Difference between revisions of "Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?"

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(→‎Rob Smith - you lying sack of shit: Adding to my comment, will notify Psygremlin)
Line 32: Line 32:
 
::::Without getting into the fairness of the Obamaville thing, according to the link above he does donate money, food etc to the homeless. It's not clear how much money he gives and how much the sign cost but I would question whether you can fault him solely for spending money on the sign. I don't think many here are living a life of poverty having given all their money to the homeless. Many of us do spend money on luxuries for ourselves, quite a few also spend money (in a variety of ways) on political causes they hold dear etc. There's surely no requirement for him to give all his money to the homeless to be entitled to have a say. A more relevant point is whether it's fair for him to use the homeless as part of what he's doing, particularly as it seems unlikely they'll be willing to tell someone who's helping them to piss off if they don't agree. As I've said, there are also issues of whether to say Obama has some blame for the current situation etc, but that doesn't seem related to where he spends his money issue at all. Incidentally, was there ever really any doubt the sign was made by a professional? It clearly looks like a professional sign to me. P.S. I don't know the whole story here since I'm lazy to look in to the history. It's not IMHO particularly relevant since what RS has done wrong or right, it's not really relevant to the point. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 00:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 
::::Without getting into the fairness of the Obamaville thing, according to the link above he does donate money, food etc to the homeless. It's not clear how much money he gives and how much the sign cost but I would question whether you can fault him solely for spending money on the sign. I don't think many here are living a life of poverty having given all their money to the homeless. Many of us do spend money on luxuries for ourselves, quite a few also spend money (in a variety of ways) on political causes they hold dear etc. There's surely no requirement for him to give all his money to the homeless to be entitled to have a say. A more relevant point is whether it's fair for him to use the homeless as part of what he's doing, particularly as it seems unlikely they'll be willing to tell someone who's helping them to piss off if they don't agree. As I've said, there are also issues of whether to say Obama has some blame for the current situation etc, but that doesn't seem related to where he spends his money issue at all. Incidentally, was there ever really any doubt the sign was made by a professional? It clearly looks like a professional sign to me. P.S. I don't know the whole story here since I'm lazy to look in to the history. It's not IMHO particularly relevant since what RS has done wrong or right, it's not really relevant to the point. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 00:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 
:::::I think you're beating up a straw man, Nil. No one's calling this man a hypocrite because he hasn't given away all his worldly possessions. He is taking criticism for using money he could have donated to make a cynical point. [[User:Colonel of Squirrels|<b>Colonel of Squirrels</b>]][[User_Talk:Colonel of Squirrels|<sup><i>你有两头母牛。他们是删掉了。</i></sup>]] 21:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 
:::::I think you're beating up a straw man, Nil. No one's calling this man a hypocrite because he hasn't given away all his worldly possessions. He is taking criticism for using money he could have donated to make a cynical point. [[User:Colonel of Squirrels|<b>Colonel of Squirrels</b>]][[User_Talk:Colonel of Squirrels|<sup><i>你有两头母牛。他们是删掉了。</i></sup>]] 21:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
::::::My point though is the money is largely irrelevant. I don't see any reason why spending your money on a sign is in itself somehow intrinsicly worse then spending your money on a big screen TV, or a Xbox360 or whatever. To each their own. If someone's luxury is signs, well that's up to them. I don't really see it as my place to dictate to people what their luxuries of life should be provided they aren't harming other people. In fact I'm not sure whether it's fair to call it a 'luxury' either. If someone chooses to spend their money to buy campaigns ads for Obama or Palin or whatever, well again that's their choice. Perhaps the reason they're doing it is because they think it will improve the lives of Haitans. In such a case, you can argue whether it would have been better for them to donate their money to a charity helping Haitans but it's an ultimately likely impossible to prove either way which would have been better and in any case, even if donating would have been more effective, it was still their money so I find it difficult to criticise them for choosing to spend it in a way they presumably thought more effective. The same as this sign, even more so since if we believe the story they had already been helping out. Now as I've said you may criticise this particular sign on other merits, e.g. argue it's missing the point, taking advantage of homeless people, and in fact I think these and others do have merit. But these issues are largely distinct from the issue of the money. In other words IMHO the issue to concentrate on