RationalWiki:Saloon bar

From RationalWiki
Revision as of 11:38, 6 April 2012 by Armondikov (Talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search

Saloon bar
WIGO Bar colour.png

This is a place for general chit-chat about virtually anything that doesn't fit anywhere else.
Friends.gif For previous conversations see the automagic barchives. Friends.gif

What is going on?

The Bar
(talk) (talk) (talk) (hic)

  1. This site is cheapened considerably by its bias. (21:06, 18 Dec 2014)
  2. Shocking! New World Order! Proof! (16:01, 17 Dec 2014)
  3. Serious question! (Very possibly offensive) (01:40, 17 Dec 2014)
  4. Satanic Events going on everywhere! (06:17, 16 Dec 2014)
  5. RFID chips! Sweden is issuing them! Dogs have them! (03:01, 16 Dec 2014)
  6. Dirk Steele said something (21:44, 14 Dec 2014)
To do list



Do you think the mandate will get striked down at Supreme Court hearing? Moonshot926 (talk) 14:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

  • The Magic 8-Ball claims "outlook not so good". Personally I agree with it. (talk) 15:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
If it does, i'm looking forward to cp's field day--il'Dictator Mikal 15:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
*Wobbles hand* Tricky one, it's really difficult to see how some of the less libertarian conservative judges will rule, given their voting precedence in other cases. Personally, I'm in legal geek heaven. Leveson Inquiry during the day, Supreme Court hearing during the early and mid evening. Gotta love the innertubes...--Stunteddwarf Jabba de Chops 16:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Everything rests on Kennedy. From his legal point of view, I don't see him going for this, but it's such important legislation I think he *might* sit on his hands. Pink mowse.pngGodot What do cats dream about? 18:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
There's nothing in the constitution that doesn't prohibit congress from mandating this. I think it will be held constitutional. Senator Harrison (talk) 19:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


It's really not that simple at all. Congress cannot mandate something for the country, when it is more apparent that State have the right to regulate it. Congress has a hell of a time mandating anything for that matter. That's why, while it's never going to change, there is a very valid reason to questioning the Federal govts right to individual income taxes. Pink mowse.pngGodot What do cats dream about? 19:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Just think, if SCOTUS rules for it, in the future the Treasury wouldn't have to bailout General Motors; Congress could just mandate every individual purchase x amount of shares of GM stock. Any Congressman facing the loss of jobs in his district, say toilet seat manufacturers for example, could submit a bill mandating all 165 million adult Americans to purchase a toilet seat. And it would only require 318 House votes, 51 Senators, and Presidential signature since SCOTUS has already ruled. nobsI'm not a doctor but I play one with the girls 20:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
You don't half talk a load of old bollocks, Rob. Sophiebecause liberals 20:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Except that's not at all comparable. Congress will state you must have *insurance* to cover your health, just like you must have worker's comp insurance, liablity insurance, and most people - driver's insurance. They will NOT mandate who you must buy from, or what the cost must be. Oh... details. I know they are hard for conservatives to grasp. Pink mowse.pngGodot What do cats dream about? 20:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
That simply is not true. If you don't wish to pay car insurance , don't drive. If you don't wish to pay work comp, don't employ people. One does have a choice. If you don't wish to pay health insurance, you're only choice to skip paying the fine is to quit breathing. nobsI'm not a doctor but I play one with the girls 20:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I was summing up a recent lengthy discussion on NPR about the SCOTUS hearings and health care in general. And no, the government can't mandate anything it wants to. That argument reminds me of the argument where allowing gay people to marry will allow toasters to marry. Senator Harrison (talk) 20:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm curious if you're in earnest or if you're being disingenous, Rob. Do you really not see the difference between a service that entails a sixth of the economy and to which everyone is forced to subscribe by their very nature when they become sick (as we all eventually do), and the purchase of a car company stock or household product? Or to put it another way: if SCOTUS upholds the mandate as constitutional, do you honestly think that would make the hypotheticals you outline constitutional under SCOTUS' decision?--ADtalkModerator 23:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I like the parts of Obamacare about family coverage until 26 and no barring coverage for those with pre-existing conditions. Moonshot926 (talk) 21:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: everyone likes these things. These are the popular things. They also will cost a lot of money, and just cramming people into a system running out of control is going to make things worse. To give us these popular things, the unpopular bits have to also be administered, to pay for them.--ADtalkModerator 23:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
In human nature, because of emotion, everything tends to the extreme (I can cite the military philosopher Carl von Clausewitz or the stock market technician Joseph Granville who, writing on their respective specialties, said almost exactly the same thing). In politics, it's called "the Law of Unintended Consequences." A most recent example is, virtually to the day Greece was re-negotiating it's default with German banks, the government of Greece began recognizing pedophilia, kleptomania, and sado-masochism as medical disabilities qualifying a person for government disability benefits. Now, when the original disability law was passed, was it ever intended to cover criminal activity? And here's the solution for the unemployed in Greece, today, begin stealing everything in sight and that guarantees a government check. Clearly, Western society and ideals have some serious, basic flaws the developing world would do good to try and avoid. nobsI'm not a doctor but I play one with the girls 20:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Who are you talking to? What are you talking about? Your reply is only vaguely related to the topic of discussion. If you intended it to be responsive in some way, you have failed to connect your point with a relevant train of thought in this dialogue. I have noted that this is a pattern.--ADtalkModerator 00:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm answering your question on hypotheticals, if SCOTUS were to uphold the mandate, regardless of merit (how popular it is, etc), there is nothing in Law then to stop a majority Congress from forcing Americans to engage in commercial activity they do not wish to engage in. And given human nature, there is always a tendency to extremes. You've heard how pork barrel measures get sneaked into an omnibus bill at midnite; these sort of co-erced transactions have the potential to become commonplace. nobsI'm not a doctor but I play one with the girls 01:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
You're not really making any sense. You start off making sense and you end making sense, but somewhere in the middle you lose the link. It's like you're talking about how you got out the bread and cheese for a sandwich, and then FISHFISHFISHFISHFISH and so that's how you got a new dog.
Yes, powers can sometimes expand and there can be unintended consequences. But what about the other limits on Congressional power that have always been there and will continue to be there? Forcing someone to buy broccoli, to pick a popular example, would still be unconstitutional because no one is inevitably forced to participate in the broccoli market and no reasonable person could believe that such a purchase would be necessary and proper to regulation of the national economy.--ADtalkModerator 08:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Wait, you know what? Here's a better question. Forget the above. Breyer raised this one himself: if there's a terrible plague killing 50% of America, can Congress force people to get the vaccine?--ADtalkModerator 09:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't see that in the Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday transcripts; can you find the page? What I've read so far, looks Solicitor General Verrilli isn't doing so well, Breyer, Sotomeyer, and Kagan have had to bail him out or make his arguments for him (see Tuesday pp. 15-16, 22-23, for eaxample). nobsI'm not a doctor but I play one with the girls 21:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I only listened to the arguments' audio. It was made by Breyer on the second day, though.--ADtalkModerator 03:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Specific response on vaccinations: forcing payment for a mandatory vaccine would be a one time case, that is quite different from a requirement to establish a permanent commercial relationship. It's an unfair comparison. Further, has there ever been a mandatory vaccine? If the government is going to strap people down to a gurney and inject them, or force feed them, that treads real close to genuine Nazi stuff. Here in Albuquerque, for example, after some nutcase killed two policemen who came to his house to take him to the nut ward for being off his meds, the Mayor by Executive Order granted police and healthcare givers authority to force independent living mentally disabled people to take psychotropic drugs, of course because there is not state of Federal law requiring people to take prescription medications, and (as a general rule) cannot be forcefully administered. Needless to say, the Mayor's decree was struck down by a higher court. nobsI'm not a doctor but I play one with the girls 19:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Why is it an unfair comparison - because we're talking about a repeated action, rather than a single one? Wasn't it you who just a moment ago was arguing about how incremental increases in government power tend to trend towards extremity? If it's constitutional for the government to regulate healthcare, through what a reasonable person could consider the necessary action of requiring all citizens to make a purchase of a certain class of product, then it's always constitutional. It's not constitutional only if the government's going to make them do the purchase once, or twice, or thrice, or whatever. And hey, what about if the virus requires yearly booster shots?
No, to my knowledge there's never been an instance of this. It's a hypothetical, to illustrate that you don't really seem to have any actual interpretation of the Constitution going on here, just a partisan certainty that Obamacare is wrong. You seem to have essentially admitted - via your craven "not fair!" - that you don't really oppose the constitutional basis for the law.
Here's another question, to illustrate. Justice Sotomayor introduced a hypothetical of her own, about the mandate. Let's say that Congress doesn't require a purchase of insurance under threat of a fine, like Obamacare does. Let's say that Congress just changes the semantics around. Would it be constitutional for Congress to tax everyone for healthcare, then allow everyone to write off their insurance premium and thereby waive the tax? I.e. if you don't think it's constitutional to force everyone to buy insurance, is it constitutional to tax everyone by the same amount as the fine and then reward those who do buy insurance?
It's a purely semantic changes (except for the fact that it's a little harder on the poor, of course!) but I'm interested to hear your perspective.--ADtalkModerator 03:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Sotomeyer's point get's to the second part of the case: the 1867 Law (Anti-Injunction Act) that bars Courts from hearing cases from citizens who feel they've received an unfair tax assessment from a government entity and always for an administrative legal process. The authors of Obamacare were careful not use the word "tax", but instead "penalty", but nevertheless authorized the IRS to collect the "penalty" under the AIA. The administrative process allows for an appeal for exemption through the Secretary of HHS, etc., rather than through federal court. Yes, the law was written with this semantic loophole. The write-off of premiums isn't a big issue, not that many filers itemize, and medical insurance deductions have been tightened up even further in recent decades. That's an issue more related to tax reform, which even conservatives seem willing to do away with given the new permanent economic realities of budget crisis.
Ultimately, my guess is these two provision may be struck down, and it's back to the drawing board to salvage what's left of the Law. One thing would then be certain: Obama and the Democrats failed to deliver on Universal coverage, costs escalate, a new push will be made to re-assemble the coalition that created this mess and install Single Payer as the only way to guarantee Universal coverage. But I could be wrong. nobs[[User talk:RobSmith|Debate topic: Should wp:AIG reorganize, get into the healthcare insurance business, and purchase FANNIE MAE securities with the insured's premiums?]] 04:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
So, are you going to answer my question. I wasn't asking "in what context did Sotomayor use this hypothetical," I was asking you if it would be constitutional. And if it would be constitutional, then why.
Again: if the mandate was reworked so that everyone was taxed, and then those who got healthcare got a rebate for it, then would it be constitutional?--ADtalkModerator 04:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
The Court likely will rule the "penalty" is a tax, but the point becomes moot if the mandate is overturned. And the only way the mandate could be reworked would be through Single Payer. nobsDebate topic: Should AIG reorganize, get into the healthcare insurance business, and purchase FANNIE MAE securities with the insured's premiums? 17:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
You refuse to answer my question? Because you appear to have answered some different question that perhaps only you heard, something like, "What do you think SCOTUS will do?"
I asked if the mandate was reworked so that everyone was taxed, and then those who got healthcare got a rebate for it, then would it be constitutional? Obamacare is repealed tomorrow in toto and then passed again, with this single change. Constitutional?--ADtalkModerator 21:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── This question is ambiguous. The mandate is a requirement to purchase private insurance. I'm assuming you mean drop the requirement and tax everyone to support a general fund that all benefits are paid out of, is that correct?

