning stage. But she's a great asset as a speaker, and few Republican garner the enthusiasm from the crowd in a rousing speech as well as Palin or Obama. She's the Jesse Jackson of the GOP, an embarrassment but indispensable. nobsWe Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!! 13:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Rob for the most part. I could ask you what don't you like about Palin or what did she do that you hate her so? But that is worthless. Random names out of the phone book would do much better than the politicians we currently have but Palin, OMG the sky would fall, she couldn't do all that Obama does. LOL. Palin Tebow '12.--99.102.193.84 (talk) 16:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Palin Tebow? Wow, JPatt you must really hate your country. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic?Moderator 17:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Bonus points for CP's King of the Birthers not knowing Tebow's not a natural born citizen... --PsyGremlin講話 17:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Once again you all are missing the point. It isn't that we all hate Palin, it is all about the fact she isn't running, nor is she ever going to run for president in 2012, but you CP guys are too chickshit to call Andy on his bullshit.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I haven't given it much thought, but Rob's "Jesse Jackson of the GOP" statement might be the most astute thing he's ever said. Not that it's a high bar to clear. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 18:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Interesting notion: the confusion among GOP primary voters may to an extent be linked to Palin's absence in the lineup. And Dick, I got a good make-the-democrats-look-like-racists spiel I could give vis-a-vis Jackson and a recent discussion about a GOP unity ticket in 2012 you may be interested to hear. nobsWe Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!! 18:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
If the opinion polls pre-primary season were anything to go by, the only thing Palin could have been a rallying point for would have been an "anyone but Palin" movement. Maybe that's the way Romney could have got people behind his business-as-usual, not outwardly insane campaign. Pointing at Palin and saying "It's me or that people. Think about it." --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 19:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Palin injects something into a campaign the GOP envies, but is common, among Democrats -- the ability of a loose-lipped airhead rabble-rouser to energize a crowd in decibel level beyond their actual numbers. nobsWe Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!! 20:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
While I think you've accurately pinpointed her skill set, I'd be curious as to which Democrats you think encompass the same abilities. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 21:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't call her airheaded Rob, just not Ivy league. Find me a good female politician because there are so few. The Daily Caller conservatives see the Palin strategy. [1]--99.102.193.84 (talk) 21:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
My wife, who really was a hockey mom when she lived in Oregon, calls La Palin a useless, brainless fuckwit. Which is milder than it used to be. Let's just keep in mind that Palin thought that the Queen had a say in keeping British troops in Iraq (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/sarah-palin/9094048/Sarah-Palin-believed-Queen-was-in-charge-of-British-forces-in-Iraq.html). I think that brainless fuckwit is being on the generous side. Darkmind1970 (talk) 21:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Africa is a country. Cannot name a single newspaper or magazine. Dinosaurs. Idiot. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 21:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Here's the thing about Palin. She was one of the biggest names in the Republican party for a while, and milked that for all it was worth. Then election season came around, and when it was clear she wasn't going to be a candidate her popularity waned as the spotlight centered on people who were actually running. Now, when you're the political version of a Kardashian, someone with no real talent but who is simply famous for being famous, you can't let your fame slide, as that's all you have. So now she's trying to seem relevant again, but it isn't working too well. As long as there's talk of a brokered convention her name will be spoken here and there, though no one thinks she stands a chance of coming out of the convention with the nomination. But it gets her name mentioned in a press which is quickly forgetting about her, and is seeing her as more and more irrelevant, so she takes what she can get. When they talk about VPs they'll mention her name here and there again, but no one will seriously consider putting her on the ticket. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 22:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Actually I have about as much regard for Palin as Barack Obama. The two really are very similar. They're about the same age, which means they are not of the Vietnam generation. They haven't seen the country at war with itself. The came of age in the 80s, so the Recession of 2008 is really the first big economic setback they've experienced. I've often said the '73 and '79 Recessions made me the person I am today, but they were just kids. The two are fabulous speakers, and have fanatical, cultlike followings. They're also naive, simplistic in outlook, hard partisans, inexperienced. Neither one seems to have developed a political outlook on their own, but were brainwashed in the households they grew up in. Both their careers owe more to identity politics than solid accomplishments, a purpose, merit or ambition of their own. nobsWe Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!! 11:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Never forget who's king.