is whether this sign is fair, not on whether it was acceptable for someone to spend their money on what you can regard as a luxury or a political contribution/advertisment or whatever you want. Sure this person (did the story establish it's a man? I forget) could have donated the money. Or he/she could have spent it on a an PS3. Or a prostitute (except thats illegal in most of the US, ooops). Or in an expensive bottle of wine. Or a day of pampering. Or a domain name, hosting etc for a website. Or an advertisement for whatever politician he/she supports. Or a campaign contribution to said politician. Donating the money to charity would arguably be the most noble. But few people donate all their money to charity. For the other things it's IMHO somewhat difficult and pointless anyway to try and argue one is somehow worse then the other purely from the view of the baseline (similarly to analysing the sign situation, if you for example analyse each situation you may argue what they've done their is wrong, e.g. the prostitute situtation if the prostitute was likely close to a sex slave). [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 12:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
+
::::::My point though is the money is largely irrelevant. I don't see any reason why spending your money on a sign is in itself somehow intrinsicly worse then spending your money on a big screen TV, or a Xbox360 or whatever. To each their own. If someone's luxury is signs, well that's up to them. I don't really see it as my place to dictate to people what their luxuries of life should be provided they aren't harming other people. In fact I'm not sure whether it's fair to call it a 'luxury' either. If someone chooses to spend their money to buy campaigns ads for Obama or Palin or whatever, well again that's their choice. Perhaps the reason they're doing it is because they think it will improve the lives of Haitans. In such a case, you can argue whether it would have been better for them to donate their money to a charity helping Haitans and I don't see anything wrong with that but it's an ultimately likely impossible to prove either way which would have been better and in any case, even if donating would have been more effective, it was still their money so I find it difficult to criticise them for choosing to spend it in a way they presumably thought more effective. And at worse, what it means is the money spend shouldn't be regarded as noble or a good thing, but I don't see any reason to say the expenditure of money in itself was worse then someone spending money on luxuries. (Now their belief that their expenditure of money was a noble thing is a different matter and I see criticism of that belief as a resonable and valid issue.) The same as this sign, even more so since if we believe the story they had already been helping out. Now as I've said you may criticise this particular sign on other merits, e.g. argue it's missing the point, taking advantage of homeless people, and in fact I think these and others do have merit. But these issues are largely distinct from the issue of the money. In other words IMHO the issue to concentrate on is whether this sign is fair, not on whether it was acceptable for someone to spend their money on what you can regard as a luxury or a political contribution/advertisment or whatever you want. Sure this person (did the story establish it's a man? I forget) could have donated the money. Or he/she could have spent it on a an PS3. Or a prostitute (except thats illegal in most of the US, ooops). Or in an expensive bottle of wine. Or a day of pampering. Or a domain name, hosting etc for a website. Or an advertisement for whatever politician he/she supports. Or a campaign contribution to said politician. Donating the money to charity would arguably be the most noble. But few people donate all their money to charity. For the other things it's IMHO somewhat difficult and pointless anyway to try and argue one is somehow worse then the other purely from the view of the baseline (similarly to analysing the sign situation, if you for example analyse each situation you may argue what they've done their is wrong, e.g. the prostitute situtation if the prostitute was likely close to a sex slave). Most of us each day spend money on things which aren't really necessary for our lives. I'm sure we'll generally be rather pissed off if someone tells us every time we do so 'why are you wasting money on chocolate bars or whatever when you should be donating it to help out other people'. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 12:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 
:::::::::But that's where you're wrong. If he had spent the money on himself, nobody would have cared. However, he chose to spend $x to score a cheap shot, using the homeless, who had been there since before Obama. He was quite willing to spend money to exploit them, but not to spend money to help them. --[[User:Psygremlin|<b><font color="blue">PsyGremlin</font></b>]]{{User:Psygremlin/sig|}} 12:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 
:::::::::But that's where you're wrong. If he had spent the money on himself, nobody would have cared. However, he chose to spend $x to score a cheap shot, using the homeless, who had been there since before Obama. He was quite willing to spend money to exploit them, but not to spend money to help them. --[[User:Psygremlin|<b><font color="blue">PsyGremlin</font></b>]]{{User:Psygremlin/sig|}} 12:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
  