Then, to receive heathcare benefits, and presumably a cash rebate, sounds like double dipping. Are you saying pay people to receive benefits? after they've been taxed to pay for the benefits? I know we're close here, with all due respect let's try just a little harder to get on the same wavelength. nobsDebate topic: Should AIG get into healthcare insurance and purchase FANNIE MAE securities with insured's premiums? 01:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion on constitutionality and involuntary contracts

No, that's not what I mean. That would be essentially single-payer. I thought rewording the question twice would be sufficient, but okay, a little slower:
Obamacare requires everyone to buy insurance. If they fail to buy insurance, they are penalized. Let's call this penalty $100 for the sake of simplicity. So, either you buy insurance or you pay $100. This is the "mandate."
I am suggesting that this part of Obamacare is dropped, without altering the rest of the law. Instead, everyone must pay $100 in a healthcare tax. Those people who buy insurance of a required minimum standard, however, are rebated that $100 - i.e. they do not have to pay the healthcare tax. Everyone else must still pay. Call this "mandate2."
Functionally, the results are identical (again, with the caveat that mandate2 is harder on the poor): you either buy insurance or you pay $100. Yet it seems to me that mandate2 bypasses what you seem to consider is unconstitutional: it's just like any one of a thousand other tax-and-incentive scheme.
Do you think mandate2 is constitutional?--ADtalkModerator 01:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Ok, got it. In short, mandate2 maybe workable, (whether it's constitutional or not, I don't know. I've disagreed, as I'm sure you have, with SCOTUS on several issues). What you are proposing is similar to many ideas floated about SS retirement benefits -- keep the mandatory payment program for workers, the payroll tax, as a social safety net. But allow individuals to buy their way out of the government program through private retirement plans, IRAs, 401(k), KEOGH & SEP programs. Those programs are in place. But the idea of allowing holders of private retirement programs to deduct their private retirement plans against the government mandated payroll tax has never really been formally proposed in Congress, being the Third Rail, and all.
So a deduction against a mandated tax could also be considered a form of rebate. nobsDebate: Should AIG sell healthcare insurance and purchase FANNIE MAE securities with insured's premiums? 02:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
You don't know if it's be constitutional? Think about it. I suspect the reason you "don't know" is that you can't think of a good reason for mandate2 to be unconstitutional, which calls into question why you think the mandate itself is unconstitutional.
Please note I did not ask if you thought that this hypothetical was "workable," because its utility is only to illustrate that there's only a semantic difference between mandate and mandate2, and that thus there's no real reasoning behind your conclusion that the mandate is unconstitutional.--ADtalkModerator 04:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Who's playing semantic games now? I'm trying to find a bi-partisan solution that can get past the Supreme Court. Congress mandates all workers pay into a retirement fund (FICA); private retirement funds have been established with deductability against federal taxes (or rebates); if a provision were made allowing private retirement account holders to deduct their plans against FICA (or payroll) tax, there may be a bipartisan consensus in both Congress & the public that SCOTUS would not tamper with. Same goes with healthcare (although there remains many problems, as this mandate is required of all 312 million Americans, adults and children -- unlike the FICA tax which only applies to workers). Whether a property owner could deduct private education against local public school taxes should also be examined. But if you really want universal coverage, you should recognized it is not possible without a bipartisan consensus. And a bi-partisan consensus is what it takes to amend the constitution, if necessary. A bipartisan consensus can make the Constitution say whatever it wants. Supreme Court Justices know this. And the big weakness of Obamacare was, it's a prime example of a single party dictate, which simply is not how the American system works. nobsDebate: Should AIG sell health insurance and buy FANNIE MAE securities with the insured's premiums? 20:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm not playing a semantic game, I'm using a purely semantic shift in policy to illustrate that your belief that the mandate is unconstitutional, as expressed here, is a partisan belief rather than a genuine analysis based in the law. And either because you can't help yourself or because you want to avoid the question, you keep trying to shift the subject to some sort of brainstorming about how you would rewrite the bill personally.
You "don't know" about whether or not mandate2 would be illegal. That satisfies me - if you won't bother to think about it and decide, then you're not actually interested in the constitutionality of the matter and all your comments about unlimited government power are undiluted tribalism: "go team go!"--ADtalkModerator 21:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Look, that's meaningless. The 219 House Democrats thought Obamacare was Constitutional when they voted for it, despite differing expert opinion they presumably heard. We still don't know if it is or isn't. I personally don't believe government can or should force people into commercial relationships they do not want. One reason is, a basic element of wp:contract law is mutual assent, and consideration. Want of consideration, or lack of consideration, coercion, and blackmail are all justifiable reasons to void a contract. How can a contract entered into coersively be valid? I deal in the business world daily, and I just don't see how the strong arm of government can force me into a valid contract. That's my belief, but I could be wrong, as 219 Congressman, how many Senators, the President, and millions of Americans likewise may be wrong. I don't make the laws, neither do I determine if they have a legal basis. But my understanding is government exists to protect my rights, not take them away and force me into contracts and private commercial obligations I do not wish to be involved in. nobsDebate: Should AIG sell health insurance and buy FANNIE MAE securities with the insured's premiums? 22:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Note: I'm not asking if you think the mandate was a good idea. I'm not asking if you disagree with an extralegal principle. I'm not asking if you "make the laws." I am asking a very simple yet potent question that goes to the heart of the matter: if you think the mandate in Obamacare is unconstitutional, then do you also think that the proposed mandate2 would also be unconstitutional?
To sum:
We started off when I questioned whether you were serious about thinking that SCOTUS approval of the mandate would allow unlimited congressional power. You said you were, and have implied you think that the mandate is unconstitutional because of that. To illustrate the actual vapidity behind your opinion, I asked you a question about those constitutional principles under question.
You have said you "don't know." I have stated that it seems likely that you "don't know" because you have not bothered to think about the actual constitutional question at all, but instead oppose it on a partisan basis.
It's fine to oppose Obamacare because you hate Obama and want his administration to lose, and want the Republicans to win. It's also fine to oppose it because you think it's unworkable and you hate some of the principles involved, although I suspect you haven't really thought that through either.
But you should be clear about that, and not pretend you give a shit about the Constitution of the United States.--ADtalkModerator 00:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Good analysis, so I'll restate: I oppose mandate1 on Constitutional grounds because, in my understanding, contract law must by voluntary. Unless insurance policies can be written so they are not contract law, in my humble, limited understanding of business law, I just don't see how they can be valid. Secondly, I opposed Obama & Obamacare becaused of their ideology that tramples on my rights, i.e. violates my right of free association to make, or not make contracts with whomever I so desire. And they don't seem to really care if my constitutional, God-given, civil, and human rights are violated. If that's partisan, so be it.
Can the law be tweaked in such a manner as to not violate people's constitutional rights, yet deliver universal coverage, other than some sort of socialist/communist government run system? Perhaps. nobsDebate: Should AIG sell health insurance and buy FANNIE MAE securities with the insured's premiums? 19:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
OK then. Do you think mandate2 is also unconstitutional? Why/why not? Cow...Hammertime! 20:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Mandate2 possibly, as part of a bipartisan compromise, could be worked to help bring about some form of universal coverage. This has been addressed above. nobsDebate: Should AIG sell health insurance and buy FANNIE MAE securities with the insured's premiums? 20:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Contract law is not mentioned in the Constitution of the United States, nor do you cite any passage where it is implied. You do not actually mentioned the Constitution of the United States at all in your discussion of the constitutionality of mandate1, which seems really goddamn strange.
Now, I think it is constitutional because of the Commerce Clause, which gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce, and the Necessary and Proper Clause, which allows any means a reasonable person might think are necessary to accomplish any of Congress' various delegates powers (including regulating commerce). Congress can clearly regulate commercial "inactivity" (i.e. those who affect commerce by not participating it), thanks to SCOTUS precedent which establishes that Congress is allowed to prohibit people from growing marijuana in their house even if they don't sell it.
Would you care to give your justification of why you think the mandate is unconstitutional, or perhaps even answer my question about mandate2's constitutionality (you speak only practically in response to CowHammer), and maybe mention the Constitution in the process?--ADtalkModerator 21:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Contract law is certainly regulated by the interstate commerce clause. There is not a state in the union, AFAIK, that allows for "involuntary contracts". If anything, in recent decades there has been a movement toward Disclosure Laws at the federal and state level, and in the courts. Disclosure, so a person can make a fully informed, voluntary decision to enter into a contract. nobsDebate: Should AIG sell health insurance and buy FANNIE MAE securities with the insured's premiums? 19:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Yes, contract law is regulated by the Commerce Clause. I'm glad you agree that the Constitution gives Congress the power to make laws about contract law, including healthcare. But weirdly, despite your apparent belief that the mandate is unconstitutional, you don't actually say why. You talk about involuntary contracts and the laws of the states and disclosure, none of which appear in the Constitution. Seriously, I'm starting to think you're putting me on... do you really think that just because you dislike something or it's a bad idea, it's therefore unconstitutional? Give it another try, and try to do it in a way that actually makes a constitutional argument: i.e. "it's unconstitutional because Congress is prohibited from doing such-and-such by this part of the Constitution" or "it's unconstitutional because Congress isn't granted power to do such-and-such anywhere in the Constitution." When I said "mention the Constitution," after all, I didn't expect you to literally just mention it.--ADtalkModerator 02:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

An involuntary contract is defined as theft. Case closed. I'll add, if Obamacare were found Constitutional, it would have the net effect of either invalidating the corpus of contract law in 50 states, or some new hybrid form of animal will have been invented to govern insurance policies, because they no longer would be governed by contract law (meaning, for example, to pursue a civil claim against an insurer in court you would be dealing with some other form of animal outside of established contract law). I for one, am all for mandating all adult Americans to purchase a pack of cigarettes a day. It doesn't matter if they smoke or not. We'll call it consumer stimulus, a jobs program, and deficit reduction. Should be easy tp pass. nobsbullies are people, too. 20:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Case closed? You again have not mentioned the Constitution! Where in the Constitution does it declare that Congress shall not pass any laws enforcing an involuntary contract? This is a weird argument to make, one not made by anyone else - what about all the other "involuntary contracts" required by Congress in the past? I have to get car insurance if I want to drive a car, for example! It is widely acknowledged that Congress can require citizens to entire or not enter into contractual agreements of various sorts - unconscionable contracts are not valid, for example, and anyone wishing to fly a plane (i.e. consume a certain service and enter into a certain activity) must get a license and pilot's insurance. Congress has, with the mandate, has just said that everyone who consumes healthcare - i.e. all Americans - must get a different sort of insurance.
I guess now you'll just start declaring broadly that it's against your right to property or something. But I guess I've shown fairly conclusively that you have no principled constitutional opposition, just reactive tribalism. You cannot cite any actual constitutional law opposing the mandate, and when you try, you would also invalidate on the same principles a thousand other accepted things. And of course you refuse to answer a hypothetical about mandate2 that would further illustrate your partisan reactionary nature.
Incidentally, yes, you could mandate all Americans purchase cigarettes every day. It would be stupid, and would never pass, but it would be constitutional. That's because (and pay attention now) not every bad idea is prohibited by the Constitution.--ADtalkModerator 06:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

My health insurance dropped me when I turned 19 and moved out. Then the healthcare reform law passed, and now I have insurance again. I also need my gall-bladder out. Obama has my vote. Senator Harrison (talk) 21:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I like all of it, it's a good start to mandate insurance, bring down the cost, and let americans stop freaking out about "socialized medicine". That said, the things about pre existing kids, and covering all kids while they are in school, and covering "well care" adn birth control all have me saying "excellent". Pink mowse.pngGodot What do cats dream about? 21:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Crazification factor test: How many people despise the bill thanks to the "socialized medicine" fear-mongering? Osaka Sun (talk) 22:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Handicapping the vote