Fuck you, Joaquin. This is my house!img I guess that shows him who runs Conservapedia. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 19:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow. Moved from spot #1 to #6, the first five all being KenKrapTM. ONE / TALK 20:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
I wonder how long he'll be content riding the back of the bus. nobsWe Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!! 21:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Until the day he realises that wordpress offers free blog hosting I'd guess. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 22:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
If he keeps a track of this site (which I think he does, based on the fact he has an account) then you just told him that and he's going to get his own Kenblog. As I don't want to live on that world, I'll be the first on the space elevator to Titan when that happens. --Veni Vidi.png Feci.png 23:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
He already does, what do you think the "Question Evolution" blog is?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 00:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I think Rob was talking about Joaquin, but then again you can never really tell what Rob is talking about. Anyway, did you know Kendoll still carbon copies his question evolution crap to the shockofgoat blog? He's completely annexed old shocky, and it's just the Kendoll blog now. You'd think he'd be at least a little concerned that this raving maniac is blogging under his name, but apparently not. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 00:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh good, now Ken can get twice the comments; too bad zero times zero is still zero.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 01:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
JM takes his ball and goes homeimg. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 06:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
The Kendollisation of CP continues unabated. So far he's made Rob, Kara and now JoMar his bitch. How long until he brings Andy down? --PsyGremlinSermā! 06:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
OK, that's it, I'm leaving. At least on Titan I can amuse myself by throwing Ewoks into lakes of fart. --Veni Vidi.png Feci.png 08:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I wonder if I could get away with calling Ken a fat theist without getting banned for "incivility" by Karajou. Probably not. RachelW (talk) 17:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I guess you need "proof and evidence" he is chubby first. :P --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Silly rabbit. Every member of the Kendoll collective is a blond-haired, blue-eyed, 7 feet tall svelte superman/woman. They also most definitely don't live in their mothers' basements, nor do they have severe mental problems. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 17:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Just thought I'd take this opportunity...

...to recognize the 50th anniversary of probably the most famous use of "Godspeed", before it was turned into a private joke by one Andrew Layton Schlafly. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 06:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Famous yes, but funnier was "Godspeed, Aquaboy" in Seinfeld Jimaginator (talk) 14:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Rob Smith: Defrocked for our sins.

Oh Robimg, you really don't need a martyr complex to add to your other major malfunctions. You aren't Jesus, and you weren't crucified at Conservapedia for our sins. You were crucified because that's what Conservapedia is, a site full of petty dictators jacking themselves off to their own power. You used to be one too, and probably can be again if you didn't slag off Andy so much over here. What does the Bible say about Backbiters again? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 19:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Rob, you were defrocked because Karajou held you down while Ken made you his bitch. You made the mistake of telling a sysop - actually not just A sysop, but the craziest, most self-centered, egotistical and idiotic sysop - that he was wrong. For that you had to die. --PsyGremlinTal! 19:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Not only that, but (in purely my own opinion - and some guy else's words) a sysop who happens to be one of the most pernicious little odious reptiles that nature ever suffered to crawl upon the surface of the earth. </ad hominem> --Veni Vidi.png Feci.png 19:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I hear he's a demon too. Maybe we should hold an exorcism at CP. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 19:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
*pours gasoline* Rob, not only were you called a "pawn and a "useful idiot""img by Conservative, but also an "unstable egotist". But you gave as good as you got, telling him that he "damaged the reputation of... Conservapedia". Also, good for you for calling Karajou a "piece of shit" and a "worthless little cocksucker". --Night Jaguar (talk) 20:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
He was removed because he attempted to bring glasnost and perestroika to the North Korean style state that is Conservapedia and that threatened Great Leader's and Dear Leader's control over the masses (such as they are).--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
No I think "masses" is right. </another ad hominem> ONE / TALK 21:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Really Strange Bedfellows

Obama is screwing up in Syria. We know because the Chinese say soimg. As reported by Russian TV. Whoover (talk) 23:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Standard Joaq. hes the one who says libya was illegal and everybody hates us for it. i dont think he understands the US isnt NK yet--il'Dictator Mikal 00:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
What branch of loony is that? Neo-Paulitan? CPedians support each other so long as they complaining about Obama, regardless of how internally consistent it makes them as a "movement"? Whoover (talk) 01:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
You're new here, aren't you. Nutty Rouxnever mind 06:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't mind me, just using this section to save a copy of this.img -- Iscariot Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012! 06:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

And only three and a half hours to fix it, well done Kenneth. -- Iscariot Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012! 14:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Hmm. That Gallup poll that's the top item in that screenie. According to Gallup, you can be a 'very religious' and 'moderately religious' atheist. How, exactly, does that work? Also, it's interesting to note that, according to the same poll, it's actually Jewish folk, not Christians, who have the greatest wellbeing, despite being the least religious of the religious groups. So, by the argument apparently being offered, does this mean Conservative is going to convert to a not very religious Jew? 86.167.241.151 (talk) 15:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Watergate was an inside Democrat job