Revision as of 13:00, 3 October 2010

What is going on?

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

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

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

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

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

Socialist obama.jpg

Obamageddon Meter

RationalWiki:Community Chalkboard

Rob Smith - you lying sack of shit

So, I tracked down your little 'Obamaville' clip. And guess what I found? That's right, the Obamaville sign, wasn't made by the homeless, and wasn't even donated by the person who made the sign. No, some good conservative Christian spent good money making a sign, instead of, you know, maybe using that money to help the homeless. Instead of a stupid stunt that has once again back fired on conservatives. Just another example of Christian charity I guess.

At least know I know why your Obamaville article doesn't actually talk about Obamavilles. You prick.

Oh yes, and now the banner you so proudly display has been replaced with one saying "Please provide fire wood, propane and canned food." Also, why isn't this thoughtful conservative making his name known? Could he be ducking and running now that it's all gone wrong.

Come on over Rob, I can't wait to hear you reply on this. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 20:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

mmm...canned wood.. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Careful, it might be the stick up Rob's butt. --Kels (talk) 02:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Since when has Herbert ("Rugged Individualist") Hoover been a subscriber to Keynesian economics? Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 21:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I've known the man personally for several years through one of the Christian ministries I'm involved with. I have no basis to doubt his word. He told me about the Obamaville incident after spending about six months in Colorado Springs. He & I do not see eye-to-eye on politics, is a rabid Bushhater, but he was extremely upset by Obama's betrayal of hope. (Back in 2008 he said in his Southern drawl, "Obama can't fuck it up anymore than all the other crackers already have.") Maybe I can make him available for an interview with you guys, but I haven/t seen him now in a few months.
Oh, and as the story goes, the Obama EPA responded to the banner by claiming the homeless camp lacked adaquate sanitation and threatened to remove them if they didn't install port-a-potties. Real compassion, huh? nobsdon't bother me 22:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
"as the story goes" - links Rob, or it didn't happen. And when did the EPA become a charity organisation anyway, they probably did as much as they could within their jurisdiction. Also, how about in your Obamaville "article" actually listing the locations of some of them, how long they've been there, how many people live in them. You know, actually have the article - and citations - actually refer to the subject matter. You don't, because you can't. But the need to smear that uppity negro in the White House, is more pressing than the truth with the rabid right. Isn't it Rob? How long has the informal settlement referred to been in existence? All as result of Obama's stimulus package? And on who's watch did the fuck up occur that necessitated the stimulus package. Also your friend's quote seems more an indictment of politics in general, rather than Obama. However, I for one, would love an interview with the guy, just to find out why he sees it better to spend money on a stupid banner, than actually helping people. --PsyGremlinSprich! 09:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Without getting into the fairness of the Obamaville thing, according to the link above he does donate money, food etc to the homeless. It's not clear how much money he gives and how much the sign cost but I would question whether you can fault him solely for spending money on the sign. I don't think many here are living a life of poverty having given all their money to the homeless. Many of us do spend money on luxuries for ourselves, quite a few also spend money (in a variety of ways) on political causes they hold dear etc. There's surely no requirement for him to give all his money to the homeless to be entitled to have a say. A more relevant point is whether it's fair for him to use the homeless as part of what he's doing, particularly as it seems unlikely they'll be willing to tell someone who's helping them to piss off if they don't agree. As I've said, there are also issues of whether to say Obama has some blame for the current situation etc, but that doesn't seem related to where he spends his money issue at all. Incidentally, was there ever really any doubt the sign was made by a professional? It clearly looks like a professional sign to me. P.S. I don't know the whole story here since I'm lazy to look in to the history. It's not IMHO particularly relevant since what RS has done wrong or right, it's not really relevant to the point. Nil Einne (talk) 00:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I think you're beating up a straw man, Nil. No one's calling this man a hypocrite because he hasn't given away all his worldly possessions. He is taking criticism for using money he could have donated to make a cynical point. Colonel of Squirrels你有两头母牛。他们是删掉了。 21:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
My point though is the money is largely irrelevant. I don't see any reason why spending your money on a sign is in itself somehow intrinsicly worse then spending your money on a big screen TV, or a Xbox360 or whatever. To each their own. If someone's luxury is signs, well that's up to them. I don't really see it as my place to dictate to people what their luxuries of life should be provided they aren't harming other people. In fact I'm not sure whether it's fair to call it a 'luxury' either. If someone chooses to spend their money to buy campaigns ads for Obama or Palin or whatever, well again that's their choice. Perhaps the reason they're doing it is because they think it will improve the lives of Haitans. In such a case, you can argue whether it would have been better for them to donate their money to a charity helping Haitans and I don't see anything wrong with that but it's an ultimately likely impossible to prove either way which would have been better and in any case, even if donating would have been more effective, it was still their money so I find it difficult to criticise them for choosing to spend it in a way they presumably thought more effective. And at worse, what it means is the money spend shouldn't be regarded as noble or a good thing, but I don't see any reason to say the expenditure of money in itself was worse then someone spending money on luxuries. (Now their belief that their expenditure of money was a noble thing is a different matter and I see criticism of that belief as a resonable and valid issue.) The same as this sign, even more so since if we believe the story they had already been helping out. Now as I've said you may criticise this particular sign on other merits, e.g. argue it's missing the point, taking advantage of homeless people, and in fact I think these and others do have merit. But these issues are largely distinct from the issue of the money. In other words IMHO the issue to concentrate on is whether this sign is fair, not on whether it was acceptable for someone to spend their money on what you can regard as a luxury or a political contribution/advertisment or whatever you want. Sure this person (did the story