- (ec) Maratrean is a deranged attention whore. And here you are, whoever the fuck you are, feeding that dumb cunt troll. Just ignore him, and eventually he'll go bore some other group of people to tears. It was good when he was gone, let's do all what we can (by ignoring him) to encourage him to go away again and this time stay away. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 21:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- Fuck off BoN. He made a post as conservapedia user and this where people discuss conservapedia. AceModerator 21:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hey Ace, eat my shit, you fucking moron. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 22:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- OK, dickhead! AceModerator 22:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hey Ace, my rather loose cunt has got a rather bad yeast infection at the moment, want a lick? 188.8.131.52 (talk) 22:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- It's not the same thing as the fallacy-fallacy. The fallacy-fallacy is an argument of the form "A is an argument for B. A is fallacious. Therefore, B is false". That's not exactly what the "name-the-fallacy fallacy" is (or the catchy name fallacy, as someone at LessWrong calls it). The name-a-fallacy-fallacy is asserting "Your argument commits the X fallacy" without giving sufficient justification for that. So in the name-a-fallacy-fallacy, your assertion that my argument is fallacious is unjustified. Whereas, in the fallacy-fallacy, your claim that I am committing a fallacy could be completely justified and correct. See the difference? (((Zack Martin)))™ 08:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Pretty certain there's already a fallacy for "make up some bullshit with zero evidence and use that to refute whatever they said". I mean, it's the same as going "But what's that got to do with the price of fish?" except you say, "The price of fish dictates this is false" and use a logical fallacy (picked seemingly at random) instead of fine seafood. Answering with bullshit is not exactly an original or groundbreaking debate technique. --Sasayaki (talk) 08:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- You might say its a "non sequitur", but it's much more effective than most, because it's the name of a logical fallacy, it sounds logical to many people, whereas most non sequiturs will just sound stupid. And, it's not even necessarily false. They might well be right that your logical argument contains fallacy X, but if it's not bleedingly obvious, then if they haven't provided any explanation of how/why, it's still not right as an argument. (((Zack Martin)))™ 08:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- So the only real difference between your fallacy and a pure non sequitur is that yours has to be the name of a logical fallacy. Non sequiturs could be accurate, I suppose, in so far as a generic response can be accurate, except they don't follow the flow of conversation or appear without evidence. And I don't think the effectiveness of an application of a fallacy should grant it a new name. Would you accept a form of non sequitur called the Titties fallacy where every answer was Titties? Probably more effective than "Rockmelon", and titties are always relevant, so this is much more likely to be accurate. Just saying. This whole thing seems like it's not as insightful as you might think. Sasayaki (talk) 09:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Nothing Maratrean says is as insightful as he thinks it is. Ajkgordon (talk) 09:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Let me put it this way. Alice produces some elaborate complicated many step argument to some conclusion. Bob says "special pleading!". Let's suppose, that somewhere in Alice's fifty pages of dense prose, special pleading does in fact occur. So what Bob has said, is actually true, and relevant. However, Bob still is not arguing correctly, because he is not pointing to where in Alice's fifty pages of dense prose the special pleading actually occurs. To be arguing correctly, he needs to point out, at which exact step of Alice's argument does the alleged fallacy occur, etc. So this fallacy is not necessarily a non sequitur, because it is not necessarily irrelevant, but it is still in some sense fallacious even when it is in fact relevant. The fallaciousness lies not in necessarily being false or irrelevant, but in failing to provide enough information to demonstrate to a reasonable independent observer that what one has said actually is true and relevant, even if it does in fact so happen to be. (((Zack Martin)))™ 10:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- So name the fallacy fallacy and misname the fallacy fallacy would be the same thing? nobsCorporations are people, too. 12:13, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
How well will Romney do?
Andy: Polls closed, how well did romney do?. According to my source (google) Romney was at 57%, while Conservative Gingrich was doing worse then Paul (he also lost to paul in Connecticut, Rhode Island (by 20%) and New york) with a sweep for the librul Romney in all 5 states.--il'Dictator Mikal 02:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- That's still pretty bad. Gingrich is hardly even campaigning, and Paul is ignored by the media. Romney has spent big this campaign, and if this is the best he can do, then that is pretty sad. Mr. Anon (talk) 03:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- Did you notice that the article for the Gingrich administration is now in the speculative past tense?Czolgolz (talk) 03:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- I couldn't stand it the way it was and did Andy a favor. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 03:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- Actually in 3 of the 5 he was somewhere in the 60's, two in the 50's. --il'Dictator Mikal 03:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- Once again, his opponents are Ron Paul and Gingrich, the latter of which is hardly even campaigning. Romney is spending ridiculous amounts of money for each vote, and though it is working it hardly unites the party. John McCain was getting in the 70's and 80's after he was guaranteed the nomination. Mr. Anon (talk) 03:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- Romney is spending big buck, but he is now campaigning against Obama. --Opcn with regards to regarding my regardliness 05:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- According to the New York Times, Romney got 67% in Connecticut, 57% in Delaware, 62% in New York, 58% in Pennsylvania, and 63% in Rhode Island. Santorum still managed 18% in PA, Gingrich got 27% in Delaware and Paul 24% in RI. So it still looks like around 1/3 of the GOP won't vote for Romney. Prodigal (talk) 06:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- Of course, just because they won't vote for him in the primaries doesn't mean they won't vote for him in the presidential. Andy won't even mention through gritted teeth that people like himself might hate Romney now but will happily vote for him in the presidential, simply because he isn't Obama. And if that's the best that Romney can do, (the I'm not Obama vote) then that's a pretty poor campaigning stance. Doraemon話そう！話そう！ 08:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, but if you're still voting for Romney's opponents at this stage, when it's clear the race is over, is it really likely you'll be out campaigning for him during the General? This isn't like '08, where it wasn't clear who was going to win until very close to the end. Prodigal (talk) 09:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- You might not go out campaigning, but you'll certainly be out there voting against Obama. And if people do campaign (ie, the entire of Conservapedia), it'll be likewise campaigning against Obama rather than glorifying the holy Mitt. Doraemon話そう！話そう！ 11:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- No, you aren't going to get all those people voting for Romney, especially once he starts shaking the Etcha-Sketch and switching to moderate positions - which he's already started doing. Such people will stay at home or vote for whatever other 3rd party candidate they have if there's one suitably right wing. On sites like Conservapedia I think we'll see more focus on Senate and House elections than in the past, because Schlafly really doesn't like Romney. Prodigal (talk) 12:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- Obama the incumbent is in a similar position as Carter was in 1980 with rising gas prices, etc.; Reagan the Conservative won handily without a very serious 3rd Party challenge from the Libertarian party -- its best performance ever (something li8ke 2 million votes).] Ron Paul was the 1988 candidate and got only half as many votes. It's unlikely a 3rd party will siphon a margin of victory in these circumstances. nobsCorporations are people, too. 12:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- That's not relevant. All I'm pointing out is that the assumption that the 1/3 of the GOP membership voting against Romney will all change their minds and vote for him in the General is overly simplistic. Third parties won't matter because Obama will win fairly easily - 5-6 points would be my guess at the moment. Prodigal (talk) 13:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- I'd imagine that Paul is the only one Obama could siphon a significant percent of. With the rest, it really is that simplistic. For instance, there are precisely zero Gingrich backers who are going to vote for Obama in the general. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- I never said they would, but it's still not that simplistic. They can always stay at home. They can vote for minor parties. In a tight election (remember Missouri last time or Florida in 2000) that can prove critical. Prodigal (talk) 14:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- You've got a point, but I think you underestimate Gingrich/Santoroum supporters. Chances are, if you support Gingrich/Santorum, you think Obama is the great satan and you must do everything in your power to stop him from destroying our country. Few, if any, will stay home or "throw away" their vote when the future of 'Merica hanging in the balance. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- I strangely read that as "Mercia"; been reading too much Anglo-Saxon history.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- No he isn't since no one is seriously challenging him for the nomination. Personally, as long as there aren't any major upheavals or a independent candidates, I see this election as a repeat of the one in 2004. A not-so-popular sitting president versus a rich and distant Massachusetts flip-flopper. Vulpius (talk) 15:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure I've yet to see a poll that shows more support for Romney than for Obama. All the Dems have to do is make sure more of their people get their asses to the polls on polling day than do the Republicans in a few key states and they have this in the bag. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 15:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- The theory that disillusioned Christian Right voters will stay home is a distinct possibility, as happened in the 1996 election when GOP totals were flat from 1992. But that was in boom times. This disillusionment is offset but demoralized Obama youth supporters -- two years out of high school or college and two years unemployed already. As well as the bad news on the Social Security Trust fund which angers seniors, and only promises young voters higher tax increases because of how the Trust Fund has been mismanaged, according to the Associated Press. nobsCorporations are people, too. 16:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- There have been a few polls (mainly from Rasmussen, so basically rubbish) that have shown Romney ahead by a couple of points. National polls are largely a waste of time, however. Polls are showing Obama ahead in North Carolina, New Hampshire, Florida, Ohio, and even in a tie in Arizona. Conventional wisdom has been saying that Missouri and Iowa will definitely go Republican this year, but even there, polls have shown tight races. It's too early for serious predictions, but it's quite possible that Obama's share of the national vote will drop but he'll end up with more electoral votes. Unlikely, but possible. Prodigal (talk) 16:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- And right on cue, here's Nate Silver on predictions based on early polls. Prodigal (talk) 17:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- I am going to go against the grain here and, at least for now, call this Romney's election to win and he'll actually get the victory based on people's general views towards the economy, debt,and gas prices combined with some on the right's view of Obama as "illegitimate".--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- I think you're over-valuing the legitimacy claims. They may run deep among people who hold them, but they won't be a factor in the election because the kind of people who believe that would never ever ever ever ever vote for the Democratic candidate no matter what. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 17:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- You are right, they will never vote Democratic, but it is probably enough for them to vote Republican rather than "sit this one out" because they didn't get their conservative primary candidate.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- Birtherism was a gift from the Hillary Clinton crowd to the right. --Opcn with regards to regarding my regardliness 17:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- (ec)Whoever wins Ohio wins the election. Even Rasmussen has Obama ahead, but the demographics on this 5 point spread are the key. On balance economic conditions & performance work against Obama across the board -- all age groups. You can bet Obama is secretly engineering an October surprise with an Iranian or N. Korean nuke crisis, cause Americans generally rally round the Comamander-in-Chief in times of foreign crisis. nobsCorporations are people, too. 17:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- People said then president Bush would manufacture or bring to a head a foreign or terrorist crisis in 2004 so that he could win re-election and it didn't happen. They said it again in 2008 so Bush could cancel the elections, and that didn't happen. Now here we are again in 2012 with you claiming Obama will pull the same stunt for his election. When has they ever proven true in the past for a president?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- FDR 1940 (despite weak economy; see Roosevelt Recession); Nixon 1972, "Peace is at hand" despite corruption charges; Lincoln 1864, despite a war of his own making. Other examples. The foreign crisis Carter proved inept at handling (Iranian hostage crisis) was a big factor in him getting the boot. If it occurred a little less than a year later, the people would have rallied to him as the did when it frst erupted. nobsCorporations are people, too. 19:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- FDR in 1940 ran on the issue of not going into WWII. Learn your facts. Mr. Anon (talk) 01:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- That is exactly what I said. Read his famous "fool's gold" speech, and the American people rallied to him. nobsCorporations are people, too. 03:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- And Carter did not create the crisis. In fact, he is vastly underrated there. He lost re-election because he didn't negotiate the hostages in time. Regardless, he did his job and continued negotiating until the last day of his term, when he got the hostages freed. And Lincoln's re-election also happens to be due to the fact that most of the states left in the Union had already voted for him in 1860. Learn your facts. Mr. Anon (talk) 01:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I didn't say he created the crisis, I said the America people rallied to him when the crisis erupted in Oct-Nov 1979; if you can dig up approval ratings from then, it will bare me out. But the people grew tired of it as it dragged out 444 days. Had the Iranian Revolution & hostage taking occurred weeks before the 1980 election, the conservative nature of the American public would have stuck with C-i-C in a time of crisis. Reagan was viewed as something of an untested extremist. Only Carter's incompetence proven over time led people to support a tuff line from Reagan. nobsCorporations are people, too. 03:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- Rob never lets facts get in the way of making a partisan political point. ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 01:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- See JSTOR, Revised Models of the "Rally Phenomenon": The Case of the Carter Presidency. On a somewhat related note regarding competency, see USNews Obama's Job Approval Drops Below Carter's, but this is more related to economic performance, which wasn't Carter's strong suit, either. nobsCorporations are people, too. 03:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- User:Mikalos209/Cool--il'Dictator Mikal 03:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- You will when you got a North Korean missile stuck up your asshole. nobsCorporations are people, too. 04:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- You mean those missiles that always fall right apart after take off? Will they have to do it by hand? --Revolverman (talk) 04:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- Ahhh, but see that is an example of a successful intelligence operation. You only hear about the fuck ups & disasters, like the Bay of Pigs or Iran-Contra. The successes, like the meltdown of the Iranian nuke program with a computer worm, or destroying a North Korean missile with a particle beam, you never hear about until decades afterword. nobsCorporations are people, too. 04:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- "like the meltdown of the Iranian nuke program with a computer worm" I only heard about this on Coast to Coast AM. Not the most credible place for info. "destroying a North Korean missile with a particle beam" Wat. --Revolverman (talk) 04:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- Did you see wp:Particle_beam_weapon#Modern_experiments? I know an oldtimer who worked on and participated in a test at Kirtland using a particle beam mounted on a DC-10 to shoot down a cruise missile, in 1968 (I read some of the technical manuals he pilfered working on the project), you know, the technology commie-libs called fantasy during Reagan's Star Wars program? The US has been able to shoot down a moving target from a vehicle in motion with a particle beam for more than 40 years. How do you suppose New Zealand's program to defend itself with that kinda technology is coming along? nobsCorporations are people, too. 05:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- OK, I'll bite, why would the US have basicly laser cannons since the late 60s, and proceed to do FUCK ALL with them? --Revolverman (talk) 05:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- As the oldtimer explained it, it was another advanced high tech Vietnam era wasteful Pentagon spending program that was mouthballed after the field test (which several Congressman, Senators, and top level Pentagon types attended). It was probably resurrected and attached to space, satellite, and naval programs later. But nothing compares to a real life chance to test it ("combat testing" after "field testing"). Weapons development is a fascinating subject, especially for the economics involved. nobsCorporations are people, too. 05:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- But as to the question, "do FUCK all with it?", while you wanna stay ahead in weapons development, you never want to use it til you have to. Once it's introduced, your enemies can copy it as seen here only 3 days ago.. Then you have to develop a technology to counter the technology you just developed. nobsCorporations are people, too. 05:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- Particle beam, particle beam.