This actually came up in my conversation at lunch today. I was talking to a couple of lawyers who also work in my building (both of them are fairly conservative, btw) and I as kind of surprised when the only disagreement we had was by how much SCOTUS would approve them mandate by- I said 5-4, and they said 6-3 and 7-2, which kind of shocked me, even though in retrospect, it should't have. The main point made, which I don't see previously commented here, is that the liberal judges have a tendency to try and use the Court to legislate, whereas the conservative judges by and large judge based on constitutionality rather than try and use the court as a vehicle to pass bills. Therefore, it's pretty much a given that there's four votes for it, and there's plenty of judicial precedent for regulation of interstate commerce by Congress, so at the very least Kennedy would jump on the "constitutional" bandwagon, with maybe Scalia and Roberts joining them. I was surprised, to say the least. --The Emperor 03:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I always roll in laughter at anyone saying the "legislate from the bench". they don't, they never have. they are not legislating, as teh laws are already written. they are looking at the laws in the context of the Constitution. Right now, you have 3 judges who blatantly admit they do not think Precedent applies to them. Thomas has gone so far as to actually claim that he can make any decision he wants based on his "gut" if the law is with him or not. Scalia says women do not have Due Process or Equal Protection. These are people who less than one year ago decided that CORPORATIONS are persons. where exactly is that in the Constitution? --Pink mowse.pngGodot What do cats dream about? 03:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Wow, they actually said those things? Have a link? Godspeed (talk) 10:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Sadly, they did. We have two of the most incompetent judges one the bench right now. Scalia's comment about women is here. His basic argument is that the 14th amendment did not SAY women, therefore it does not apply TO women. Of course, he voted FOR corporations being persons in the 5-4 battle last year. the's clearly in the Constitution. really. Scalia is also the one who just went balistic about "icky gays" in Romer v Evans "amendment 2. Thomas should never have been given teh bench, ever. he has no track record as a judge (not that it's a legal requirement to BE a judge, by the way). I'm not sure how to google his comments about "I can find how I want, by my gut", since those words are so common, but he said it. he also overturns precedence more than any other judge in history. (That one is in his wikipedial bio).--Pink mowse.pngGodot What do cats dream about? 16:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Now I get your meaning. Interesting how the conservatives were sceptical of incorporation until the McDonald gun control case but are now big fans. Godspeed (talk) 16:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Remember, we're talking about a guy who thinks Jack Bauer constitutes a legal argument here. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't even get how you can sit on the bench and cite to a TV show. I mean, i've seen TV shows where torture caused one guy to kill another guy. so that proves it's GOOD for us. Didn't he get the memo that the RESULTS are made up, in fiction? jsut saying.Pink mowse.pngGodot What do cats dream about? 21:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Where does it say corporations are persons? perhaps in the word corpus = body. And I think SCOTUS only upheld existing Corporation Law which was established in the 50 states & the British Empire and Commonwealth at least over 150 years ago. But that doesn't stop idiots from trying to challenge democratically establish laws that are centuries old. nobsI'm not a doctor but I play one with the girls 01:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
You really are either illeducated or tied into a right wing block that you can't see out of, aren't you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission --Pink mowse.pngGodot What do cats dream about? 15:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Who can't read? It was "landmark" my ass. Citizens United did away with the unconstitutional provisions of McCain-Feingold, re-iterated wp:Buckley v. Valeo and existing corporation law which has been around forever, even before unconstitutional Progressive "reforms". nobsI'm not a doctor but I play one with the girls 03:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
What a load of absolute self-serving garbage. Yeah, when the courts strike down anti-abortion laws, they're "legislating from the bench." When they invalidate gun control or campaign finance laws they're just "following the Constitution." The conservatives have said this crap so long, they're actually starting to believe it, apparently. Godspeed (talk) 10:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Absurdities like "legislating from the bench" are only the next logical step if 60% of a country start to think in partisan terms about every single fucking issue there is in politics. Suddenly the question what judge is appointed to the supreme court becomes a question with which the President makes a statement of intention. The SCOTUS doesn't seem to be an actual supreme court anymore but a bunch of old farts with the power to veto something if they feel icky about it. I hope these assholes dragging this stuff before the supreme court get Obamacare validated and Prop 8 invalidated, thereby not just shooting themselves in the foot but right ahead in the stomach. --ʤɱ socialist 15:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Is Justice Thomas technically retarded? He hasn't asked a question at a hearing in like 7 years. Moonshot926 (talk) 17:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with many of you, so I have nothing to contribute except for my theory on Thomas. I think he thinks he's being mystery man. Senator Harrison(talk) 22:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I just looked it up. He thinks the arguments are a waste of time and a sideshow. Senator Harrison (talk) 22:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Just something to clear up constitutionality issues

Read this. If an individual mandate was good enough for President Washington, it's good enough for me. Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce, and the Health Industry is interstate commerce. Mr. Anon 02:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

But George Washington was a socialist, you know that. Osaka Sun (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Blasphemy! Saint George Washington is the embodiment of American small-government Conservatism (with a capital "c")! After all, he was a devout Christian! 00:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Is a system where for-profit corporations bribe "elected" officials and run their ad campaigns to enforce their monopolies/oligopolies, your idea of socialism? Has the "regulation" of the banking system that tried to "coerce" banksters into subprime loans, good for the people getting those loans? Is that socialism? Unicow (talk) 14:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Scalia and Alito

So listening to a "highlights" on Cspan, and the two of them are a right wing Talk Show. They are bringing in statistics and "evidence" not entered into record in their attempts to show how bad this would be for the world. "You want to keep the 26 year old addition to insurance. that would literally bankrupt the government'. (um, why? it's private insurance, and THEY ARE BEING PAID for it, by the parents. and the single cheapest time to cover someone is from the time they are 18-25, cause they don't have major issues yet, like heart or lungs or diabetes). sighs. hate these right wing people. And it really looks like the entire bill will be over turned, not just the mandate. I do NOT want gay rights or womens' rights to go before these idiots.Pink mowse.pngGodot What do cats dream about? 21:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh that's just lovely. ТySerious Business Guy 22:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Although 18-25 isn't as expensive as say, 68-75, it's not as cheap as you might expect. Recklessness is really high in university age people, it's so easy to believe you're immortal when you're 18 -- so that's a range in which they're comparatively likely to get maimed (or killed but the health insurer doesn't have to worry about that) in road accidents, you get lots of sports injuries, psych problems show up, a lot of women are going to want birth control and/or pregnancy services in this age range too and it's a pretty good age for suicide attempts (again, no payout for successes, however although men are more likely to suicide women make a lot of expensive attempts and the counselling to get them to stop is probably also covered in a decent plan). And of course as in my case it's right on schedule for the first of the double-hump incidence curves of some cancers. Old enough for copy errors to stack up, young enough that you almost certainly won't die... if you get expensive treatment.
However: Providing single payer healthcare to all 18-25 (and of course 0-18 and 25-125) citizens hasn't bankrupted the UK, although the current government is trying fairly hard to kill the NHS so that they can claim a big cost saving. The argument that it's not affordable to keep your citizens in good health is so silly that it's worth trying to goad Right Wing politicians in the US into just saying it outright. Not that people won't vote for someone who believes silly things, after all many of these politicians are creationists or want to "teach the controversy". (talk) 00:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Gotta' love the insurance industry. Where else can you ask, "What is the exact death rate of people aged 18-25, and how can we monetize that?" Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 03:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
We declared independence from the British empire in the name of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...as long as you can pay the insurance bill, that is. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm not saying it's cheep to cover 18-25, i'm saying it's cheeper than any other time in your life, statistically. And, the bill doesn't say what an insurance co gets to CHARGE the parents to keep the kids covered - it just says the kids can stay covered. Insurances are PROFIT rackets, so I'm sure they know how to set a rate that's both slightly affordable, and generates plenty of profit. I know for me at 18, i got FULL INSURANCE for like 40 bucks a month, and now I pay nearly 300 a month. pretty much only do to age (and weight, but that was only an added 50 bucks). Also forcing insurance to cover someone who has a pre existing condition really isn't that costly, cause they will have a seriously high premium or deductable... But those aren't teh right wing talkign points, and salia and alito clearly read Drudge or whatever is today's dissemination of the correct "Right Wing Talking Point".Pink mowse.pngGodot What do cats dream about? 15:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

One question

Would there even be such a constitutional "crisis" if Obamacare was full-on socialized UHC, without the individual mandate? Unfortunately Republicans see it as one and the same. Osaka Sun (talk) 04:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

No. Although one would be manufactured.--ADtalkModerator 09:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
The right realizes that every ground gained by Democrats is one step closer to single-payer, and they are trying as hard as they can to stop us right here. The right is horrible, but do not underestimate how cunning they are. Mr. Anon (talk) 01:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
This is why Ron Paul and his gang of robots are actually quite dangerous. He is the only Republican who has dared threaten Social Security and Medicare themselves. He has the potential to undo 100 years of progress and reduce us to a third-world country through his scare-tactics and misinformation about the debt. Mr. Anon (talk) 01:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Nonsense. There are dozens of modern Republicans who have supported things like "private retirement accounts" and "healthcare savings accounts." For the former, it was actually a major GOP initiative under President George W. Bush. For the latter, it is a central part of Rep. Paul Ryan's several budgets in the past few Congresses.--ADtalkModerator 03:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
We have "private retirement accounts" in Australia, we call it superannuation. It is boss as. Mine actually has money in it now I have a job. Helped Australia through the economic crisis too. We didn't have credit problems because the banks just dipped into the superaccounts when they were low on cash. - π 03:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Interesting. I have no information on such accounts, or even the feasibility of instituting such a thing in America. All I do know for certain is that there is an astonishing level of cowardice on the part of people like Rep. Ryan, who want to keep all current elderly and middle-aged people locked in to Social Security but kick the young out - even as the young are required to pay for it. It's just robbery of the young by the old: "This program doesn't work and is too generous, but pay for it for us."--ADtalkModerator 03:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
The Court is deciding two issues: (1) the mandate to engage in commercial activity; and (2) the provision barring citizens access to Federal courts once a penalty, or tax assessment is made. nobsI'm not a doctor but I play one with the girls 19:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Not really. They're deciding more things than that. For example, they're deciding whether there's standing to bring a suit at all, since the mandate hasn't gone into effect and the Anti-Injunction Act normally stops people from suing over a tax before it's been assessed. And if they strike down the mandate, they also are deciding if it is severable, i.e. if the mandate is an essential part of the law whose removal would necessitate the negation of the whole law.--ADtalkModerator 03:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes. You're referring to Florida's standing to bring a suit against HHS, the current suit being heard. Granting wp:Certiorari gives it standing, I believe. And yes, the whole, or the mandate only could be struck down. If it's all, then back to the drawing board. If the mandate goes, so does the penalty, but the pre-existing conditions section could survive spawning a new crisis and fresh round of the blame game. nobsDebate topic: Should AIG get into healthcare insurance and purchase FANNIE MAE securities with insured's premiums? 01:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
There's nothing remotely controversial about whether the pre-existing conditions section is constitutional. It's a pretty straightforward regulation on commerce. Syndicalism (talk) 01:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that is true. And the mandate is designed as a way to spread and minimize costs (insurance premiums). If the mandate is struck down, premium costs go way up. So while an individual with a pre-existing condition cannot be denied purchasing insurance, in many if not most cases they may not be able to afford the premiums. And existing policyholders premiums go sky high to pay for the claims made by new purchasers of policies with pre-existing conditions. Thus a fresh round of the blame-game. Obama & the Dems can boast all they want about making insurance undeniable for pre-existing conditions, but if the cost of holding a policy with or without pre-existing conditions is $5000 or $10,000 a month, you sure a fuck can't blame Republicans for that. You can blame the Constitution of the United States then, if anything. nobsDebate topic: Should AIG get into healthcare insurance and purchase FANNIE MAE securities with insured's premiums? 01:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Rob is correct. The Obama administration has admitted that the mandate is a crucial part of Health Care Reform, even going as far as saying that the pre-existing condition mandate might as well be removed should the individual mandate be struck down. Mr. Anon (talk) 02:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Another question

Right, give Rob's been repeating it ad nauseum, I get that one of the right wing's problems with HusseinCare (bet they wish they'd thought of that years ago as a descriptor) is that the government is forcing someone to buy a product. So, someone enlighten me with the answers to the following questions:

  1. You guys have tax forms right?
  2. You have to complete them in a certain way or earn a penalty, right?
  3. If I filled out a US tax form in a made-up language, that would be counted as not completing the form correctly and earn me a penalty, right?
  4. I know your forms are different to ours (yours obviously speak about Monopoly money currency), but does it not say anywhere on these forms that you should "Complete in blue or black ink"?
  5. Given last time I cut myself what came out of my body wasn't blue or black ink, how is HusseinCare requiring you to get insurance different to you being required to support the blue and black ink industry to fill out your tax forms?
  6. Or does the government issue free pens?