Remember kids, when there's a republican in the officeimg, revealing he did something wrong is totally bad. Especially when you "did it for the democrats"--il'Dictator Mikal 00:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I've been taking five from both here, conservapedia, and pretty much anything political because its all giving me a headache. Seeing that post brought it all back. See you next week.--ThunderstruckYOU'VE BEEN... 01:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Karajou's point would actually be very valid if watergate were a made up scandal. Since it wasn't, what exactly is his point? "Desire to prove himself drove Felt to investigate, then reveal, the president's corruption"? What part of that is bad, exactly? X Stickman (talk) 01:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Shit like this makes it hard to be a Republican. Suddenly someone doing the right thing for self advancement is a bad thing now that the guy who did the wrong thing for self advancement is a Republican. In spite of Andy's complete and utter inability to understand the concept this is really what the real invisible hand is all about. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 02:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
What on earth does andy have to do with this one?--il'Dictator Mikal 02:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
That's why assuming makes an ass out of you and... oh fuck it. Also, I honestly don't care what someones intentions are. If a good thing gets done, so what? Senator Harrison (talk) 05:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
"Well, when the republican President does it, that means that it is not illegal."--il'Dictator Mikal 05:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Not quite the exact quote from Clear and Present Danger but your point is made. I just think it's amusing that Karajou et al honestly believe that authorization to break the law in the interest of the party is acceptable ([insert Orwellian reference here]) and supporting cronyism is fine...so long as you're a member of the party, and not the opposition. -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Actually i was quoting nixon--il'Dictator Mikal 17:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Quote mining. more like. That statement was about bombing, not about Watergate. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
didn't say it was about watergate; it still works though, and either way it was about them and the "reps do no wrong, dems do all wrong" world; not nixon. --il'Dictator Mikal 17:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Felt was just another self-centered self-indulged bureaucratic civil service AFSCME apparatchik careerist whose only loyalty was himself. Did I mention he wasn't a team player? nobsWe Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!! 20:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
short rob: watergate never shoulda been revealedil'Dictator Mikal 20:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Mark Felt's role in Watergate was peripheral, at best. He didn't even work in the White House. He spoke to two Post reporters covering Watergate, but the information he gave related more to the case against John Mitchell and wp:Maurice Stans.

What's odd in all this is, Woodward & Bernstein said for forty years they'd give up the identity of Deep Throat after he died; then suddenly one day before the Democratic primaries of 2008 (after, incidentally, Bernstein trashed Hillary, the presumptive nominee, in a series particles) Voila! Mystery Revealed before the man's death. Why? Felt was convicted of violating the civil rights of Jennifer Dohrn, cp:Bernardine Dohrn's sister and wife of cp:Bill Ayers by breaking into her apartment without a search warrant trying to find information on the the Pentagon bombers.

What does this all prove? Woodward & Bernstein have been working with the wp:Weather Underground to topple the United States Government for forty years and replace it with Ayers & Dohrn's hand picked successor, Barack Obama. nobsWe Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!! 20:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Remember when you were the "Sane" one at CP rob? What happended to those daysil'Dictator Mikal 20:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Do you actually believe these things you say, Rob, or are you just the world's most wonderfully creative troll? Because that's a flight of fancy worthy of an oscar or two. If they gave out oscars for best paranoid delusion in a wiki format. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 22:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, Rob, technically Felt's identity as Deep Throat was revealed "one day before the Democratic primaries of 2008," but that day was way back in May of 2005. And it was Felt himself who made the big reveal, so that kinda pokes a couple holes in your whole conspiracy theory. Congratulations for making me fall over laughing, though. --Tabrcg23 (talk) 23:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh Rob, I can no longer tell when you're taking the piss or not. Can you maybe post in red when you're serious, and in black when you're just trying to be cute? I assume this is the latter, because it's over the top even for you. You do realize that Felt wasn't outed, right? He announced he was Deep Throat unprompted, presumably because he was dying and wanted to be noteworthy one last time while he was still alive. Woodward and Bernstein kept mum about verifying his claim until they spoke to him and got his permission to confirm it. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 06:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Timeline