establish it's a man? I forget) could have donated the money. Or he/she could have spent it on a an PS3. Or a prostitute (except thats illegal in most of the US, ooops). Or in an expensive bottle of wine. Or a day of pampering. Or a domain name, hosting etc for a website. Or an advertisement for whatever politician he/she supports. Or a campaign contribution to said politician. Donating the money to charity would arguably be the most noble. But few people donate all their money to charity. For the other things it's IMHO somewhat difficult and pointless anyway to try and argue one is somehow worse then the other purely from the view of the baseline (similarly to analysing the sign situation, if you for example analyse each situation you may argue what they've done their is wrong, e.g. the prostitute situtation if the prostitute was likely close to a sex slave). Most of us each day spend money on things which aren't really necessary for our lives. I'm sure we'll generally be rather pissed off if someone tells us every time we do so 'why are you wasting money on chocolate bars or whatever when you should be donating it to help out other people'. Nil Einne (talk) 12:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
But that's where you're wrong. If he had spent the money on himself, nobody would have cared. However, he chose to spend $x to score a cheap shot, using the homeless, who had been there since before Obama. He was quite willing to spend money to exploit them, but not to spend money to help them. --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 12:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Here's the story: Three homeless guys at a homeless campsite in Colorado Springs pooled thier resources, $30 each, to have the Obamaville sign painted. Total cost was $90. The sign than was posted on a fence outside the homeless campsite along a freeway exit. The guy who told me the story (who goes by the street name Donald Duck) was one of the initial investors. Donald Duck is a diehard Southern Democrat, hate Republicans, hated Geo. Bush, and voted for Obama cause he thought Obama would do something to create jobs and infrastructure development. Last winter, while in the frezing Colorado winter, these guys started having second thoughts about Obama & cp:Obamunism. Hence the sign. nobsdon't bother me 19:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
That particular encampment predates the Obama administration, but fuck it... you've got an agenda to push. It wouldn't be so bad if you admitted that is was extremely biased and out-of-context propaganda. Not so much on CP, but here. Even if it's by omission, you're still a lying sack of shit. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Here's the story: I don't believe you, Rob. The news story clearly indicates that both signs were designed by a professional (Spencer Swann of Colorado Canyon Signs) and paid for by one anonymous individual who was not homeless. I suppose you could argue that Swann is lying, but as you have a history of being...creative with the truth, I'm disinclined to take your word for it.
Also: Both you and Swann are wrong about the stimulus, which included $1.5 billion to the HUD for programs to help the homeless. You can argue that it's not enough, you can argue that the HUD is ineffective in fighting homelessness, but you can't argue that Obama did nothing. Well, you can't honestly argue that, anyway. Colonel of Squirrels你有两头母牛。他们是删掉了。 21:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
All I know is what I was told. And I have no resaon to doubt the veracity of my source. And yes, the encampment did predate Obama, however, as the story goes, the homeless camp was growing in the winter of 2009, and the new residents were many who activiely did support & vote for Obama, and were dissappointed at the abject failure of the Stimulus and neglect of the promises made and HOPE engendered by Obamunism. One person carrying in the $90 to the sign maker does not negate the veracity that the source of funds were three homeless individials within the camp. nobsdon't bother me 19:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
You mean he didn't instantly solve an enormous and complex global problem despite the outright opposition of the entire GOP, to say nothing of the Teabagging nutters? Hanging's too good for him. --Kels (talk) 21:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Yep, even with the filibusterproof Dems still couldn't railroad thier schemes to destroy the lives of our children. Now three weeks before the election, Dems have to explain to working families, struggling to feed thier children on $7.25 an hour, why they are raising taxes on poor working class scum from 10% to 15%, a 50% increase. Even the rich aren't getting raped like this. nobsdon't bother me 19:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Actually, Rob, Obama's plan would leave the lower tax rates as they are now, increasing only the higher ones. Nice try, though. DickTurpis (talk) 19:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Duh, dudn't the Congress hav to vote onit? nobsdon't bother me 21:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, moron, Congress does have to vote on it. If the Republicans don't filibuster, then it will be passed. If they do, I suppose you'll blame the Democrats anyway because your brain is wired wrong and you can't grasp simple concepts. DickTurpis (talk) 23:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
So let me get this straight: the "trustworthy" encyclopaedia now accepts hearsay and third-hand unverified statements as fact? Or only when they serve your need to bash Obama? I know Andy cites a dinner conversation with a dead judge, but a wino? Really Rob? And once again, I'll ask the question: Where in your Obamaville article does it say how many Obamavilles there are, where are they located and how many people live in them? You can't answer them, because they don't exist outside of your mind. Deny it, and lose all credibility. Oops, too that for that I guess. --PsyGremlinHable! 15:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Hearsay my butt, it's straightforward reporting based on first person interview. nobsdon't bother me 19:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, Rob - hearsay (or is it "common knowledge, just like the New Ordeal?). It's an unverified "conversation that you had" and the only proof I have is you telling me. That's hearsay. And it doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia. Also, encyclopaedias don't "report" - maybe you're getting mixed up with WND, or maybe you're finally admitting that CP is just another right-wing hate blog? --PsyGremlinParla! 14:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
It's got to be great to be that intellectually dishonest and think you're fooling everyone. As soon as they take down the "Bushville" sign and hang up "Obamaville" it's time to get fired up and talk about this elephant which has magically appeared in the conservative periphery. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Just a minor point here, I find the heading of this section redundant. It's sort of like saying "Pacific Ocean, you sizeable body of water near Asia!" DickTurpis (talk) 16:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Wait a minute, " based on first person interview" You interviewed congress first person? --Opcn (talk) 09:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh wow! Bushville. Who knew they existed, right?
When will we see an article on these Rob? --PsyGremlinFale! 14:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Rob, I'm graciously chalking this one up to stupidity