-- Iscariot Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012! 16:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

These are interesting points. However, even non-filers are required to purchase insurance. There are approximately 165 million adults in the US and another 150 million child dependents. All adults, with or without dependents, are required to purchase insurance for themselves and their dependents. This has nothing to do with income tax, of which there are only about 140 million personal income tax filers. Obamacare law tasks tghe IRS (Internal Revenue Service) to collect a "penalty" from adults who do not comply with the law. The penalty is estimated at about $900 per individual. The fine for two married adults with one dependent would be about $2700. And the IRS normal collection process would apply. This means radically expanding the size of IRS's workforce.
On another point, the US govt. is trying to do away with paper filing, and mandate electronic filing. nobsDebate: Should AIG sell health insurance and buy FANNIE MAE securities with the insured's premiums? 20:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Neatly avoiding the question there Robbo. How does the mandate in HusseinCare (requiring private citizens to purchase a product from private industry) differ from being mandated to fill in tax returns in a certain manner (thereby requiring private citizens to purchase blue or black ink, or a computer and internet connection from private companies)? -- Iscariot Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012! 00:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
How does compulsion to enter into a permanent, involuntary, binding civil contract differ from reporting compliance with federal tax law? By this reasoning, if Congress voted to order us into the gas chambers it would legal, correct?
Oh, and an argument can be that the requirement of an individual to fully disclose his income with the threat of penalties for false statements and non-compliance conflicts with a persons Fifth Amendment Right against self incrimination and not being compelled to give evidence against yourself. nobsDebate: Should AIG sell health insurance and buy FANNIE MAE securities with the insured's premiums? 19:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Gas chambers Rob? Really? You're missing the point either deliberately or because you simply can't grasp the simple concept I'm putting before you. In order to fill out a tax return in paper format, private citizens are forced by the government to buy blue or black ink. This is fact. So why is this concept all of a sudden an issue when it applies to health insurance? Why isn't Hurlburt's blog providing over-the-top coverage to some wingnut law suit that calls the tax reporting forms unconstitutional for the same reason that's being brought against Obamacare? Should I number these questions so you can actually answer them without straying off-topic yet again? -- Iscariot Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012! 22:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
You forgot postage stamps; the income tax filing requirement is really a government plot to sell more postage stamps. As if their monopoly control of the Post Office wasn't enough. Greedy bastards. nobsbullies are people, too. 21:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
So you're confirming that there's no difference and ObamaCare should be upheld against that challenge? Thanks Rob. -- Iscariot Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012! 21:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
So you're comparing buying pens and pencils, or a cheeseburger at McDonald's, to entering into a binding contract. To a certain extent, you are correct. Answer me this question: government regulators have installed 72 hour right of rescission rules to protect consumers from greedy, evil, money grubbing capitalist profiteers and businessmen. Is it fair that these regulations apply to some businesses, but not all? Why shouldn't the law apply to barbers and undertakers, for example, if we truly believe in justice and equality, and the people we elect to write and enforce our laws believe in the same? nobsbullies are people, too. 22:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Sarah Palin was Right: A commentary by the Symphony of Noise

I know what you're thinking, but please hear me out: Sarah Palin was right. There actually is a death panel in the United States. And there's 9 people on it with names like Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, and Ruth Bader-Ginsburg. And soon they will decide: will millions of American be allowed health insurance and a chance to live, or will ideology and fuckery decide that those who are too sick, too poor, too old to buy insurance should just fuck off and die. And to the teabaggers and various CONservatives who think that not wanting to die of cancer is an "entitlement" and "socialism" (only in the United States are people this ignorant and stupid): if people dying without affordable healthcare is what a "culture of life" looks like to you, then I sure as fuck don't want to see what you have in store for us next. Anyways, thank you, RW, for letting me blow off steam. The Symphony of Punk Can't sleep, clowns will eat me! 12:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Bravo sir/madam. --Horace (talk) 01:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
  • will millions of American be allowed health insurance
what a load of crap. millions are allowed health insurance NOW. The Court is deciding if millions should be forced to pay for their health insurance. Jesus fuck, try to at least educate yourself on the basic issues before you begin slandering people with bogus bullshit. You do yourself, your cause and/or ideology no favor spewing such ignorance. nobsI'm not a doctor but I play one with the girls 19:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
If the court strikes the law, then it will follow that the ban on excluding people based on on pre-existing conditions will likely fall. That means that insurance companies will, once again, kick people off their roles because they are sick. Therefore, Nob, it follows that their decision will decide if people who do, in fact, need insurance but can't get insurance due to health and/or financial situations, will be able to get it. Is this statement ignorance? No! It's an awful truth that only foolish CONservatives, like yourself, seek to deny so that you can ignore your own hypocrisy and selfishness. The Symphony of Punk Can't sleep, clowns will eat me! 09:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
It would help if the pre-existing provision portion was the case SCOTUS is hearing, but it's not. They are only hearing the part on (1) the requirement by the government to force private citizens to engage in commercial activity against their will, and (2) the loss of citizen's basic civil right to access Federal Courts for redress of grievances. They provision you cite will (with about large degree of certainty) survive. So again, you engage in personal ad hominems when there is no basis in FACT whatsoever about whatever it is you pissing and moaning about. nobsI'm not a doctor but I play one with the girls 03:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
And if the court strikes the law in its entirety, or even just the mandate part, then people with pre-existing conditions will have a fuckload of a time getting affordable health insurance. Have you even read the health insurance indutry's amicus briefs on the case? If not, then I suggest you do. The Symphony of Punk Can't sleep, clowns will eat me! 13:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
So here is a likely scenario: SCOTUS strikes down the mandate & penalty clause; healthcare premiums escalate because of the pre-exisitng conditions portion of the bill; the public clamors for reform. Two camps emerge, one to repeal the pre-exisitng conditions portion (which without the mandate may not be affordable to people with per-existing conditions anyway), and other camp trying to build a consensus for Single Payer. Question: have the Democrats learned anything from this exercise in one-party control and failure to act in a manner that promotes a bi-partisan consensus on such an important issue? nobsDebate topic: Should AIG reorganize, get into the healthcare insurance business, and purchase FANNIE MAE securities with the insured's premiums? 17:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Why don't conservatives bitch and moan more about car insurance? Lobbyists? Occasionaluse (talk) 19:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Here's the logical jist of that argument: If you don't want to pay car insurance, quit driving; it you don't want to pay healthcare insurance, quit breathing. nobsI'm not a doctor but I play one with the girls 20:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Here, again, you prove my point: if denying people healthcare coverage because they can't afford it or would otherwise be denied it because of pre-existing conditions is what you CONservatives consider a "cultre of life," I sure as fuck don't want to see what you nutters have in store for us next. The Symphony of Punk Can't sleep, clowns will eat me! 09:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
The pre-existing condition point has nothing to do with the case. If you think it does, please cite the page from the above three links to the transcripts. Elsewise, your just reading Kremlin talking points. nobsI'm not a doctor but I play one with the girls 03:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Again, I refer you to the amicus briefs filed by the health insurance industry where they point out that keeping the mandate is integral to keeping health insurance affordable to people who are already sick. This isn't Kremlin talking points, it's the talking points of the health care industry itself! The Symphony of Punk Can't sleep, clowns will eat me! 13:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
And, since you wanted my proof, here it is. The Symphony of Punk Can't sleep, clowns will eat me! 13:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Good link, but it supports my point more than yours. We're seeing how every solution bares the seeds of the next crisis. nobsDebate topic: Should AIG reorganize, get into the healthcare insurance business, and purchase FANNIE MAE securities with the insured's premiums? 16:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
What the hell are you even talking about? My original point was that, should the Supreme Court strike down the health care law, it will cost Americans insurance. My link says that, according to the insurance industry, if the Supreme Court strike the law, it'll cost American their insurance. Then you come along saying something about whateverthefuck trying to make some kind of point, I add the link to prove my point that striking down the law will cost Americans their insurance, and you say it proves whateverthefuck point you were trying to make. A point which I am still unclear of. The Symphony of Punk Can't sleep, clowns will eat me! 13:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
If the Law is struck down in its entirety, it won't cost Amercians a thing. The Law was never implemented. Status quo continues. If the mandate only is struck down, the pre-existing condition section remains. You said they loose that, I said they now have access, but I also said premiums skyrocket, which your linl says also. nobsDebate: Should AIG sell health insurance and buy FANNIE MAE securities with the insured's premiums? 20:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Slightly more than nothing. -- Seth Peck (talk) 20:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
On the contrary, it will cost Americans. Even though the most important parts of the legislation haven't gone into effect yet, that's only because things like the health insurance exchange take time to set up. It was noted in the Associated Press some time ago and in an article I don't wish to look for that the reason the items in ObamaCare like the mandate and the insurance exchange took years to go into effect is because they take time to set up. The insurance exchange, for example, is already under implementation; it's just not at the point where it's ready to "go live," which is why the law doesn't mandate it until 2014. Furthermore, I expressed dismay that, should the court strike down the mandate, people with pre-existing conditions will be told to "fuck off and die." If the mandate is struck, then premiums for those with pre-existing conditions, by the "virtue" of almighty capitalism, will be so high that they either won't be insured or they will be told to fuck off and die. I'll be honest and personal here: someone I love has a what's been classified a pre-existing condition. And unless that mandate takes place, they're kinda fucked for life in the health insurance department. And the best part is that, while their condition is chronic, it isn't even fatal. While I'd prefer universal coverage in lieu of corporate-mandated coverage (as the ObamaCare law setup), I'd rather my friend have the ability to access health coverage administered by a corporation then to have something serious happen them and for them to be told "you're too poor for us to help." The Symphony of Punk Can't sleep, clowns will eat me! 09:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Conservapedia-space deletions discussions/voting (sticky)

There is a lengthy community-wide debate/discussion going on about which CP-space articles this site wants to keep and which ones it wants to delete as part of a massive clean-up of the Wiki. Please go here and join the discussion and voting. The Symphony of Punk Can't sleep, clowns will eat me! 13:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

This should be intercomed, esp. since it's not in recent changes, and, believe it or not, not everyone looks at the SB. steriletalk 16:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Jesus, this is the third Saloon Bar thread about it in as many days. I think anyone looking at this page already knows about the CP space deletions. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Not everyone goes to the Saloon bar, for fuck's sake. I often ignore it as it's largely boring and just skim Recent Changes, and it doesn't appear in recent changes. steriletalk 17:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
P-Foster intercommed it, to group "General site news". Which is arguably correct, just not effectively so, as most people (e.g. me until I changed it just now) are only in "Site wide (urgent)" by default. So it was announced in a way that most users won't see. Sterile could put up a "Site wide (urgent)" announcement too, if he feels it rates it. Using P-Foster's wording, of course - David Gerard (talk) 20:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
No, he can't. larronsicut fur in nocte 20:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
of for fucks sake. --Pink mowse.pngGodot What do cats dream about? 21:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Traditionally the site wide messaging has been restricted to either technical issues or fundraising messages. Not sure about starting to use it for issues that are important to only a sub-section of the site. That is what the other groups are technically for. Perhaps we should think of a way to make it more obvious to users about how the intercom groups work. Tmtoulouse (talk) 21:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The only group that can presently be assumed to do anything at all is "Site wide (urgent)", unless we specifically set the other settings to "on" for anyone who's never touched them. Assuming we can tell who's never touched them - David Gerard (talk) 21:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
didnt even know such settings existed til today--il'Dictator Mikal 21:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
So we need to do a better job marketing it and disseminating information about it. Tmtoulouse (talk) 21:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, despite being here since 2007 I can't post to urgent; I can't remember what was decided about that, but it isn't everyone. (There were too many at first...) Actually, leaving it in Recent Changes would have accomplished the same thing. The only reason I caught on was the "resolved" thing that came up. I don't always look at the Saloon Bar, honestly, as it tends to be irrelevant to me. Anyway, I might take a wikibreak for awhile, but thanks for doing this. steriletalk 21:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
At the moment it's reserved for tech and mod group members only. Perhaps we should rethink the whole intercom structure. I am not wedded to the current design. Perhaps this is a conversation the site can have once some of these other issues are resolved. Tmtoulouse (talk) 21:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
There's chalkboard and forums too, at the top, if anyone looks at those. And I don't suppose they do. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 22:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

1,000,000th edit!!!