- Blowing stuff up to try to be seen.
- How's he do it? It's not important.
- Particle beam.
- Is he neutral, mixed ions, or positive throughout?
- When he's underwater, does he short out?
- Or is he unstable all on his own?
- Nobody knows. Particle beam.
- Atmosphere screen, Atmosphere screen.
- Atmosphere screen hates particle beam.
- They have a fight, Atmosphere wins.
- Atmosphere screen.
- 184.108.40.206 (talk) 06:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- Wait, why has no-one picked up on this obvious lie Rob has been telling? Particle beams Robbo? Really? Tell you what, you can prove it by furnishing us all with copies of these "technical manuals" this "old timer" "pilfered". I've built a tesla coil, a coil gun and a rail gun, particle beams can't be that hard to do as a next project.
- Now to save Rob from responding, his next reply says we can't have copies because it's all classified. Which leads to the obvious question of where the hell did Rob get security clearance from? Of course you can't get security clearance working at a mall, which means Robbo was breaking federal law by having his hands on the documents. And this is the point where his lie really breaks down, Robbo - The Commie Hunter, allowed some old befuddled idiot to show him classified documents and didn't (ironically) call the FBI? If he showed you Rob, how many other people could have gotten their hands on this stuff? Those KGB agents aren't like cops, they don't have to identify themselves if you ask a direct question.
- Ergo, Rob's a lying fucker. -- Iscariot Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012! 11:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- Let's clarify what this really means: the allegation Obama ordered the shoot down of the North Korean missile test with secret advanced technology is in fact an argument for Obama's re-election. He did the right thing. And even more, he did the right thing (this time) in not taking credit for it (unlike the bin Laden snuff job). True "deep purple conservatives" (in contrast to Reds & Pinkos) will tell you it was the right thing to do. nobsCorporations are people, too. 04:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- This was in 1991 and the guy was in his 60s then. Here in NM it is not unusual to run into people who work at the labs (Sandia & Los Alamos); hell, even people who worked under Oppie though they are fewer and fewer. nobsCorporations are people, too. 11:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Another poll shows that it's going to be a close race in Arizona. If, and at the moment it's still a big "if", Obama is picking up states, it's almost impossible for Romney to win. Prodigal (talk) 05:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- Before every comment does Rob hit 'random page' on Conservapedia and incorporates whatever pops up into his comment? Seriously, the most random things seem to come out from him. Particle beam weapons? --Night Jaguar (talk) 11:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- Duh I think that's a Wikipedia link, duh? nobsCorporations are people, too. 11:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Robert, you are an idiot
Did you really just write "See JSTOR:Followed by the title of some article"? Do you even know what JSTOR is, dummy? Do you? I'll give you a hint, pinhead. It doesn't publish articles. It's a database of journals. The article you mentioned was published in The Journal of Politics (1993), 55 : pp 756-764. To say "see JSTOR," followed by a title, is pretty much akin to saying "see the Springfield Public Library," or "see Barnes and Noble," followed by a title. Christ, you're stupid. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 04:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- Duh, I was corroborating Wikipedia:Reliable source examples, the only external link used in that section about finding good sources for historical writing. nobsCorporations are people, too. 04:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- Uh, TOP, Rob was not exactly trying to make a formal academic citation there; a better comparison is with a statement like "See Wikipedia." ListenerXTalkerX 04:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Mean ol' universities use capitalist pricing
Universities decide to price courses according to their costs. Socialists like Andy naturally disapproveimg. Phiwum (talk) 17:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- Capitalism involves supply and demand. The problem is that demand has been artificially inflated. --Opcn with regards to regarding my regardliness 17:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- Demand of what?
- The article is about the fact that certain courses (math, science and business (?)) cost more to teach and schools are charging more because of that fact. Now, maybe demand is also higher for these courses than for, say, medieval Philosophy, but that wasn't mentioned in the article as far as I skimmed it. If demand is higher for these courses, all the more reason a good capitalist would charge more for 'em! Phiwum (talk) 18:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- Demand for education. It has been driven up by altering the pricing structure. The increased volume rewards schools who increase volume rather than schools that increase efficiency. This drives up prices. --Opcn with regards to regarding my regardliness 18:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- Eh, okay. Whatever. Not sure that I get your point in this context, but okay. Phiwum (talk) 19:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- It's only liberal colleges. The article mentions one in Nebraska and three in South Dakota. Whoover (talk) 19:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- To be fair, the article says "more than 140 public universities now use 'differential tuition' plans", and all universities are "liberal colleges". Duh. Phiwum (talk) 20:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- That's a weird list. Mathematics should be incredibly cheap to teach. It's not even expensive to do mathematics research (a mathematics building basically consists of perfectly ordinary offices, with far more blackboard or whiteboards than usual). Back when I worked in university finance the expensive courses were Medicine (and allied disciplines), then a bunch of lab-based sciences like Chemistry, and then some engineering disciplines (e.g. EE is pretty expensive) most courses were pretty cheap to run because students mostly sit in big rooms while someone talks to them and that just doesn't cost very much.