Rob cries: "Do you make under $8375 ($16,750 married)? The Pelosi/Reid Congress plans on raising your tax rates by 50%, higher than the planned increase on the Rich!" and cites this page.

According to his cite, tax rates are:

  • 2010: 10% on income between $0 and $8,375
  • 2009: 10% on the income between $0 and $8,350, 15% on income between $8,351 and $8,375
  • 2008: 10% on income between $0 and $8,025, 15% on income between $8,026 and $8,375
  • 2007: 10% on income between $0 and $7,825, 15% on income between $7,825 and $8,375

I know I'm using liberal math here, but it seems like those people are paying less than they did before Obama. Rob, please explain what the fuck you're on about... Occasionaluse (talk) 21:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Well lemme sea, 10 to 15 constitues a 50% (or 'fitty' percent) increase, whereas Obama's rich donors only get a 10% increase (36 to 39.6 percent). Seems the little guy gets raped by the Democrats -- no vaseline. nobsdon't bother me 22:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Rob is physically incapable of honesty. AceDrumcode 22:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Are you fucking dense, Rob? There's no change according to these numbers. Junggai (talk) 22:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
All the Dems gotta do is do nothin, and poo' folks taxes increase 50%. Just a plain, simple fact. nobsdon't bother me 22:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
How does that statement not hold true for the Republicans as well? DickTurpis (talk) 23:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
As a non-US citizen I am not sure but doesn't that make it GWB's fault? AceDrumcode 22:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Should Obama not be expected to "Keep G.W.Bush's promise" to end his tax cuts after 10 years?

yeah.. I'm failing to see the logic here, not to mention that stating "raising taxes by 50%" is kind of an alarming statement when its 50% of a small percentage. that is a form of bloated statistic. i would be more concerned if taxes actually RAISED to 50% (or 50% on top of 10%). And the mud over the tax cuts has to do with republicans planning to defeat the bill to extend them, so if anything the GOP plans on using our taxes as a loaded gun to favor them.HKJGN (talk) 00:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I thought Obama was going to just roll back the tax cuts for people making more than 250K. Did that idea die? --Opcn (talk) 01:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Really, Rob? Let me simplify this as much as I possibly can: In 2007, a person making exactly $8375 would pay $865 in taxes. As of this year, that same person would pay $837.50 in taxes. Simple enough? Colonel of Squirrels你有两头母牛。他们是删掉了。 01:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Has anyone else here ever tried to live on that kind of income? (Keep in mind that these people pay a net of 15.2% in FICA - employee plus employer - on every dollar after $400. People over ~$100k pay no more past that point) I think people in this income range should pay either no taxes, or a "nominal" amount, like 1-2% or so. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I know nothing about the US tax system. Do you have to pay tax on every dollar earned? Do you not get any tax-free allowance before the tax bands kick in? We need to earn more than about $10K before they start deducting income tax.  Lily Inspirate me. 09:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
The '50%' increase thing makes no sense whatsoever. None. All that is happened is that they have moved the threshold for the lower tax rate from $8,350 to $8,375 - a whole $25. This happens every year, and in fact this is the smallest rise in the threshold for the figures available there - back to 2005. The limit used to go up by about $300 a year, this time it's only gone up $25. Doofus. Worm(t | c) 10:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
@Lily, while technically we pay tax on every dollar of income, there is a "standard deduction" for oneself and each dependent (but it's only a couple grand or so), and a handful of useful deductions for those who've made it into the middle class (like home mortgage interest). But, yeah, the poor pay tax on all their money, unlike the rich. ħumanUser talk:Human 19:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Jpatt has to be a parodist