Based on our current edit rate our 1,000,000th edit should occur in the next two days. You will be able to see it here when it happens. Just in case anyone care. This is total edits to the wiki, not just those that remain, so spam and other things that were deleted counts :-( As a side note a certain wiki starting with C will not have its 1,000,000th edit for at least a month, maybe more. - π 01:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Bugger, so it wasn't me all those years ago? CrundyTalk nerdy to me 14:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
No that was using the page edit number on the statistics page, which is a) unreliable and b) once again claiming we have had just over 1,000,000 edits. The revision id number is the only reliable way to tell. Pi 3:14 (talk) 00:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
*removes award from userpage* CrundyTalk nerdy to me 08:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm so sorry for yer loss, Crundy. The Symphony of Punk Can't sleep, clowns will eat me! 09:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Have sympathy, please

My laptop, less than a year old, has developed a issue in the fan system. I am still covered by warranty, but to use it, I have to go to Wisconsin, which is a little inconvenient. I cant open up the case myself, or I will void my warranty, and it doesnt help that I know nothing about computers in general. Any advice, please? (talk) 23:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Does the postal service not run out where you live? P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 23:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm supposed to pay mail insurance, and a long distance fee to Canada Post? I think not! (talk) 23:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Did you try cleaning the fan with a spray can of air? Alternatively you can mail it to a friend in the states, have them mail it along to the repair facility insured, then post it to you when they get it back. --Opcn with regards to regarding my regardliness 05:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I did. I cant seem to get it to work, and I have no real friends in the united states. Should I open it? (talk) 16:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
"I'm supposed to pay mail insurance, and a long distance fee to Canada Post? I think not!" Should've bought from a local retailer. P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 16:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
It was cheaper there. (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Now it's not, so much? ħumanUser talk:Human 02:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks to you and inflation. (talk) 18:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

My cache or yours?

Is anyone else noticing the random featured article on the front page no longer rotates, it's just stuck on one article? The template still seems to be randomising fine, but no amount of ctrl-shift-R seems to get me a different random article on the main page. Have we broken it somehow, or is it just caching on my end? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 11:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

On my pathetic, wannabe, crappy iPad I got Poe's Law immediately followed by Homeopathy and then Non-materialistic Neuroscience. So it's you. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD memberModerator 11:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
It caches on the server. ("MediaWiki: There's Always Another Layer Of Caching™.") Tack "?action=purge" on the end of the URL if you want to force rotation. I did this to check how the blurbs for the new cover articles looked in practice - David Gerard (talk) 12:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I thought we wrote a way to force a given cover story to do that... but that thought seems about five years old so who knows? I may have just done it in html on my hard drive (could I have done that? I doubt it. First theory more likely.). But, yeah. Rotate. A is right next to capslock. Kill capslock. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
All rational persons make Caps Lock another control key - David Gerard (talk) 08:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Nonsense. All rational persons have a second keyboard on their mouse. Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 05:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)



Apologies for the Daily Fail link, but is it just me or is this article a belated april fools joke? CrundyTalk nerdy to me 14:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

She's cute and all--Goat only knows how many photos it took to get all of those nice-looking ones, of course--but I see dozens of more remarkable-looking people on a daily basis. P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 14:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Even by UK standards she's hardly a stunner. A reasonable looking woman who I wouldn't turn down if the opportunity arose but not a "what are you looking at" from the missus. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD memberModerator 14:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Seems to have gone viral. And some good images already. I'm guessing the DM did it on purpose to get some traffic. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 14:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
As you say she's nothing remarkable. What I want to know is why Crundy was reading the Daily Mail.--Bob"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." 15:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I know! It's Derren Brown's fault. He tweeted it. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 15:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Just a minute. The same woman who complains about women treating her unfairly because of the way she looks also writes I use my sex appeal to get ahead at work... and so does ANY woman with any sense It's just the Daily Fail being stupid.--Bob"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." 15:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
And now we have to deal with the torrent of Facebook comments and whatnot along the lines of "But how can she be sexist? She's... she's a woman!!" Scarlet A.pngtheist 15:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I love the second picture in that article. It looks like the caption should be "Last known photograph of victim. Call 999 if you see this man" Cow...Hammertime! 15:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank God I have a ugly mug, muffin tops and a penis.
Btw: Doesn't she say in the article, that she doesn't drink? Is she sending the many many bottles of champgane she gets offered, back or is she just pouring the Dom Perignon on the floor?--Th. Bernhard (talk) 17:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Apparently, dear Samantha has her own website. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD memberModerator 18:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Her face looks weird. El TajDon't make me do stuff 18:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Second article in response to the criticism from the first. "Their level of anger only underlines that no one in this world is more reviled than a pretty woman." Fucking hell... El TajDon't make me do stuff 18:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

So I've never looked at the Mail's website before

Yup, it's a rag. That said, their coverage of the Oikos school shooting is a pretty impressive collection of photos--all gleaned from other sites, not their own photojournalism, but still, if I were looking for images from the event, that seems to be the place to go. P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 15:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

At least it wasn't Mad Mel. Sometimes ignorance is bliss. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Some hints about reading the Mail without earning 'em dosh. Scream!! (talk) 17:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
They're lawyering up over the caching sites, which is a pain. Also, anyone else find that the most time-efficient way to read the Heil is to read the headline, the first paragraph, the last paragraph and just interperlate the rest from experience? Scarlet A.pngnarchist 12:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

In the Negaverse, this rag would be making a legit point

This can be interpreted as an honestly important feminist issue. Although many societal advantages are awarded to women who fit the image of social desirability, those advantages are given for just that. While a tweenager may dream of someday being 'So beautiful, it's a curse!' there are equally as many women out there who cannot advance unless they use their looks to get it, even if they have adequate credentials. They are at a high risk for rape in many areas, and in witness stands their credibility is impacted by their image. So yeah, the shallow advantages of this position mask underlying problems with society. Less magazine-cut women wish they could be looked upon with worship like pretty models, while people who actually are closer to that standard are at higher risks of rape and are dogged by unpleasant stereotypes and those magazine expectations all the time. No way to win. And every person that gives into the trap and uses their bustline to get a promotion (which works even on Wall Street, as a good insider friend of mine informs me; many of her bosses have been instated that way) just makes it worse. ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRfree guybrush threepwood! no new taxes! down with porcelain! 16:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any sort of statistical evidence to back up your assertion that there's a causal relationship between conformity to societal standards of beauty and the risk of rape, or did you just pull that out of your ass? P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 16:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
No specific statistics, unfortunately, but the defense 'She dressed provocatively, she was asking for it!' is still an effective defense in some parts of the USA, indicating this bias. I'm fairly sure there were specific statistics in my Womens' Studies class last semester, so if you would like me to go and ask them about it I would be all too glad to do so. ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRwalls of text while-u-wait 16:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I apologize, I have made an error. I am referring not to increased frequency of rapes, but to charge and punish rapes. I should have been more specific. A woman who conforms to societal standards of beauty has a harder time prosecuting rape charges in parts of the USA because the defense 'she was asking for it because of how she dressed, and what place she went to, she most likely consented' is still able to hold even though it is abhorrent. ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRjust shut up already 16:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
But as I pointed out above it's the same woman who says it's advisable to use sex appeal to get what you want. There may be a contradiction here.--Bob"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." 18:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Um, no. No it's not. Are you saying that women who dress up, put on makeup to go to a bar are the same as people who use sex appeal to get their boss to give them a promotion? And if you are, how does that make a 'no' from her any less legitimate when it comes to sex? ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRcritical thinking is the key to success! 19:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
She doesn't mention rape in either article and I don't see how it has much bearing on either of the issues (using looks to get ahead / being hated for it). WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
*sigh* I'm not talking about her article in specific, that's why I said 'in the negaverse,' implying 'in a universe where they were trying to make a legitimate point.' What I mean is that this article feels like a poke at 'oh no, I am hot so society treats me differently, it's a curse' when in fact yes, this is a legitimate statement with serious implications in the real world. It's just that this article didn't hit upon them. ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRgoing galt: the literal crazy train 20:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
She was trying to make a legitimate point, but it was badly undermined by her hypocrisy & feeble arguments. Bob points this out & you accuse him of thinking no means yes, or something? OK, so society is sexist and makes judgements about women's appearance. This is hardly news. But the point Brick's article is making (other women hate me because I'm cuter than them) is completely different from the one you're making about risks of rape & blaming the victim. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I would argue the point is not. They're both symptoms of the same society. What I am trying to get at is that this article, while it brings up the issue, fails in that it also ends up trivializing the argument in its failure. My crux point is the fact that women are judged by their appearance effects pretty much everything for us: from not being taken seriously at work, to not being taken seriously when trying to get justice for crimes done against us. Which this article sort of almost touched upon, but failed spectacularly in a way that it hurt its own case. Also, I'm sorry if I came across as accusatory. His statement in justaposition to my own confused me. It sounded a little like the old mysogynist argument, 'women want it both ways!' but I didn't think that was what Bob meant at all, so I wanted to hear some more clarification. :( ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRgarrulous en guerre 23:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

On that point I agree: really beautiful people, women especially, are quite likely to get reduced to their physical appearance and not taken seriously as complete human beings--and that's not just a grown-up/sexual phenomenon, either. My mother-in-law is very conscious to never tell my baby niece how beautiful or cute she is; she tells her how clever and smart she it at every turn, though. Kids who get noticed/complimented on their appearance are bound to see that as what matters most about them and carry the values attached to that into adulthood. P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 20:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Tim Dowling's response

From the Guardian. Very amusing. El TajDon't make me do stuff 18:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Almost as hilarious as her own response to the backlash. Wildly missing the point. I laughed out loud at the last couple of paragraphs. ωεαşεζόίďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Things that happen in Ireland

"How was work today, dear?" "Oh, much as usual. A horse tried to sodomise me at one point." --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 17:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

LOL is a much abused phrase on the internet, but I really did laugh out loud at that. Animal rape is the height of humour and sophistication. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I think you could of phrased your last sentence better AMG... While a horse humping a cop is hilarious, a cop humping a horse is less so. TheCheatI run on alcohol 20:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Jeez, NSFW that please. Osaka Sun (talk) 21:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Yeah Jeeves, please remember to NSFW your ambiguous, undescribed links. I had no idea what I was getting myself into there, because I'm an idiot. ONE / TALK 21:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Osaka, Be thankful that I didn't link you to the original source. The thread includes My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic scat porn. Rule 34 in action. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 21:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Rule 34 is "War is good for business." -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
You're looking at the wrong list. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Somebody found his balls!