  • April 1972, Mark Felt in charge of FBI high priority program to locate cp:Weather Underground fugitives. [2]
  • October 1972, Felt defects to the commie left. [3]
  • 1995 Obama anointed spiritual heir of Marxist Revolution. [4][5]
  • January 2005, Obama takes office in Senate. Tom Daschle, a leader in the Stop Hillary movement, recruits Obama to run & hands over Chief-of-Staff Pete Rouse to organize operations. [6]
  • June 2005, Felt outed by Bob Woodward. [7]
  • March 2006, Bernstein delays publication on Hillary book. [8]
  • March 2007 - March 2008, Bernstein publishes series hit pieces on Hillary.[9][10][11]
  • May 2007, Bernstein unflattering book on Hillary appears. [12][13]
  • May 2, 2008, Bernstein defends Obama's commie ties by calling Hillary a Stalinist. [14][15]
  • August 2008, Obama defeats longtime presumptive nominee, Hillary Clinton.
  • January 2009, Obama assumes Presidency; Ayers & Dohrn are avenged. nobsWe Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!! 02:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
... AHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHA--il'Dictator Mikal 02:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey Kendoll...

If you want to get pissed off at zealots who upset old people, you might start with Ray Comfort. While the holy oracle CMI might be telling you to be upset about Free Inquiry, what the hell is so bad about it that it qualifies as "evil"? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 12:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, leave The Special One alone. Can't you see he's busy turning MPL into his own personal, bad written fiefdom? --PsyGremlinFale! 14:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I wonder if this is a typo, or if he really doesn't know the word snarkyimg. Perhaps the QE! Campaign is a bloodthirsty Great White, swimming furiously towards the beachgoing children of atheism. GayGator (talk) 20:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps he's alluding to this abortion? Or maybe I'm giving him too much credit for an awful play on words. Cow...Hammertime! 21:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I love this question evolution campaign, it just highlights how dysfunctionally useless Kendoll and friends are. The whole idea to start by concentrating on Texas came about because ShockOfGoat really hates Matt Dillahunty from the Atheist Community of Austin. So they called a bunch of Texas churches and achieved... er... er... Then ShockOfGoat decided he was going to go "full throttle" on the campaign and hand out one million.. no! no! TWO MILLION! leaflets. And he wouldn't rest until it was done. So far they've handed out... er... no leaflets? Then they were going to do powerpoint presentations, and Kendoll just copy-pasted the 15 questions in to OpenOffice present. White on black, default font, no transitions. Then one of them was going to do man on street interviews... and er.... Then a "thirteen year old" was going to make some atheist defeating videos... and Kendoll knocked some shit up in five seconds using YouTube's create a video garbage, and they were bad even considering the tool used to make 'em. Then they were going to do a million international blogs... but they just ended up with random posts from the main blog copy-pasted to them. And now they're supposed to be doing a booklet. Given this impressive history of utter incompetence, what odds will you give that it never appears? No takers for it being fucking terrible if it ever does appear, that's a dead cert. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 22:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I hate to compare these people to actual mentally_handicapped individuals, but really, all you're doing is picking on the slow kids in class, Jeeves. You should just leave them to their idiocity. Nihilist (talk) 22:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Kendoll may be functionally retarded, but there's no one brighter than him left at CP. If we didn't pick on Kendoll, we might as well shut up shop here at WIGO: CP. They're all fucking off their nuts. Witness what Rob just wrote in the section above. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 22:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
"If we didn't pick on Kendoll, we might as well shut up shop here at WIGO: CP."
You read my mind. And concerning Rob, all you're doing is feeding the troll. Nihilist (talk) 22:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
You're not the first tedious little fucker through here, you know. You probably won't be the last either. Go ruin someone else's fun. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 22:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
If you find stalking and then subsequently making fun of the mentally handicapped kids that are homeschooled next to you fun, then by all means, don't let me be a party pooper. An American Nihilist (talk) 01:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Are you (a) trying to make a point, or (b) incapable of reading context, or (c) a totally witless fuck, or (d) an intolerant elitist who thinks it's beneath you to engage people/ideas different from your own? nobsWe Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!! 03:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I'd put my money on 'a', 'c', and 'd'. Nihilist (talk) 06:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

JPatt on GWash

Washington sacrificed "all" for a free America.img

Okay, Washington was a great man, the Father of Our Country, etc etc etc. And he did give up a lot.

But sacrificed "all"? Sorry, no. First, sacrificing "all" for your country generally refers to dying in it's service, which Washington did not do. Even putting that definition aside, he died a wealthy man --his estate was estimated at being worth $1 million at the time. And he's pretty much the most respected of the Presidents.