- The price lists for these US universities appear to be basically set up like a diploma mill. Pay us more money, get a "better" degree. Generally that's not good news for quality. After all, if I paid $500 extra, I want my value for money, and that means you'd better grant me a degree, I didn't pay to be taught stuff, I paid for the valuable certificate. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 16:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- Very true. So what you need is a European system, where society pays you to get a degree and assumes you'll pay it back through the taxes on the highly paid job you'll end up in.--Fergus Mason Thruppence I got for selling my coat, tuppence for selling my blanket. If ever I 'list for a soldier again, the Devil shall be my Sergeant. 11:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
How important is Conservapedia for RationalWiki?
Three pics larronsicut fur in nocte 21:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- Those are really interesting. Thank you. Prodigal (talk) 04:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- Good stuff. Useful. nobsCorporations are people, too. 14:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Stay Klassy, Karajou.
Breivik didn't kill a bunch of kids because he was a right wing nut who hated Muslims, just like the CP crowd. He did it because Darwinimg. There's just no low that either Creation Ministries International, Conservapedia or Popeye himself will ever consider too low to sink to. You win the race to the bottom, guys, you win. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 00:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- I read that creation article myself. It was fucking awful. No mention that Brevik was anti-multiculturalism, identified himself and his orgainsation (whether real or imagined) using overtly religious terms and was viciously anti-immigration. No, it was DARWIN!!! AceModerator 00:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict) What kills me is that just because some asshole presumably shares your ideology and does horrible shit, doesn't mean you're a horrible shit by association. If I tattooed a US flag on my ass, said gay marriage was evil, and insisted that intelligent design is a valid scientific theory that should be taught to the exclusion of natural selection, that wouldn't mean Karajou's "good name" would be shamed if I started raping kittens, would it? People really need to own up to the mistakes of their peers. Hey, I'm a communist, and I think Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Tse-Tung, and even Lenin and Che Guevarra are murderous assholes. But I'm not. Not murdering, at least.--"Shut up, Brx." 00:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- just because some asshole presumably shares your ideology and does horrible shit, doesn't mean you're a horrible shit by association
- brx makes sense. Karajou is a worthless piece of shit (Yah you karajou, punk-ass motherfucker. Wanna step outside? You're a disgrace to conservatism, and the conservative movement, and God knows what else. I read your racist anti-illegal immigrant rants, and if Obama wins re-election, I'm gonna blame twisted mutherfuckers such as yourself for destroying the Republi8can Party, conservative movement, and America as well with your ignorance, hate, and drivel. By their fruits ye shall know them; look at the marginalized, segregated, unholy and unfunny cesspit you turned Conservapedia into. Your alleged "conservatism" is like the third servant in the parable of the talents,  "Thou wicked and vile servant. Depart from me, I never knew ye." Think I'm joking? look at the increase of Wikipedia & Rationalwiki compared to you labors). nobsCorporations are people, too. 14:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Breivik's manifesto has a fucking big red cross on the front, did they miss that? ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 02:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- yeah his actions are not consistent with Christianity but they are consistent with an evolutionist worldview. AceModerator 02:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- CMI is revolting, but what would you expect from an organization that makes its stock and trade out of lying. I can forgive the credulous fundie, but those CMI creeps are beyond evil. 04:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- Karajou seems to have missed the bit where Breivik said that he prayed: "Questioned by his own lawyers as to how he was able to carry out the attacks which killed 77 in Norway last summer, Breivik described a "meditation" technique he had developed which mixed "Christian prayer" and Japanese "Bushido warrior codex" practised by Samurai fighters." That doesn't mean all Christians are mass murderers. Prodigal (talk) 04:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- It's nothing new - those lovely people over at WND were calling him a Darwinist back in July last year ("Breivik instead hails Charles Darwin, whose evolutionary theories stand in contrast to the claims of the Bible"). Funnily enough, I did a word search in his manifesto for 'Darwin' and here's what I found (6 matches in total):
- Pg 57: He urges us to remember how unique some elements of our culture are: “The concepts of free enquiry and free expression and the right to criticise entrenched beliefs are things we take so much for granted they are almost part of the air we breathe. We need to recognise them as distinctly Western phenomena. They were never produced by Confucian or Hindu culture.” “But without this concept, the world would not be as it is today. There would have been no Copernicus, Galileo, Newton or Darwin."
- Pg 349: The latest wave of radical feminism has severely wounded the family structure of the Western world. It is impossible to raise the birth rates to replacement level before women are valued for raising children, and before men and women are willing to marry in the first place. Human beings are social creatures, not solitary ones. We are created to live with partners. Marriage is not a “conspiracy to oppress women”, it’s the reason why we’re here. And it’s not a religious thing, either. According to strict, atheist Darwinism, the purpose of life is to reproduce.
- Pg 1227: People who are familiar with “the game”; the socio-economic rat race where looks, culture and economy are the deciding factors know how the unwritten rules work. We say something, some politically correct BS like it’s the inside that counts, or that all ethnic groups are equal, but we don’t really mean it. The only reason lie publicly and even to our friends is because our countries are ruled by a Marxist entity and we are not allowed to say the truth. Social-darwinism was the norm before the 1950. Back then, it was allowed to say what we feel. Now, however, we have to disguise our preferences to avoid the horrible consequences of being labeled as a genetical preferentialist. Many people I know who supports mass-Muslim immigration (by voting on political parties in support of multiculturalism) deliberately avoids living with Muslims, simply because they don’t like them. But they still support mass-Muslim immigration.
- Pg 1232: Segregation in combination with a complete halt in aid and facilitating the African governments to implement nationalistic doctrines are in fact the best African strategy. Policies like these are in fact the most anti-racist approach of all as it clearly defines the new responsibilities and limitations. Because with responsibilities and limitations, comes opportunity. Nevertheless, people who are very short sighted will consider these policies quite cynical or darwinistic. However, long term, it is the most humanistic and responsible approach.