It kinda was time, if you'd ask me. --ʤɱ soviet 20:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Jesus. Who's out of touch? the GOP is about to nominate a moderate RINO that independents (who voted for Obama and later rejected) love and Republicans conservatives feel uneasy about. nobsDebate: Should AIG sell health insurance and buy FANNIE MAE securities with the insured's premiums? 20:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Nobody loves Romney, he has no characteristics constant enough for such a feeling to appear. --ʤɱ pervert 20:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I can't wait for him to legalize polygamy. TheCheatI run on alcohol 20:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
You only want polygamy because it's a short step from there to being allowed to marry animals. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 21:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
The day I can marry multiple dolphins of the same sex is the day that I am truly free. Nihilist 23:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I can't remember meeting any of these so called middle-ground independents in years. Do they really exist? In recent times the only thing that seems to matter is how well you can motivate your potential supporters to get out and vote. Anyway, calling Republicans out on their social darwinism is a good start, even if we all know both parties are full of corporate stooges. Q0 (talk) 01:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Every single independent I met who has "rejected" Obama has "rejected" him for being too right-wing. I don't think anybody really loves Romney. He's the John Kerry of the Republican party. Omar (gibber) 14:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Except Kerry's not a chickenhawk. -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Obama is President today because the Stock Market Crash of October 6, 2008, one month prior to the November General Election. This crash wiped out the 401(k) retirement accounts of independent white voters age 55 plus, Obama's weakest demographic group without which he could not win. Within three months, that demographic group of independent moderates, who pinned their retirement hopes on Wall Street, realized Obama was an anti-capitalist with his focus on Stimulus spending and government mandated healthcare. He lost them then, and has never gained them back. This has always been Romney's core constituency -- outside the GOP. nobsDebate: Should AIG sell health insurance and buy FANNIE MAE securities with the insured's premiums? 19:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
More "Obama is anti-capitalist" lies, Rob? How, then, do you explain "The Dow rose 66 points on Friday to close out the best first-quarter point gain—994.48 points—in its history, and the best first-quarter percentage performance—8.1%—since 1998.", then? Sophiebecause liberals 19:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Bloated executive compensation? Obama's corporate donors? nobsbullies are people, too. 19:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
What's that got to do with the price of fish? -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Rob, why don't you sod off back to CP or some other hate site instead of hanging round here like a bad smell? Sophiebecause liberals 20:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

This primary is marked as the first time since he promulgated it that Republicans are breaking Reagan's "first commandment", at least on a national level. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The Bush-McCain primaries were pretty nasty. nobsDebate: Should AIG sell health insurance and buy FANNIE MAE securities with the insured's premiums? 19:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

FTB has anti-fans and they cite...us?

Apparently there is an anti-Pharyngula/FTB wiki called Phawrongula and they cite RW on some pages (e.g., here). Can't vouch for the factual accuracy of the site, just found the page randomly and read one or two articles. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with their assessment of Greg Laden, but the half dozen other articles I read were pretty bad. Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 23:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I got up to where it says that Rebecca Watson called for a Richard Dawkins boycott and stopped. Nihilist 23:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
So is this just a repository of Elevatorgate butthurt? If so, I regret even posting it -- didn't really read much besides a few lines of a couple of articles as it looked like documentation of internet drama and that puts me to sleep. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Yah, I completely dismissed any paragraph that mentioned Rebecca Watson. They reeked of butthurt. Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 02:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Are they still fighting over this? Osaka Sun (talk) 02:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Only the very dumbest parts of "they." Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 03:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Even Watson herself has grew some sense and stopped mentioning it (well, she seems to be over it.)... But did you read the part that says "The Phawrongula Wiki is a resource for documenting systemic fact distortion and historical revision by self-described freethinkers and secularists who are actively harming freethought and secular communities in the pursuit of self-interest and ideology." - and this phrasing didn't set off alarm bells at all? Sounds like something SCEPCOP would write.
Also, consider "The custom FFTB definition is a nonsense and is nothing more than an exercise in self-justification for the general vacuity of its readership who continuously show absolute inability to defend any of their derangements using acceptable methods and thus have no tools other than direct personal abuse to resort to." from the ad hom article, in light of "Please stick to basic facts and leave the colorful language and editorializing for elsewhere." which is on the mainpage. Scarlet A.pngsshole 12:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Meh, MRAs stoking grievances. Also, experts predict, sun to rise in East tomorrow. Godspeed (talk) 18:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I was willing to read it out, (I've always felt that PZ was a bit of a dickhole sometimes), UNTILL they started defending The Amazing Atheist AKA TJ AKA Distressed watcher AKA whatever you wana call him. If PZ is a bit of a Dickhole sometimes, AA is a huge, throbbing, infected asshole of a human being. All the "clever" puns and inserts also get old REALLY fast. --Revolverman (talk) 20:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Titanic - now in 3D

So I guess we are supposed to get all excited. People are running columns about how amazing this film was. Is it only me who thought it was "fine"... The acting was ok, the plot predictable (not the boat part, the "love story") part, the story, characters and presentation were rather banal. Yet so many people rate it "masterpiece". What am I missing?--Pink mowse.pngGodot What do cats dream about? 03:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I think this first half was crap and the second half was quite good. Also, all the main characters were irritating cliches, but some of the minor characters were really well done. A father putting his daughter on a life boat stirred up more emotion in a few seconds than the entire cast of leads did for the combined 3 hours. I haven't been to a 3D movie since the neo-3D craze began, and assuming I do go to one it will be one shot in 3D rather than having the effects done in post. Maybe I'm waiting for a re-release of Avatar (which we know is coming) as I never got around to seeing it. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 03:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
because of how my eyes are, ive never really been able to watch anything in 3-D, so i never cared much for it. as for titanic... it was ok. the love plot conflict is sorta like twister having a guy whos evil cause he wanted to actually be able to be a real storm chaser and have the money and tools to do it because mother nature isnt a "Villian". The other problem is my memory of titanic is marred by the two animated italian movies.--il'Dictator Mikal 03:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
The rerelease of Avatar will occur only after the spread of 4-D technology. Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 03:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
The latest Spy Kids flick bills itself as 4D, the 4th "dimension" being smell. It was a cool gimmick when John Waters did it in Polyester years ago, but I don't think this will catch on. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 03:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Nekkid Kate winslet in 3-D would be worth 12 bucks to me. P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 03:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Just don't bring back the rapping dog in the 3D version. Тyrant 03:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
My take:
1. This trend of 3D remakes is getting awfully annoying.
2. No one must say a word about "My Heart Will Go On." Celine! Osaka Sun (talk) 03:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
God how I loath her. And I don't use that word often or easily. She can turn an interesting, even powerful song into a horror show, screeching and wailing...Her version of "Halleluiah" causes me to want to break things. There's this amazing song 'la memoire d'abharam' about a contemplative pray on life, a quiet, gentle song and she just goes wonkers polluting it with that hyper voice. it's a PRAYER. Ok sorry.. shutting up.Pink mowse.pngGodot What do cats dream about? 04:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
No, I totally understand. Canadian music has churned out some real crap for the past few decades. Osaka Sun (talk) 05:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Or just pop music in general.
FUCK POPULAR THINGS. Nihilist 14:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

This was totally me during Leo's death scene. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 14:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The shark still looks fake. -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Ignore it and it will go away

3D movies are a recurring phase which recycles every 30 years or so. (1950, 1980, 2010) After a while people realise that it doesn't add anything to the movie and the glasses are a pain in the fundament to wear so it dies down again. Plus ca change... Jack Hughes (talk) 13:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Possibly, but recent changes -- being able to see it without glasses and have it in your own TV, and eventual price-drops -- could make it stay for good. Nihilist 13:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

But the starfield will be correct!

now astronomers and the like can't complain that isn't what it should look like!--il'Dictator Mikal 15:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Now I have to go see it again in theaters and buy a new Blu-Ray special extended version! Nihilist 15:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Tyson is a riot. He told the Daily show, on air, that the earth was spinning the wrong way. Not to be "one uped" Jon replied something like "well it took you 3 visits to notice it". --Pink mowse.pngGodot What do cats dream about? 20:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Gods as Topological Invariants

This came across my RSS feed a couple days ago, perhaps some will appreciate: "We show that the number of gods in a universe must equal the Euler characteristics of its underlying manifold. By incorporating the classical cosmological argument for creation, this result builds a bridge between theology and physics and makes theism a testable hypothesis. Theological implications are profound since the theorem gives us new insights in the topological structure of heavens and hells. Recent astronomical observations can not reject theism, but data are slightly in favor of atheism." -- (talk) 03:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

"the number of gods must equal some such science type of thing" except... by they're nature gods tend to be in a world separate and not under this worlds control, so no, it doesn't. --il'Dictator Mikal 03:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Yet their effect on this world will be observable, regardless of "where" they might be and you can invent as many plains of existence as you like for that. All that matters is their observable effect. If you demand that they have no observable effect then there is no effect, and so their existence can be happily made utterly pointless on all conveievably useful levels. Scarlet A.pngnarchist 12:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I find this sentence particularly convincing:
  • "We show that the number of gods in a universe must equal the Euler characteristics of its underlying manifold."
Sounds like something our Muslim post-editor might have come up with.--Bob"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." 15:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

2016 Republican Bogyman.

A trend I am noticing about the Republican party is their creation of a scary bogyman to distract from the real issues of an election. In 2008, it was ACORN, which was apparently criminally registering poor people to vote, obviously "bad" because poor people would be able to vote. Rather than the melting economy or Iraq or other relevant issues, the 2008 cycle was about how Obama was conspiring with a former domestic terrorist and a voter registration group to do something really bad.

In 2012, the current bogyman is Planned Parenthood, which is overall the evil epitome of evil evilness, because 3% of their healthcare services are abortion related, and the majority of their services actually help extend the health of usually poor women. This is obviously "bad" because the poor might have the ability to make choices about their own lives, and obviously are part of some plan to destroy America through some genocidal plot.

With that in mind, what group do you think will be victimized by the bully tactics of the Republican Party in 2016, bent on distracting the debate from whatever crock of madness they try to cook up in the next 4 years? I am wagering on the American Academy Of Sciences. ĴαʊΆʃÇä₰ edits from 13:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what 2016 will bring, but I too have a feeling that they're trying to go for the immediate-panic lifestyle issues. I want to say they are going for the 'easy' issues, ones that may not even matter much on whole but seem like a big deal to people who aren't thinking about it. People who feel they are personally threatened, I think, are more likely to vote in what they feel to be self defense than with larger solutions in mind... and the Republican Party knows that this time, it's got nothing. It's a party making laws to support the very richest, but supported by some of the very poorest in our country. They have no plans to help many of their supporters out, but they have to make said supporters enthusiastic somehow. Immediate ethos reactions like "EW, GAY PEOPLE," or 'EW, THINGS THAT ARE AGAINST MY PERSONAL IDEOLOGY" require much much less effort than understanding more important issues on debate. And it's kind of sad, but many people I have known in my life don't really look deeper than what they hear in passing, and many may not even read the news. Much less news that's about something other than themselves. I think it's just easier overall to knee-jerk against a supposed assault on one's way of life (real or not) than to think about long-term decisions that would help more people than oneself overall... and the Republican party knows that. Though, I think there are also shades of unrest and power-redistribution in the Republican party and doubt about their normal way of doing things. These 'easy' issues and crazy-sauce candidates may also be a mask for a Republican Party running on essentially Headless Chicken Mode. ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRwalls of text while-u-wait 14:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I can definitely see a shift in focus away from Planned Parenthood and towards the "homosexual agenda" if DADT remains over and more states continue to legalize gay marriage. Of course, if they do go that way they'll just end up alienating the majority of the mainstream electorate, since "EWW GAYS" is becoming an increasingly less common reaction - but it's the next "easy target" for Republicans. Omar (gibber) 14:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
"These 'easy' issues and crazy-sauce candidates may also be a mask for a Republican Party running on essentially Headless Chicken Mode." Considering the trouble hacks like Boehner have had keeping the 'baggers in line, this may not be too far off. They drank a bit too much of their own Kool-Aid. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
The Republicans have been using bogeymen since at least 1917. First it was REDSREDSREDSREDSREDSREDS!!!!!!. That worked well for a while, but they focussed more on Scary Negroes starting in 1968. Gays, the big bogeyman of the 90's and early 00's, had a shorter shelflife. The new one seems to be "secularism." Vid. Romney saying "We are all Catholics now." (Insert molestation joke here.) This isn't going to be as successful: Their central issue (employer-provided contraception) is a complicated topic on which the majority of Catholics disagree with their (our) church. They'll still be able to use it to fire up part of their base, but it won't be as effective in reaching moderate voters. Godspeed (talk) 17:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Jesus said, O faithless and perverse generation, how much longer must I endure with you?
  • employer-provided contraception.
Well dah. Isn't the idea of an individual mandate intended to encourage terminating employer provided healthcare benefits, which is already happening?
The bogeyman is out-of-the-closet communists. nobsbullies are people, too. 21:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Spring cleaning