Yes, on the 'family friendly trusworthy' encyclopaedia let's hold up Vincent Gallo as a model conservative. You know, the guy who thought getting blown by his ex on camera was art and put a curse on a film critic that rightfully pointed out his film was crap.

Conservative celebrities, putting hexes on people who disagree with them and releasing pornography as art since the founding of CP. - Iscariot (talk) 21:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I rented that movie, after 5 minutes I gave up, searched for the scene, watched that and sent it back to netflix. --Opcn (talk) 22:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Jpatt is one of the few people there who is not a parodist. He is simply very, very stupid. Like front-runner-for-the-next-biggest-idiot-at-CP stupid. Hmmmmm. This makes me think, who do we know is not a parodist at CP? I think we can agree on Andy, Ken, Karajou, Joaquin, Rob, Ed, amd Jpatt. Am I missing anyone? DickTurpis (talk) 00:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Lil-Phyl, Roger, and Addison were not parodists, though they do not contribute much these days. --Opcn (talk) 01:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm talking about the regulars. Addison's been gone almost as long as Bethany and Sharon. Rog just shows up every few months a couple times a month to contradict Andy, and lil Phyl hardly does anything at all. DickTurpis (talk) 01:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
For her own good, I'm glad she doesn't do anything more. Tetronian you're clueless 12:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Lil' Phyl has to be a closet liberal, given all the nonsense she's tried to stop. I wonder why avid reader Terry Koeckritz hasn't removed a pornographer from the list of good, honest conservative celebrities, could it be because he's a boss parodist and is happy to let such material stand? -- Iscariot (talk) 02:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
She is conservative, she just isn't nuts. Even with how much crazy runs in Rogers veins an objective observer would be forced to admit that he is better than Andy, why can't lil-phil be better still?--Opcn (talk) 04:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Public schools

So incited by the above, I went to see if I could load CP. Sadly, I could. After giggling at the main page, I hit "recent changes" and saw Andy was editing the headered article. So I went to choke on my vomit and read it. I won't quote one obviously disastrous fail sentence here, since that might get it fixed. But under the "after 1962" list of "much less impressive list of celebrities and others" is the entry "S. Christa Mcauliffe, astronaut participant". I am now more disgusted than usual by the sewer of hate that is CP. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Although, I gotta add, I learned that Laura Bush (yes, that one!) came out in favor of gay marriage and abortion in May of 2010! How did we get scooped?! ħumanUser talk:Human 02:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I love that someone put Sara Palin on the unimpressive list. The astronaut that had the other astronaut stalk him went to my highschool. --Opcn (talk) 05:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
We have one of those astro-museum things named for Christa McAuliffe here in NH, honoring the first civilian almost to make it to space. Geddit? Pissed me off that they couldn't even spell her name correctly. Of course, she was an atheistic liberal public school teacher... ħumanUser talk:Human 05:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
That whole "after 1962" list is hilarious as it contains people such as the following: Pat Tillman, who conservatives see as a hero; Bill Clinton, who only managed to get elect to the presidency of the United States.. twice; four different Metal of Honor recipients (is CP anti-military now?); Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon, one of the most successful companies in America (CP anti-Capitalist too?); and speaking of astronauts, also Mae C. Jemison and Ellen Ochoa, the first African-American & Hispanic woman in space respectively. Yeah that is quite the unimpressive list there. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Annnnd just now Terry Koeckritz removes all astronauts and Medal of Honor recipients from the listimg. I see he reads this WIGO CP talk page page regularly. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
This move is either uncharacteristically ballsy or (more likely) plain stupid - the "much less impressive"img part was inserted by the hallowed leader himself. Countdown to revert and oversight commencing...Röstigraben (talk) 19:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Meh, I suspect most of the "heroes" listed above were added by parodists. The pre-62 list is all supposed to be magnificent successes, whereas the post-62 all conspicuous losers. It's an old example of Andy cherry-picking "data" to make some ridiculous point. ħumanUser talk:Human 19:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Most likely true, but at least at that point it was a more honest list and not such a fragrantly biased sampling in their attempt to prove a point (which they know is false). --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Nice typo. I presume you mean flagrantly biased.  Lily Inspirate me. 21:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
TK's removal of astronauts and Metal Medal of Honor winners is absolutely gross stupidity as it actually compounds the cherry picking of the list and making CP look like an even bigger bunch of deceitful pricks. Often I am disappointed when stuff is highlighted here and then gets removed, but this is exemplifies the flipside of that. It's wonderful when they walk right into a fool's mate trap. Great work TK, now what are you going to do?  Lily Inspirate me. 21:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh well, unlike Ken, I never attempt to claim any sort of superiority in grammar, especially while going through 50 consecutive edits in an attempt to hide my own grammar mistakes while ripping on others. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 02:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Another Epic Fail