- Pg 1386: (In response to the self-posed question: What should be our civilisational objectives, how do you envision a perfect Europe?) “Logic” and rationalist thought (a certain degree of national Darwinism) should be the fundament of our societies. I support the propagation of collective rational thought but not necessarily on a personal level. Because, if a woman was purely rational, she would choose to not have babies at all, and instead live her life in a purely egotistical manner. We should strive to become a civilisation where the individual’s acquisition of wealth would no longer be the driving force in our lives. Instead, we would focus much more of our resources to better ourselves and our communities by channelling at least 20% of the budget to research, science and technology.
- Pg 1407: He's read The origin of Species. And the Bible. And Dante. And War & Peace.
- So perhaps Koward would care to enlighten us as just what part of Breivik's manifesto was inspired by Darwin. Fire up your Texan plain, down that bottle of Mad Dog and explain to us how Darwin is involved. — Unsigned, by: Psygremlin / talk / contribs
- Page 30 : Cultural Marxist stalwarts apparently know exactly what they want to do and how they plan to do it. They have actually already succeeded in accomplishing much of their agenda.
- How did this situation come about in European universities? Gertrude Himmelfarb has observed that it slipped past traditional academics almost unobserved until it was too late. It occurred so “quietly” that when they “looked up”, postmodernism was upon them with a vengeance. “They were surrounded by such a tidal wave of multicultural subjects such as radical feminism, deconstructed relativism as history and other courses” which undermine the perpetuation of Western civilisation. Indeed, this tidal wave slipped by just as Antonio Gramsci and the Frankfurt School had envisioned – a quiet revolution propagating a European hate ideology with the goal of destroying Western civilisation and which was: anti-God, anti-Christian, anti-family, anti-nationalist, anti-patriot, anti conservative, anti-hereditarian, anti-ethnocentric, anti-masculine, anti-tradition, and anti-morality.
- Right, I think we know where Breivik's really coming from - exactly the same place as these guys who accuse him of worshipping Darwin. ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 11:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- P.S. I count 61 mentions of Jesus v 6 of Darwin. ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 12:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
The Bruins Lost
You know who was in goal, and I fuckin hate andy. The bruins lost, but he dosn't care. They were only of use when thomas basicly gave the big F U to Obama. And Thunderstruck is sad...--ThunderstruckMONKEYS 02:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- As a Habs fan, I can only force out "How do you like it now?" --Revolverman (talk) 02:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- It's going to feel good to be able to root against the Caps again now that the Bruins are done. One thing about Tim Thomas that always escapes me is how he manages to remain so happy on the ice, not getting too involved in the emotions that go with the sport. I guess maybe for him it is all about the money - who knows. Q0 (talk) 02:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- He's too sane to be a truly great Goaltender.--Revolverman (talk) 02:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- @Revolverman, Hey, how are those Habs doing. Oh, right. Sorry.--ThunderstruckMONKEYS 03:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- Getting a great draft pick and not having a goaltender that is so egotistical that he turned a non-partisan dinner into a media circus is something to be sorry over?--Revolverman (talk) 03:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- As a Vancouver fan I...still feel nothing but disappointment and shame! =( --YossarianSpeak, Memory 10:13, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- I was thinking about that last night; Thomas, the staunch conservative Obama-hater, gets beat by a black man playing in Washington D.C. for a goal in OT, and I was wondering what Andy's reaction, if any, would be. And since my Penguins are out now, I'll take any team in the West to win. Aboriginal Noise Oh, you want to hit people with garbage cans? 11:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- To note, having read what I typed, i am not claiming that Tim Thomas is a racist. Aboriginal Noise Oh, you want to hit people with garbage cans? 11:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- God cried when the Pens got knocked out. By the friggin' Flyers, no less. Phiwum (talk) 11:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- There is no more bitter pill to swallow than to be ousted by Philadelphia. Aboriginal Noise Oh, you want to hit people with garbage cans? 12:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- My season ended when the Hawks laid down and died in game six to those 'Yotes.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Guys, it wasn't Thomas' fault the Bruins lost. It was a "missed referee call"img. (Which means the Caps absolutely don't deserve to move on.) --Tabrcg23 (talk) 03:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- So, I guess Andy is unaware that NHL play offs are Best of 7 affairs? --Revolverman (talk) 03:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- The way I understand goaltender interference, as it is called on the ice, is if the puck precedes the player into the crease there is no goaltender interference. It is rarely called as such. And in typical Andy fashion, he doesn't report anything until the news potentially benefits him or his conservabuddies. Aboriginal Noise Oh, you want to hit people with garbage cans? 02:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Chuckarse the revelator
Oh goody, Flingbooty is starting a new series on the book of revelation. Anyone want in on the antichrist betting pool? Who will be the beast? The Pope? Ban Ki-Moon? Obama? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 22:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- Not the Pope, at least not on Andy's watch. Obama seems like the best choice. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 22:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- Biden for Anti-Christ 2016! nobsCorporations are people, too. 23:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- Legitimately funny Rob. however I don't think Biden has the charisma for the task. --Opcn with regards to regarding my regardliness 19:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Does Andy hate America?
Idle speculation, but curious as to what folks think. In the past few days, we've seen Andy clearly state that the democratically-elected president of his country is actually a fraud and not really the president, and he's doubled down on the whole "Obama is a Muslim" thing, which should mean nothing to a reasonable person, but coming from a hate-filled bigot speaks volumes. He discounts everybody who does not conform to his narroy ideological view as a "liberal," which is, to him, an epithet. Probably less than a few percent of the people believe all the necessary things involved in toeing the Andy line, and the country is so corrupt and the system so broken as to allow, from his POV, a fraud/liar/member-of-the-Muslim-horde to become its leader. Does Andy hate enough about America that we can say he actually hates America? Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 22:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- Of course Andy hates America. Peering into his warped version of history, we can deduce that his ideal state is a twelfth-century fascist theocracy wherein men toil without respite, women are pregnant chattel chained to the kitchen sink, the working classes are brutalised and disenfranchised, non-Fundamentalist "Christianity" religions are prohibited (enforced by a bloodstained Inquisition), foreigners are somewhere between "banned" and "bombed", gays are eradicated, and darkies are consigned to grovellingly shine shoes for top-hatted, lily-white capitalists counting coins in Detroit, MI. That bears no resemblance whatsoever to the reality of the contemporary United States; ergo Andy hates the USA. Because it doesn't conform with his vision of perfection. Ironclad (talk) 23:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- Wait, are we talking about Andy or Santorum here?