I know most of you probably don't want to hear about it, but our CP space clean-out is still ongoing and could use more input. I think we started with something like 674 articles listed and are now down to a more manageable 244, with probably somewhere between 150 and 200 deleted so far. If anyone with any interest in our CP space takes 15 minutes to go through some of these we can probably remove a few dozen more pretty quickly. The MO I've been basically using is when votes are a 4:0 or 5:1 ratio it's closed with that result, though goat votes can complicate it, as that's where 3rd options and other suggestions have been listed. Concentrating on the ones that are currently around 3:1 could close them soon, or prevent them from being closed prematurely if you disagree with the majority opinion. That should leave just the more debatable ones, which can linger for a while and be closed when we are hopefully able to reach some sort of consensus (or maybe just majority opinion; I don't know if we want to take a more WPish approach here - that can be hammered out later). If you are going to vote, please do at least skim the article in question first. It's clear that isn't happening in some cases. Thanks. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 14:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm going through some more right now. I actually find this pretty interesting. I wasn't here for most of these developments, so reading about them is pretty fascinating. And in some cases repulsive. But mostly fascinating. ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRlongissimus non legeri 14:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
It's not the mainspace, no need to go overboard... ħumanUser talk:Human 02:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleting is so much easier work than creating, after all. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I basically agree on both points, although there was a lot of chaff to separate from the wheat. The discussion, as it were, does seem to a little heavy on the editors more on the "torch everything" end of the spectrum, who may or may not be representative of the site in general. My goal is to try to get it down to a manageable size for the general population without deleting anything that it seems there any real enthusiasm to keep. It's a rather fine line to walk with the limited participation we have so far, although the list is now less than 200 articles, from a start of nearly 700. My biggest concern it that it seems we're in danger of losing a slew of side-by-side rebuttals, even though I get the feeling there's a reasonable amount of support for keeping most of them, by and large. There's probably already been some deletes people will balk at, the discussions for which will need to be revived with greater input. I hope they're few though. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 02:44, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Can you Brits take Monckton back?

The Christopher Monckton comedy tour continues as usual. Potholer54 gets blown off by Monckton because's he's too busy spewing denialist PRATTs in the California legislature. At least he's not calling people Nazis this time. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

No, you can keep him. No, really, you can. Don't mention it. Ajkgordon (talk) 16:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Sure, we'll take him back, just as soon as you clean out and hand back the thirteen colonies. We had the good sense to ban your wingnuts from entering the country, you can deal with ours. -- Iscariot Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012! 18:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Now wash your hands please

Anyone want to write up something on the Save White People website? I would, but I have to go and share my dinner with Armitage Shanks. Sophiebecause liberals 19:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Who wants to get on a watchlist and give that phone number a ring? Vulpius (talk) 19:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I literally cannot look at sites like that long enough to take enough notes to write an article from, sorry. P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 19:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
That's the hard work of writing RW snartikles, sadly. Hopefully some less burnt-out editor will take up the challenge? ħumanUser talk:Human 02:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Me neither, I found it by accident while following Buzzfeed links. Sophiebecause liberals 20:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
There are loads of hate sites/blogs/forums out there & most of them aren't very notable. I've occasionally found one when looking for something else, & considered whether to mention it on RW, but in the end I don't want to risk raising their profile by drawing attention to them. If they get to be well known or significant like Stormfront, GHF, etc. then obviously we should write about them; but otherwise they're best left in obscurity. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Bookmarked for the crazy. I might do an essay on them when I want something painfully easy to refute. Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 20:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
My God. This post is glorious—"everything I don't like is part of the same massive conspiracy to kill me!" (Also, the "white women are stupid, and that's why they screw black men" angle.) And the most ironic Tweet I've seen this year. Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 20:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
You are a sexual magnet for brainwashed White chicks who feel guilty because of slavery that ended in 1865. Dude... women are not that driven by historical guilt. Also: SUPERVILLAIN ORIGIN STORY. --ʤɱ pirate 12:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
First, love your header font mate. Second, in a post talking about the Zimmerman case (wonderful...) He left turns right into a Truther Screed! Got to love Crank Magnetism. --Revolverman (talk) 20:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The Hunt for AI

du Sautoy is back in Horizon's "the Hunt for AI". Anyone watched it yet? I'm curious how the "media" of BBC thinks AI is going. I'm also curious how much they will exaggerate (if at all) about what we understand of the brain and intelligence. Finally, i get to see a Horizon where I can at least hold my own, rather than just "ohhh.... ahhhh... stars... quantums"Pink mowse.pngGodot What do cats dream about? 20:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I read that as "Al" and got immediately confused. "Al who? Gore? Bundy?" Vulpius (talk) 21:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Me too, Vulpius. I may go off sans serif fonts if this sort of thing carries on. Sophiebecause liberals 21:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Mmmm. Just because we don't understand how it works doesn't mean we can't harness it anyway. Our distant ancestors had mastery over fire long before anybody had a coherent theory of combustion.
My old AI professor was very insistent that disembodied AIs were a stupid concept, unlikely to ever work. If his ideas were right, or even if his ideas were wrong but his conclusion close to the mark, the place to look for AI breakthroughs is not something like Watson but somewhere like Robocup. All divisions (except Simulation) of Robocup involve actual robots, whether they're moving tiny pallets of goods around a semi-imaginary factory or kicking balls around on a soccer pitch. The very human problems of understanding what you're seeing, and trying to walk around without crashing into stuff or falling over must be solved year-on-year by these robots, and if there's something about solving those type of environmental problems that's important to our development of general intelligence (whatever that is) then the robots will be where the big achievements happen. (talk) 01:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
We were just talking about this on WfG's hangout. Rolf Pfeifer is saying more or less the same thing. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I thought it was very good, WfG. Not much about the human brain and intelligence - more about how AI needs to evolve on its own terms in much the same way as human intelligence did and does. The presenter, a mathematician, seemed to steer the programme towards looking at intelligence as a rather more abstract concept than many engineers do. Worth a watch and thought-provoking, at least for this layman. Ajkgordon (talk) 14:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

This seems like the wrong place but

Is there anywhere I can ask for help, or any newbie-friendly people I can turn to? — Haamer (talk) 23:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure, what do you need, n00b? P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 23:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I need some assumption of good faith and competence. I just came here, made a string of what I thought were improvements to an article, an had all of them arbitrarily reverted with less than useful explanations by other editors. Right now I don't feel very encouraged to continue or even to explain my edits because I have a feeling I'll just get pwned and dismissed, whatever I might say. I didn't come here to argue with anyone, I joined specifically because it seems there'd be likeminded people here. — Haamer (talk) 23:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
We're not really "likeminded" on a lot of things, and as a new guy, you have to face a culture where being a little assertive will get you places. Best bet is to go to the talkpage of the article in question, and start a conversation about why some jerk reverted you. P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 23:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm actually pretty sure all regulars here are pretty likeminded about otherkin (the article in question). I did go to the talk page with one user and messaged on user talk with the other user. I wasn't really sure if I wanted to continue the article talk discussion if all I'll accomplish is making myself look like an annoying n00b. — Haamer (talk) 00:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Hey :( But yeah, that was a mistake, sorry. Nihilist 23:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
S'okay. I'm more concerned about the revert where they undid my clarification that fictionkin and otakukin are not synonymous and restored a nearly-nonsensical sentence in the lead. — Haamer (talk) 00:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I am "they" (not actually a multiple) who restored some of the things you took out of the article. I didn't revert; I incorporated some of your changes. As for the distinction between fictionkin & otakukin, why should any non-otherkin care? Aren't these just absurdly arbitrary constructions of basically the same made-up phenomenon? WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 01:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I used 'they' as a gender-neutral pronoun; if anything then I suspected you're an otherkin, with the apparent obsession with weasels, ha. I intend to flesh out the article, so some specific definitions will be useful. If people don't care then they can just not read the article. I'll later try to summarize the whole thing in the lead section for those that don't care. Cool? — Haamer (talk) 01:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh! oh! I'm a newish person, too! Welcome! ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRlongissimus non legeri 23:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi, and ty. :) — Haamer (talk) 00:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Funny, she doesn't look newish. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
if you could only see her through my eyes Jack Hughes (talk) 16:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Conservapedia logo with graffiti

There is a problem with the old CP logo: File:Cp_logo_constitution.jpg

Whoever uploaded this logo converted it from PNG to JPG. This destroyed both the alpha channel that contained the graffiti and the extra text chunk in the PNG that contained the author's comment, as described here: [1] Can anyone upload the original PNG version? --Tweenk (talk) 00:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure it didn't happen at Conservapedia? It's a very 2007 Cp thing to do. steriletalk 01:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
do either of these work? Tmtoulouse (talk) 02:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
These show the 'graffiti', but they are not the original file, so the author's comment is gone. --Tweenk (talk) 02:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
? (talk) 05:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Bingo, this is the file I was looking for. Thanks. --Tweenk (talk) 02:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

If you couldn't hate George Lucas any further...