And then, of course, JPatt goes on to assert that "A failure to honor Washington is a win for liberalism. So, liberals hate Washington? Huh? True, we do avoid the near ancestor-worship that conservatives heap on ol' George and the rest of the founders -- we do things that point out he owned slaves, and I've heard it argued he wasn't as great a general as the myth presents him as. But I've not heard anyone saying that we should, oh, tear down the Washington Monument or some such.

In other words, JPatt is an idiot. But we knew that already. MDB (talk) 13:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Not true; the earthquake that broke the Washington Monument was because liberals; "In the last days there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes , in divers places. All these are the beginning of the end" nobsWe Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!! 13:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
"And there shall in that time be rumours of things going astray, and there will be a great confusion as to where things really are, and nobody will really know where lieth those little things with the sort of raffia work base, that has an attachment that will not be there." Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic?Moderator 14:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, he did give up a cushy (albeit incompetent) position as a general in the British army, to lead a rag tag bunch of rebels against the British and thus face execution for treason. His record in the war wasn't great (and the less said about his record in the French and Indian war, the better - Fort Necessity, anybody?), although he did win the battle that mattered, albeit with the help of the French. He was probably better at rallying the troops than actual military strategy. Countdown to Jpatt's head exploding in 3... 2... --PsyGremlinPraat! 13:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
George Washington is the greatest because he was anti-abortion (he never once said anything in favor of aborting babies), he didn't believe in global warming and he wasn't the lamestream media's bitch like Barack Hussein Obama is. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
How to make a conservative's head explode when it concerns George Washington: What did he do when faced with an armed revolt over taxes? Order it crushed by military force. MDB (talk) 14:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
What about them there slaves Washington owned? Did he give those up? Well, yes, only after he died (dower slaves continued in service for his wife). Give it up, liberals! AndyToad.gifNorsemanCyser Melomel 15:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Occasionaluse (talk) 15:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The First Sedition leader deserves accolades until the day his country dies. --99.102.193.84 (talk) 15:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Then shouldn't the southern states stop honoring Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee? Last I heard, the CSA died. Reichhol (talk) 16:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
How dare you impune our illustrious heritage! -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Seriously, "A failure to honor Washington is a win for liberalism" should be enough to make anyone facepalm. Even Glenn Beck. Senator Harrison (talk) 15:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Silly JPatt, you can't outcrazy the boss when it comes to anything, including Washington's birthday. Remember, Andy held that President's Day was an example of the secularization of language, that George Washington was a SAINT (perhaps of the Church of Satan!) and atheistic liberals try downplay his recordimg. That last thing is why the US doesn't honor Washington at all.... except for naming the capital after him, a state after him, a giant monument in the capital named after him, putting his face on Mt. Rushmore, having his face on the dollar AND quarter, frequently ranking as greatest president (or in the top 5), named several cities, colleges, universities, counties after him.... but we don't celebrate his birthday! --Night Jaguar (talk) 16:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Even by Andy standards, that one was bizarre. A saint in the Church of Satan? MDB (talk) 17:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
So if ALL THAT is a win for liberalism and secularism—mind you, one that neither liberals nor secularists fought for—what do we call changing his namesake airport to be named after a known criminal? -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
"Sacrificing all"...I don't think there's ANY president that ever did that. Alan Turing, maybe. Socrates, perhaps. Job, definitely, if he was a real person (which I doubt), and even then he got it all back. -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
What was Washington suppose to do with the slaves? "You're free, pal! Good luck!" No severance package, unemployment compensation, GED, housing, dinner tonight, etc. etc. etc. "Oh, hey, and get you're shit out of the shanties right away, they've been rented to cash paying tenents." nobsWe Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!! 20:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Mr. Smith, um...do you know there're classes you can take? They like, explain history. You can just go there and ask "what was slavery like", "what happened to freed slaves", anything... 99.50.96.218 (talk) 20:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh, so this is the "Washington did'em a favor argument for not freeing his slaves. nobsWe Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!! 21:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── But let's look at PsyGremlin's argument: Washington was a half-wit commander who should have freed his slaves. Ok. So he free's his slaves, destroy's his business in doing so (Washington remains the richest President ever, adjusted for inflation) can't afford to raise an army at his own expense to fight the British, the British win, and we all (like South African's & kiwis) remain slaves of the Queen. What a tradeoff. nobsWe Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!! 21:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Rob, you really need to get over your kiwi hatred. Kiwis are either cute, delicious, or FUCKING AWESOME. Sparky! I forgot to put something here, as you can see.
Really, Rob? You're arguing against freeing slaves? Really? Anyway, Washington had slaves long after the revolutionary war was already won. He could have freed them then. And why didn't he attempt to end slavery as President of the United States? Also, by your logic, I guess by freeing them in his will (after Martha died) he was a job destroyer. There's so much more wrong, but I'll stop there. --Night Jaguar (talk) 22:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
The slaves of the Queen thing had me in stitches. Washington's namesake may have had a throne and a crown, but the Americans weren't his slaves by anyone's estimation, and the same certainly applies to his descendants. Parliament was sovereign by this point, but as we've covered previously the American "revolution" made no substantial difference there, it just meant a different bunch of rich white men were running things. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 22:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, it would have been terrible to be a "slave to the Queen". Washington probably knew some people who could have told him how horrible it was to be owned by another person. --Night Jaguar (talk) 22:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Great idea Rob, counter the GW had slaves with "slaves to the Queen". It'd work beautifully except for the fact that we outlawed slavery way before you lot, with Royal Assent no less. If GW hadn't won that war you'd all actually be like Canadians now, which would mean that Americans abroad wouldn't have to pretend to be Canadian. -- Iscariot Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012! 23:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Let's see, the founding colonists felt King George was taking away their rights as Englishmen and British subjects, making them slaves. So they rose in armed rebellion with George Washington as Commander-In -Chief. nobsWe Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!! 23:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Troll. Rob doesn't believe a word of this. Why are people continuing to cross examine him about beliefs he's only pretending to have? DamoHi 00:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