- Oh, and for what it's worth I don't really like where this is going. It's one thing to point out hypocrisy, but I like to stay away from disturbingly nationalist ideas like worrying about what America is and who hates it and who doesn't. Q0 (talk) 01:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- I see where your unease come from, but I can't help wonder about a guy who has such an Americo-centric orientation, but who seems to spend most of his time and effort crapping all over the country, and hating on the attitudes and opinions of most of the people that live in it. I actually don't care if he hates America--I think nationalism and patriotism are pretty regressive forces most of the time--I just think it's odd that for a guy who's all about how great the USA is, he rarely says anything good about it. Of course, he rarely says much good about anything or anyone. Haters gonna hate. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 02:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- I guess I'm a sensitive sort, but Ironclad's comment about Andy's desire for subservient darkies went too far for me. I don't think Andy believes that's the natural role for dark-skinned folk. I'm sure he has some racist tendencies, but nothing so explicit. Phiwum (talk) 03:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- Schlafly is undoubtably racist. This is a man who defended the Southern Strategy, and calls a former fellow classmate of his and President of the United States a "Muslim" and "Kenyan", both of which are only due to his skin color. Schlafly goes farther than all other fellow sysops on this; not even Ed Poor and Ken back him up much here. He called Obama an "affirmative action president" and has defended racist politicians such as Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul. Mr. Anon (talk) 03:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- Y'know, for the past little while, when the topic has come up. I've argued that Andy was less of a racist as a guy who was totally ignorant of the white privilege that he enjoys. But the "Affirmative Action President" crack makes me reconsider that. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 13:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
...a place where an article called "Conservapedia Proven Wrong"img is actually a list of how Conservapedia was proven correct. Seriously, the guy is an intolerable turd who can never, ever admit that he's wrong, no matter what. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 23:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- Breaking News: Conservapedia still stupid. More after the cut.±KnightOfTL;DRlavishly loquacious 23:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- It works both ways. If, say, Castro dies in the future and his death is independently confirmed by the International Red Cross through DNA, then CP can argue they were correct in being wrong; OTOH, if Castro is burried by party loyalists and outside identification denied, CP can move the page and say they were correct all along. nobsCorporations are people, too. 00:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- With regards to Castro's death, I think it's pretty obvious that Andy will just claim he's been dead since CP said he was dead, and the liberals in charge of the con are only now admitting it. Maybe he'll throw in something about conservapedia's dogged perseverance being the spanner in the works of the coverup. X Stickman (talk) 00:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- Or he can say CP was correct in proposing a plausible theory which the mainstream media didn't have the courage and later was proven wrong. nobsCorporations are people, too. 01:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- Are we talking about the same andy here?--il'Dictator Mikal 03:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- Substitute the word "ridiculous" with the word "plausible" and "courage" with "idiocy" and you might be on to something there, Rob. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 12:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- It really is a fucking awesome article to watch grow. It should by titled "why Andy can never, ever be wrong". Occasionaluse (talk) 12:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Do you know why few people name their children "Adolf"?
Because evolution.img--Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 04:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- My grandfather was named Adolph. During WWII his buddies refused to utter the name and took to calling him "Jerry" (a derogatory term for "German"). He changed his name to Abe. Whoover (talk) 04:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- A pity that Hitler had to go and bring such shame on a fine old German name. I wish his parents had named him John or something like that. ListenerXTalkerX 04:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- Crap hitler Ruined: A salute, a last name and First name, a facial hair style, a religious symbol, the title Fuhrer, Germany, German Pride, the German conscious, German Nationalism, , The entire Jewish Cultural base, faith in Humanity, the idea of "fourth Reich", scandanivian pride, scandanavia...--il'Dictator Mikal 05:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- I always thought you were stupid, Mikalos. And I mean really stupid. Wow. 06:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- He did ruin the moustache of Charlie Chaplin and Ollie Hardy. Richard Herring wore it a couple of years ago as part of a show to see if it could be rehabilitated. When he appeared with it on HIGNFY, his fellow contestants were visibly shocked, such is Hitler's legacy. Ajkgordon (talk) 09:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- Michael Jordan wore the moustache and had a similar result. --Night Jaguar (talk) 09:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- now that was just mean nutty. --il'Dictator Mikal 11:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- Nutty Roux is an ogre. I'm a nice guy. 12:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- At the risk of having sex in a canoe, both the originators of Budweiser (Busch family) and Coors were named Adolf or Adolphus. Used to be a common name. So was "Ralph" until The Honeymooners became popular, and I doubt many young girls are being named "Monica" in America anymore. -- Seth Peck (talk) 15:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- I'm just glad Hitler picked such a dumb moustache/hair combo. What if he had a mohawk and a goatee. Then two of the world's coolest hair styles would've been off-limits forever. X Stickman (talk) 19:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- Well the Germans are known for their weird facial hair, so I'd have preferred if he'd adopted one of these and a mullet. ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 22:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- "Sex in a canoe" - I love that term. --Tabrcg23 (talk) 02:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- I guess this moron is not a beer drinker. Whoover (talk) 14:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
The Magic Man in the Sky
Kenny (after 10 revisions) claimed that the apologetics book called "The Magic Man In The Sky" was #1 in the Religion category, #2 in New Releases and in the top 5% of all books on Amazon. Of course he doesn't link to any Amazon listing but a promotional video on Youtube. That sends up red flags in itself, especially when the video simply states it in the title without any evidence to back it up. So I decided to look around Amazon myself it see how truthful Kenny was, because if Creationists are anything, it is that they are truthful, right? I first looked in Best Sellers in Books on Amazon, no dice in the top 20. Then tried looking at Amazon's "Religion & Spirituality" listing of best sellers, it isn't in the top 20 here either. So I tried Christian Books & Bibles, still not in the top 20. So I looked further into the book itself and found that it isn't even released yet, (coming out on May 15th). Well then, let's look at the top books that are "Coming Soon", well definitely not in the top 50. No dice in the top 20 paperbacks either. How about Coming Soon in the subcategory of Christian Books? Oh there it is, at #22.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- I figured as much. However, Facts are for liberals, you should know this. --il'Dictator Mikal 12:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- I seem to remember hearing a bit about how Amazon's sales rankings work. The problem is that a person doesn't need to actually sell many copies, the span of time also figures into it. So if someone sells 30 copies in a day, but then never sells another copy for the rest of the month, they still will be listed at the top of the list. On the other hand, a second book selling 3 copies a day for the entire month will have outsold the other, but it wouldn't make it onto the list. -Lardashe
- Now it's down to #53. What a hit! Cow...Hammertime! 15:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- Amazon = Women who wouldnt be in their place = liberal. Amazon = named after them therefor = Liberal. IT's all a Evolutionist Atheist scheme to hide the truth. --il'Dictator Mikal 15:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- Obligatory? -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I for one, often enjoy reading books that haven't come out yet. It keeps me sharp, for when someone points to the invisible purple unicorn over there...not there...there. I always see it when others often don't. Jimaginator (talk) 16:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- Anyone else feel that "The Magic Man In The Sky" sounds more like a title that's making fun of religion? Vulpius (talk) 17:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- Most definitely. I've just watched the YouTube video and if the book weren't written by Carl Gallups, identified here on RationalWiki as a notorious Internet Kristian Kook, I'd just think that the whole thing was a massive piss-take.--Spud (talk) 05:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
More stuff re: Star Trek
Thinking about CP's hard-on for Star Trek (specifically Spock) and wanting to claim it as their own...found this while surfing imgur (again).