KILL IT. KILL IT WITH FIRE. Osaka Sun (talk) 05:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

LOL! This needs to happen; there must be no doubt left in people's minds that the Star Wars saga is nothing more than Lucas' gravy train to whore for money to the maximum possible extent with no reservations, or thought given to the dignity of the franchise. There is not even the pretense the series means anything more. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 10:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, that was an unpleasant way to start my morning. ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRgarrulous en guerre 11:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I now understand what people mean with "you ruined my childhood". I need therapy. Now. --ʤɱ pervert 12:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
It's OK, I watched this video and felt better afterward. ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRlongissimus non legeri 13:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
all you have to do is read some of the newest EU books to understand the train wreck thats been pilling up in the story of late. also since i love reminding people of this quote: "special effects are just a tool, a means of telling a story. People have a tendency to confuse them as an end to themselves. A special effect without a story is a pretty boring thing." - George Lucas, 1985--il'Dictator Mikal 13:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Perhaps I'm just a glutton for punishment, but that looks AMAZING to me. Actually kind of makes me wish I had a Kinect. Omar (gibber) 13:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Necessary. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
All the best Star Wars stuff happened when George wasn't in complete control of it. As soon as he gets his way it takes a nosedive. It's pretty amazing. X Stickman (talk) 09:55, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

War on Women

I've seen this term on several articles recently, some linked to by RW. Apparently the Olé Party is out in full force against 52% of the electorate. (talk) 08:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

This ought to be good. I was getting so tired with the War on Christmas. Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 08:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Simultaneously happy as this could cause them to crash and burn, and panicky if they actually pull it off. ТyYarrr 14:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello, welcome to 2012. That's been the news since about Jan 1. It's so fun to have a uterus, and be told by the "big men" in our world, how you should live your life.Pink mowse.pngGodot What do cats dream about? 15:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Personally, I was a bigger fan of the war on light bulbs. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Speaking of which, a real option for men is "on the way". injected spemacide. Takes 10 minutes to do the procedure, lasts 10 years, and you apparently can reverse it. Pink mowse.pngGodot What do cats dream about? 16:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
better articlePink mowse.pngGodot What do cats dream about? 16:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Fun-space Clean-up

I'm thinking we need to do the same thing we're doing with CP-space to Fun-space, because there's a lot of shit there. Nihilist 14:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Meh, we had one of those already (about a year ago, IIRC). I say that, if you find something in funspace you want to delete, throw up the {{delete}} template on it and let people go through the normal deletion process. The Symphony of Punk Can't sleep, clowns will eat me! 14:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
And leave some time for people to respond between proposing to delete and actually deleting. What's the rush? Sophiebecause liberals 14:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, some things are obviously shit. Nihilist 14:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Your interpersonal skills, for a start. Sophiebecause liberals 14:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
^ Тyeh? 14:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
"x is obviously y" is so subjective the fact you don't understand that concept is scary. --il'Dictator Mikal 14:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Waiting for a consensus on every stupid two-sentence "He-he, conservatives are dumb" article is pretty pointless. Nihilist 14:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
But why this obsession with "cleaning up x space"? Having shitty articles doesn't particularly harm us and a far better way of improving the ratio of "good" articles is to work on creating and/or improving them. In particular working to push articles to gold standard is a far more worthy aim. Maybe it's because it's more like hard work. Jack Hughes (talk) 15:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Because shitty articles give a bad impression if somebody finds us, and nutty seems to be on with that for the CP space cleanup, despite shitty articles hardly being the worst problem we will have in getting others to want to put money into RW--il'Dictator Mikal 15:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Honestly, the Saloon bar is probably the biggest problem in hypothetically 'getting taken seriously', so let's get rid of that and the people who post the most in it. Nihilist 15:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
OK, so I found RW way back when by Googling Ann Coulter. The RW article was one of the top ranked. Many others arrive by the same route. Now, which is better?
  • Someone finds RW by Googling and lands on a shitty article.
  • Someone fails to find RW because the article has been deleted
  • Obviously preferable - Someone finds RW by Googling and lands on a gold star article.
Going back to where I came in, the AC article is full or RW snark and hardly encyclopaedic but it made me smile and go on to see what else was available. I'm now a long standing RW contributor with a number of good articles to my (or my socks's) name. As such I say it's preferable to have shitty articles than no articles. We've already had one fun space purge. The CP purge is all about the move away from being an anti CP site. Let's not throw everything out, let's improve it. Jack Hughes (talk) 15:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
i dont think you understand this would be the second funspace purge, not the first. As for finding RW, i found it because i had been searching conservapedia to show a friend the site and saw the RW article on it. --il'Dictator Mikal 15:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
"We've already had one fun space purge." Nihilist 15:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Jack Hughes has some good points. Refugeetalk page 15:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I think we've had more than one purge. The "problem" with both funspace and CP space is that there are no standards for what should be there. Mianspace has the mission statement but the other spaces have nothing. That means that anybody can delete for any reason and anybody else can defend for any reason they like. What we should do is decide the function of these spaces and decide if the articles we have match that function.
The alternative is to leave them as they are as they do not seem to do any real damage.--Bob"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." 17:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Which is what will inevitably end up happening. Nihilist 17:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
If I had the powers I would this minute create attic space and reference space for all the stuff that some people like but is neither missiony nor funny. Sophiebecause liberals 21:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that "funny" is inherently subjective. I'd say leave wide latitude for what the fun space allows. In fact, I'm inclined to undelete our CP poetry contests and move them to fun. I do like an attic space for keeping parts of our history that have nowhere else to go. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 21:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
We should pester somebody to do it. Who? Sophiebecause liberals 21:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Not sure. I'm a mod, so I have powers beyond those of mere mortals, though I have no idea what most of them are or if something like this is among them (I'm guessing not). I guess I'm a bit like the Greatest American Hero, actually. Anyway, Nx is always one of them names floated about when technical shit needs to be done, especially unilaterally. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 22:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure you need server access to edit namespaces, unless there's an extension installed. Nihilist 22:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
We can always pull a Schlafly and pretend we've created a new namespace by putting a word and a colon at the beginning of an article. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 09:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The internet is useless for solving problems

mostly because i don't know what the problem is even called or whats causing it: things on my xbox are just jutting colors, like the avatar line, just the colors going off to the side, loading a game is amazing because its just LINES OF COLOR everywhere. Any idea whats even going on and if i have to turn my second xbox in for a new one?--il'Dictator Mikal 14:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Could be a bad cable connection? Ajkgordon (talk) 14:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
If you've double and triple checked the cable connection, consider another cable...they do go bad, you know.C®ackeЯ
If you have a friend with an Xbox and her system is functional then try swapping bits out until you find the offending part. If it's the XBox itself then it could be down to "no user serviceable parts inside" and whatever warranty terms you have. Jack Hughes (talk) 15:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
whatever it was it seems to have fixed itself. I wouldnt be that surprised if parts were going bad though, the xbox itself is a replacement from 2009 for my 2007 which finally red-ringed, and all the parts, besides the HDMI cable, are from 2007.--il'Dictator Mikal 16:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
It seems to have fixed itself....
  1. It seems to have fixed itself - I switched it off and the overheating cooled down
  2. It seems to have fixed itself - I switched it off and the reboot fixed the bug
  3. It seems to have fixed itself - while looking at it I turned it around and that reseated the cables
  4. It seems to have fixed itself - the Xbox fairy came and waved her magic wand
I suspect the last option. Jack Hughes (talk) 16:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
The HDMI cable is a digital cable, specifically TMDS. So I very strongly doubt that a poor connection will do anything more interesting than either working or not working, with "working and then suddenly not working when it gets a bit looser" being an extreme edge case. TMDS uses differential signalling, so most stray EM interference signals will mean nothing whatsoever to the HDMI receiver, and even a correctly clocked but random code input will be rejected as an error more than 50% of the time. Thus the chance a "loose cable" will cause "lines of color everywhere" is down in the low probability space with "the lung cancer on my X-ray was actually indigestion" and "the Dead Sea Scrolls contained important messages about the Obama presidency". Hardware fault, due to overheating and/or slow component failure inside the XBox (or less likely, the display) is a far more plausible explanation. (talk) 19:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Humorous poetry topic.

Which one sounds best?

Thanks for your time, (talk) 16:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I think "what load of cobblers are you gibbering about?" sounds best. Sophiebecause liberals 21:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Nobody likes him:
words squirting out, frothing forth
from more than the mouth
±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRgarrulous en guerre 22:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


Take that, you smug bastards. PongoOrangutans are sceptical 18:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The temples of the fruit god were defiled, and crows shall feast upon his remains. All hail the mighty penguin, enthroned triumphant before his adversaries. --Tweenk (talk) 02:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Hey, I have a Mac! Not a rabid fanboy though. Osaka Sun (talk) 02:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Kids in Sweden know what's up

Hey, thought you guys might like this. It's from a Swedish newspaper article on the meaning of Easter. Maybe he's our youngest member, and we don't even know it? — Unsigned, by: RachelW / talk / contribs

I see the socialist/secularist overtake of Sweden is going as planned. Soon it'll be all of Europe and none will know Jesus' name anymore. Only the USA can still stop us now ! But we allready have a spy in your midst! Muhahahahaaaa! --ʤɱ structuralist 19:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
We are doomed. A goat can eat tree bark and steel cans. A Jewish goat zombie can eat cyanide and molten iron. There is no escape. Our brains will be eaten. --Tweenk (talk) 02:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

KONY 2012: Part II

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=c_Ue6REkeTA Note that comments, and ratings are disabled. Not a good signRyantherebel (talk) 20:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I loved how they randomly threw an Alex Jones clip into the opening montage at about the 36 second mark - it's almost as if he's a real journalist! Tetronian you're clueless 00:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Seeing as this the place for unanswerable technical questions

A couple of years ago I dropped an external hard drive and, not surprisingly, it stopped working. It had a number of photos from my honeymoon which I was sad to lose but them's the breaks.

A couple of days ago I installed a USB3 card in my desktop and, out of curiosity, I plugged the old broken hard drive in.

Somewhat to my surprise it recognized the drive but refused to read anything from it. After playing around for a while though the whole file structure turned up. I immediately tried to copy my photo file onto another disk but the process hung and eventually the PC stopped recognizing it again.

So I've spent the past several hours playing around with it to little avail. I put it in the fridge as my brother-in-law recommended (hey I've got nothing to lose!) but that did not help. I've seen a suggestion that running it under Lunix might work. Anybody know if that's a good idea or got any other suggestions? --Bob"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." 20:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

It depends if it's the disc itself that is damaged or the USB circuitry it's plugged into. You can always take the case apart, take the disc out and plug it directly into your PC using a SATA and power cable. Ajkgordon (talk) 21:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
In fact, I tried doing that but it seems to be a sealed unit.--Bob"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." 07:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
In Windows try PCI File Recovery (freeware) or in Lunix try dd_rescue or ddrescue from a live distro. Long live Lunix! Unicow (talk) 22:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I'll give PCI File Recovery a try first. I simply don't have a Lunix machine and have no experience with it. So creating a dual boot one is a little ambitious for me.--Bob"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." 07:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Unicow likes Linux --> Linux = good --> Unicow = good
Nihilist 22:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
If all else fails, professional data recovery places are actually surprisingly cheap these days. If you really want the data back and can't do it at home, something to consider. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 22:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
But only if your porn collection doesn't embarrass you. Nihilist 00:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Mmmmm. So many goats.--Bob"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." 10:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Trolling some Paulbots

I'm bored, so I've decided to troll commenters on a Ron Paul video. If anyone wants to join me, I invite them. Some cool points to raise:

  • "Peaceful diplomacy" Paul tried to hire a group of private mercenaries in order to counter Al Qaida in 2001 through H.R. 3076.
  • "Dr." Paul would let a sick patient die if he didn't have health insurance.
  • "Privacy rights" Paul would allow state governments to regulate your sex life.
    • "Constitutional" Paul explained his view by claiming that the right to bedroom privacy was not guaranteed by the 14th amendment. He forgets the 9th Amendment however, which specifically states "Just because the constitution doesn't specifically state X rights, doesn't mean X rights aren't protected", and the right to privacy is an implied right from the 1th, 4th, and 14th amendments.
  • "Free market" Paul would repeal anti-trust laws.
  • "Civil Liberties" Paul voted for the Authorized Use of Military Force Act, which is the real creator of "indefinite detention", not the NDAA. To be fair, every other congressman and senator voted for the bill not knowing its consequences, but remember that Ron Paul is supposed to know better.

Just remember, it'll be fun, and if we get enough people, we could mess up the video's own rating. Mr. Anon (talk) 03:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

On a more serious note, I go after Paul more than the other Republicans because for some reason, there are a significant amount of liberals and progressives who support him. If these progressives had smart in 2010, they would have elected more progressive Democrats into both houses of congress, so that we could account for Blue Dogs and people like Lieberman. Instead we have the Orange Boner in the Speaker seat and conservative Republicans in charge of several important committees. Mr. Anon (talk) 03:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
He's politically screwed right now, so I don't think we really need to do this. The raging Paulbots hardly made a dent in the Republican primaries, and I doubt Goldmember's going to try again in 2016. Osaka Sun (talk) 05:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
He's the closest thing to a proper liberatarian ticket they have right now (though that doesn't say much) so just let them cream and dream over him. Scarlet A.pngsshole 11:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Personal tools