This... http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&diff=821015&oldid=820979img

Hey, at least this time it isn't some picture from Flickr and a stupid nonsensical caption under it.....RascalJack (talk) 03:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm, so they are using modern science to "disprove Darwin"? F'ing morons. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Hey, it's Ken, give him some credit at least, like I said above. If this was written by a normal person, I would feel sorry for them; but this is Ken, the creator of...well, you know.RascalJack (talk) 04:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Of all the things that could go into the toucans bill being so large using it as a radiator is just about the least remarkable one from the creationists perspective. Just goes to show that they don't even understand their own concept of "Microevolution" either. --Opcn (talk) 05:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Until Joule/Mayer's work on The Mechanical Equivalent of Heat, the prevailing thought was that heat was particles that were released during fire or cutting, the paper was published in 1845. Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859. It's not surprising that Darwin didn't consider the toucan's beak being used to radiate excess heat, as the concept was fairly new. Wein's black-body law was devised in 1893, and the photon itself was discovered in 1900. It's not surprising that some of Darwin's reasoning for animal's features is wrong; our understanding of science has vastly grown in the 150 years since Origin. These do not invalidate his work. CS Miller (talk) 09:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Just to make it clear Joule and Julius Robert von Mayer worked separately, not together. The old idea was the caloric theory, and was replaced by the kinetic theory. CS Miller (talk) 10:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
"What’s more, toucans can even do it in their sleep!" - should I be astonished that thermal regulation is not a conscious faculty?  Lily Inspirate me. 09:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
"It's not surprising that some of Darwin's reasoning for animal's features is wrong; our understanding of science has vastly grown in the 150 years since Origin. These do not invalidate his work." That response covers about 99% of antievolution arguments: evolution = Darwin, so if anything Darwin ever said ever = wrong, then all of evolutionary biology = wrong. Let's just ignore that the book was written before all of modern biology and is only referenced now purely out of historical curiosity, not as current scientific literature (I'm talking to you, Jonathan!). Kalliumtalk 13:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Therein lies their failing: they rely on a (Bronze age/Iron age/James 1) old book as infallible (pax Andy's rewrite) and assume that we ("evolutionists) likewise think our oldest book is similarly infallible. 13:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
Exactly. If Darwin said anything wrong, all evolution is bunk, but if any one thing in the bible actually exists (eg. the Red Sea, Jerusalem, etc.) then all the stories, miracles, and deities within it must also be True. Anything that isn't real is either misinterpreted or Liberal Bias®. It sure is easier when you define "right" as being "what I want it to be". Kalliumtalk 14:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I've always held the view that creationists fall into two groups. The first group, which is most of them, are completely unaware of vast swathes of modern science, are too stupid to grasp it and/or automatically reject it as it conflicts with their religious view, and thus are easy marks for the second group, who knowingly misrepresent science to advance their own creationist views as 'facts'. Thus, this second group would maintain that Darwin's work is still the sum total of the understanding of evolution, even in modern times, as it's easier to try to refute or throw doubt on just that, rather than vast swathes of several major fields of modern science. 92.18.21.218 (talk) 19:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Lol, the ignorant and the willfully ignorant... ħumanUser talk:Human 21:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello again