Also, isn't Star Wars the perfect argument against the separation of church and state? -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- Star Trek was so far ahead of it's time it was scary. I would like to known what it would have been like watching some of the very secular episodes in the sixties. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- It was OK. I never gave them a second thought. ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 22:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Andy has some bizarre love for Star Trek that won't let him admit to it being liberal. I really don't know what it is. Ayzmo (talk) 20:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- It's fairly simple. If Andy likes something, it's conservative. Period. If he doesn't like something (or more accurately, doesn't understand something) then it's liberal. Now how exactly a universe that contains no money, rarely portrays religion in a positive light, preaches multiculturalism, and believes in a non-interventionist foreign policy is conservative... that's for Andy to know and you to find out. --Inquisitor (talk) 21:55, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- They use money all the time, it's just that the federation doesn't use it internally. But yeah, I really wouldn't describe Star Trek as "conservative", Andy just happens to like it and for some reason can't deal with liking something that doesn't line up with his political beliefs, which is weird. I think Rush Limbaugh is a cunt, for example, but I enjoyed his appearances on Family Guy. I wouldn't then go on to describe him as a liberal. X Stickman (talk) 02:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Who wants to bet the only episode of Star Trek Andy saw was "The Omega Glory"? --Revolverman (talk) 03:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Andy is a moral relativist if there ever was one. Mitt Romney was a RINO and ungodly cultist until the need to make him a conservative Christian arose. Neo-cons are part of a Jewish/Satanic new world order conspiracy, except they bare the name "conservative" and tend to vote Republican. Nixon was a RINO who imposed New Deal-style wage and price controls and hired Henry Kissinger; Reagan was another RINO and Republican anti-isolationist internationalist who promised to destroy the Dept. of Education, balance the budget, and a Constitutional Amendment to ban abortion, but failed to deliver. There's not a single GOP office holder of national stature that shares any of Andy alleged sacred cows, other than moral relativist arguments and rhetoric. nobsCorporations are people, too. 15:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- They don't seem to be highly relevant to the discussions at hand, but dammit Rob I'm really enjoying your posts this morning! Hey I'll be through ABQ in the next few weeks. You and me and Trent should get a beer. This is like the 3rd time I've mentioned it with no response so Trent and I will probably just end up drowning our sorrows alone. Whatever. 15:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yah yah, I'm on board. Let me know where & when. nobsCorporations are people, too. 16:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
JoMars latest MPR post not only dosn't bash Obama or democrats/liberals, but links to a website called clickgreen.uk. A global warming site from atheistic england. Are CP admins geting slow in their old age?--ThunderstruckMONKEYS 21:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, I posted a few days ago about JoMar crapping all over the Border Patrol and sticking up for undocumented migrants all the while citing PBS. Hey Rob--a good-faith question: has Andy ever commented on JoMar not quite getting it? Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 21:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- No. While he subscribes to the mailing list, I don't think he ever posted. He alone applauded the creation of the Community Portal, but never participated. He's the model how to survive: observe 90/10 which means stay off talk pages, and don't disagree with other sysops. nobsCorporations are people, too. 15:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Quick, Chuckarse, do something! Agenda 21 is infiltrating CP! --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 21:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- If I remember correctly, they basically admitted he was more liberal than most, but as long as he stuck to the articles relating to art it was fine. This seems like he's overstepping those very specific boundaries. I have to think this entry will be edited in some way to seem less liberal. As it reads now, it makes it seem like perhaps laxed regulations are harmful to our health. We all know that's bullshit because liberals. Hiphopopotamus (talk) 01:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- And Martinez used the godless commie British English word "lorries' in his posting instead of the good ol' jesus-loving American word "trucks". Wake up, CP sysops! He's obviously trying to bring down your project from the inside. Kick his ass outta there!--Spud (talk) 04:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm. I want not approve on this. I think maybe polite post. Refugeetalk page 06:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- What?--Spud (talk) 07:00, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry. Old RW meme. RWW Refugeetalk page 07:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Ahhhh, I see.--Spud (talk) 09:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Whats worse the emissions? ABORTION
Obvious troll is obvious.--ThunderstruckMONKEYS 18:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, but what's worse is that Andy ate that shit upimg.
RationalWiki Proven Right Again!
Andy's completely lost it.Hiphopopotamus (talk) 01:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- I really don't understand why he doesn't even name the model. Really. Phiwum (talk) 03:00, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- All I can think is: "It snowed - Global Warming is a farce!" Q0 (talk) 05:01, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- He got called out and relented in naming the model. He then humbly went on to compare his unreferenced "insights" to those of Jesus.--Brendiggg (talk) 05:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, Andy HAS to be abusing painkillers or something. --Revolverman (talk) 05:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- You know what, Andy Schlafly, you didn't go prematurely grey and you're not bald, therefore you must be living proof that the Earth is not 6,000 years old but actually 4.5 billion years old. Now excuse me while I think about slapping Andy repeatedly about the face.--Spud (talk) 05:46, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- With the large sample size of one person I find Andy's analysis very convincing personally. Jaxe (talk) 06:23, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- I love conservapedian logic. I don't think I'd give a damn about conservapedia if their logic was at least internally consistent, I'd just dismiss it as people being wrong on the internet, but it's so hilariously wrong that I am consistently entertained by it. If x, then elephant, therefore liberals. X Stickman (talk) 06:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- Andy's Messianic complex knows no bounds. That said, somebody should point out that jesus was telling a story, and thus doesn't need citations, whereas Andy is pulling so-called facts out of his arse. --PsyGremlinTala! 08:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Stepping up to bat...