First through his conspiracy theories on Watergate, and now this: Rob may be more batshit crazy than Assfly.

How were the causes of the American Revolution in any way worse than the subjugation of millions of blacks? Osaka Sun (talk) 02:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, they did discuss it in formulating te Declaration of Independence. In a long list of particulars of King George removing colonial settlers rights (i.e making them slaves) and making them slaves, one of King George's sins was engaging in the slave trade. That can, in true American fashion, got kicked down the road. [16] nobsWe Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!! 03:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
... ladies and gentlemen, history being rewritten: the US condemned slavery in the early 1800's. --il'Dictator Mikal 03:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
See, that's what happens when formerly less developed, undeveloped, undeveloping, non-align, post-aligned, currently graduated to rank as First World school systems get infected with commie text books. The US did deal with the question of slavery early on. Senator Mason and Senator Dixon compromised on the Mason-Dixon line, slavery would not exist north of the Mason-Dixon line. South of the Dixie line, another matter. And the problem of extending the Mason-Dixon line west of the Mississippi River, that can got kicked down the road.... nobsWe Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!! 03:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
that's what happens when formerly less developed, undeveloped, undeveloping, non-align, post-aligned, currently graduated to rank as First World school systems get infected with commie text books. Which countries you talking about this time? AceModerator 03:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Rob theres so much wrong with what you said. --il'Dictator Mikal 03:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
He didn't even try answer my question. So I'll ask it one more time: Were the socioeconomic conditions in the Thirteen Colonies responsible for the Revolutionary War comparable to the British slave trade?
And apparently the Fathers didn't give a shit enough about the abolition question to put that clause into the Declaration anyway. If they did we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place. Like Thomas Day said: "If there be an object truly ridiculous in nature, it is an American patriot, signing resolutions of independency with the one hand, and with the other brandishing a whip over his affrighted slaves." Osaka Sun (talk) 03:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
That's right. What unstated here, and a matter of interpretive history, is the underlying racist sentiment that both slaveholders, and colonists above (what later became) the Mason-Dixon line, blamed King George for bringing black Africans to American shores for economic exploitation. A consensus majority, north and south, may not have liked it at the time, and most probably wanted to stop the growth in numbers of African slaves brought to America (perhaps because they were racist, or other reasons), but regarded the British ships unloading slaves for sale as a large part of the problem of being part of a political system (the British Empire) in which they had no rights, (or themselves becoming slaves). nobsWe Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!! 04:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Except it was a spanish priest who suggested using black slaves in masse in the americas... and there was slavery north of the mason dixen line... in some states til the 1810's. --il'Dictator Mikal 04:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Were black slaveholders north or south of the Mason-Dixon? nobsWe Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!! 11:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Sharky Ken

User apologized for Ken-induced snarkiness, so Ken is sharky tooimg. He must have been bullied something awful in school. Whoover (talk) 23:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Look up two sections....Stick Boy (talk) 02:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Personal tools

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support