IS Ron Paul! Who, bhy sheer virtue of not being Romney or Obama, is now MPR anti-romney of the day, atleast in Terry land. Why on earth you want to compare anybody to Harding is beyond me, but ok. --il'Dictator Mikal 04:43, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- He is the candidate of choice for the Objectivist set.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 05:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- OMFG, TerryH's webshite is even more insane than Conservapedia! I hadn't bothered with it before, but just spent several minutes reading it. I only stopped when my jaw finally reached my desk. He's got birtherism, YEC, Ayn Rand worship, some kind of Agenda 21 paranoia, and every other insane idea going. How can people believe all this crap without their brains crawling out of their ears? Prodigal (talk) 06:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- Old news. CNV has long been an outlet for people who think Conservapedia is not bat shit nuts enough for them.--ThunderstruckMONKEYS 13:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
I couldn't figure out how to work it into the WIGO, so it can be Saved here for posterityimg --Opcn with regards to regarding my regardliness 06:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- I'd like to point out the "by 2020 there will be a worse Great Recession" prediction; given 2020 is also the year ken is claiming will amount to victory in the great Christianity-Everybdy else war. Also; ken, you =claimed on the block policy change discussion you'd be busy for... "the next few years", and earlier stated you'd stop posting on MPR/MPL as much, whered those predictions go and why should i consider you trustworthy for predictions? --il'Dictator Mikal 07:04, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- Between Ken, with his...problem and Andy's Jesus complex, CP is looking more pitiful than ever. I hope those guys get genuine professional assistance at some stage.--Brendiggg (talk) 07:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yay it's a list of 12 predictions that's actually 10 entries consisting of greatly duplicative material. I love this guy's writing in terms of his writing. 13:58, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- Having multiple steams of income is good? Fuck me I never thought of that before. More money at lower risk, Ken is a savant. His revelation might revolutionise personal finance for generations to come . Pi 3:14 (talk) 03:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Is this our Andy?
Transcript of a debate on "When it comes to politics, the Internet is closing our minds." I'd almost hazard a guess that this is Schlafly speaking on pg 39:
“”My name is Andy, so I have a question about confirmation bias. This is -- I really don’t know the answer, which is, do you think now, or before the internet, it was harder to avoid, whatever your ideology, information that would challenge your belief, be it the nightly news or an encyclopedia or the newspaper, whereas now, you mentioned Wikipedia. But that might be, there might be an analogue to the encyclopedia of old, but now you could just go to Conservapedia and find out that wow, Paul Revere actually, the ride was consistent with what it was described as. And so it’s a lot easier to find that information that’s going to confirm your biases and that would contribute to the closing of the mind.
--PsyGremlinHable! 12:58, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- On the wider point, there are some interesting dynamics. What the effects of the internet as an information source have on politics can be debated at length. What is clear is that close-minded people find it much easier to find their comfortable confirmation biases. Ajkgordon (talk) 13:50, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- We already have this covered. C®ackeЯ 16:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- Without having looked at the link in question, it is clear that this is not our Andy by the words "I really don’t know the answer". Andy has never said such thing. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- The guy had a normal voice Visually too he's more appealing. See about 1:17:00 C®ackeЯ 17:52, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Andy compares himself to Jesus.
Like Jesusimg I don't need citations. Those who doubt meimg are like the Pharisees. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 14:23, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- UPDATE. Dude's on a tear. The Pharisees, were, of course, liberal members of the Hearsay Societyimg. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 14:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- Terry must have go0tten to him. --il'Dictator Mikal 14:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- I have to say full marks to CPalmer. He might have just outdone Bugler in getting Andy to embrace a crazy concept and smear it all over CP. I think we have 2012's answer to "best of the public." --PsyGremlinSnakk! 14:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- Andy's actually a good candidate for being the Antichrist. He's a wealthy white male from an influential family in the world's most powerful country. He's already rewritten the Bible to his own agenda and now he claims to be on par with Jesus. Are you sure you are backing the right horse, Ken and Brian?--Brendiggg (talk) 15:04, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- And it makes the front page. --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 15:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- Andy the lawyer should try this line of reasoning in court: Dismiss any precedents that his opponents cite as hearsay. Hammingweight (talk) 15:33, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- After Andy's latest edit, the CP article on Pharisees now says, "They rejected anything that was not based in (sic) authority, and defined themselves as the sole authority". If they defined themselves as the sole authority, they weren't much like members of the "Hearsay society" shouting "Citation needed!" That description sounds more like someone who says, "I'm right because I'm always right'. That description sounds more like Andy Schlafly describing himself.--Spud (talk) 15:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- Jesus told the parable as a true story. Except Andy defines a parable as a fictional narrative. Andy must be a circus performer with all these contortions! Jared (talk) 17:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- I tried asking him to back off this absurd prideful boasting. I do not question the sayings of Christ. I do question the assertions of a man if they make no sense. He keeps talking about prematuring greying without any evidence. It's ridiculous. The part that gets me is that he is comparing his statement to Christ's parable. And then he goes off about this insulting "hearsay society" nonsense he made up as if to compare me to the Pharisees for questioning him. Honestly I do not know what to think other than that this is a heresy. I don't know what to do. Nate Keaton (talk) 20:37, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
"I don't know what to do." What do you do when you see some crazy guy on the corner screaming about the aliens coming to get him? What do you do when you meet a birther, or a 9/11 truther, or a moon-landing denialist, or a Holocaust denier? You can laugh at them, you can ignore them, you can argue with them, you can simply move on. Andy is no different from any of those other cases. He has constructed his own version of reality and refuses to engage with the possibility that he might be wrong. Any evidence that contradicts him must be tainted. He REWROTE THE BIBLE BECAUSE IT DIDN'T FIT HIS POLITICS. You can ignore him for that, or laugh at him, but there's nothing to "do" about it, unless he decides to undergo a serious period of self-evaluation, except thank Christ he's just some guy on the internet, and not your father or teacher. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 20:46, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- I am slowly coming to realize that he is not really cast in his mother's mold. She was a very productive and important conservative when I was growing up. He doesn't seem to share any ideas that I would call conservative in any real sense. Does his family know he acts like this? It's just so strange! Nate Keaton (talk) 20:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- Well, Roger does. He comes over to Andy's little blog every so often to attempt to beat him with the cluebat. Roger's kind of crazy too, but nowhere near to the same extent as Andy. Andy is just what happens when you bring a kid up in a household where they're constantly being told some large group of society is evil. He's a lot more like his mother than perhaps you realise. Just take her recent "don't date feminists, but watch out because they're not all ugly" speech for example. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 21:17, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Andy's grasp of the scientific method is breathtaking. Geez, people, I've listed several celebrities with prematurely gray hair. What more do you want from me? If that doesn't prove the earth is young, I just don't know what will! Phiwum (talk) 02:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)