Hey everyone, hope all is well. Apologies if this was mentioned at the time, but was going through some older CP pages and found a great little exchange. A user posts a wordy, but good response to a question about socialism and communism and forgets to sign. TK not only deletes, but oversights the point and a nasty little note.img Apparently, it's too hard to check history pages to see who posted what.... But the user comes back, reinserts their original post and then adds an unsigned tagimg to TK's post, making him look really stupid. Not that it's hard. SirChuckBObama/Biden? 2012 05:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Dememoryhole, Justin Caise. CS Miller (talk) 09:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
TK has failed at reading diffs for years now. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I laughed so hard that I pooped a kidney when Tisane did that. It's a shame they drove him away, he seems to know his metawiki stuff. --Opcn (talk) 06:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Lol, your kidney popped out of my computer's cupholder. "It is not my job to go to the pages history to see who is saying what, and typically I will delete such unsigned posts and block the user." How the fuck do you know who to block if you don't go to the page's history, numbnuts? ħumanUser talk:Human 06:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately Terry "Quick, Hide My Stupidity" Koeckritz got in his memory holing before capturebot. It's always good to do your own screencap beforehand because evreyone knows what a dishonest scumbag TK is.  Lily Inspirate me. 09:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I viewed the pages at home; but only added the capture tags from work. I might have the pages still open on my home computer, and probably have them in browser's cache. However it will be about a day at least before I can rescue them. CS Miller (talk) 09:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Terry Koeckritz, this was your lucky day. I'd closed the browser windows, and the pages seem to have expired from the cache. CS Miller (talk) 10:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Man... That time off is screwing with my head, I didn't even think to add the captures and such.... Sadly for old TK, the internets is an amazing place. I was able to pull up a non-oversighted version via cache.... I don't think it's particuallary important, but it's fun. SirChuckBA product of Affirmative Action 22:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
This? [6] Nil Einne (talk) 12:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Good find Nil. Screen capped version here. --PsyGremlinFale! 12:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Fuckknuckle

One "k" or two? Seriously. I seek enlightenment. Firefox' spellchequer seems to think two ks is fine. ħumanUser talk:Human 07:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

As a compound word it has got to be two. --Horace (talk) 08:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
But what's this got to do with CP? ONE / TALK 08:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Everything. Tetronian you're clueless 12:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Touché! ONE / TALK 14:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
It just plain looks better with two k's. Being that one k is silent it makes it funnier. Aphoxema (talk) 14:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually... I count three. --79.31.31.68 (talk) 20:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

September 2010 at CP

What a record-breaking month!

CP
Pie-Conservapedia-2010-9.png
Table-Conservapedia-2010-9.png
RW
Pie-RationalWiki-2010-9.png
Table-RationalWiki-2010-9.png
  • At the last day, Conservapedia reached the milestone a wrote about above: exactly 100 editors had made comments at CP over the last four weeks!
  • In fact, in September 2010, only 109 editors left a comment, the lowest number since January 2007!
  • The number of edits (< 4,400) is the lowest since February 2007 - the time before the first press articles on Andy's project...
  • more than 80% of these edits were made by only ten editors - this seems to be a record, too!

So, congratulations all around...

--larronsicut fur in nocte 08:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. What percentage of edits where made by notKen? ONE / TALK 08:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Have a look at the pie chart, then perform a subtraction. larronsicut fur in nocte 08:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh yeah, stupid me. Hah, that means the regulars make 75% of all nonKen edits. ONE / TALK 09:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
When Ed makes up more than 5% of your edits then you really know that you've had a poor month. (No pun intended.)  Lily Inspirate me. 09:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I'd love to see how many of TK's 12.4% aren't to MPL, talk pages or blocking editors. The wiki is growing rapidly! --PsyGremlinHable! 11:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Another telling statistic is that only 13 editors made 50 or more edits the entire month (the usual suspects plus 5 others), while 43 did at RW. DickTurpis (talk) 16:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Good ole Sailor Boy

"tow the party line:"img. An easy typo but it shows how much they're monitoring each other's posts - not at all. How long would that have lasted here? 09:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast

Our Pedant Club would have fixed it in jiffy.  Lily Inspirate me. 09:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Probably the result of ignorance of the origin of the phrase rather than just a typo. Cantabrigian (talk) 10:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I was allowing him the benefit of the doubt when I wrote above. we can't be seen to be picking on the bloody ignorant after all. 10:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
While it wouldn't last long in an article, I have to say that I think I've seen more use of "tow" than "toe" in discussions here. ħumanUser talk:Human 18:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I humbly concur with that observation.  Lily Inspirate me. 21:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
The guy's a nearly complete ignoramus, attracted as they are in droves to Conservapedia because it rewards merit so handsomely, but tow for toe is a very common error. Nutty Rouxnever mind 22:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, people are attacted to Conservapedia in droves. That's what I see too. Hateboy (talk) 23:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

No Comment

Hat tip to Huw for pointing out this troll 11:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast

Hello big boy! Nice to see you're obsessing over us again. Must be a slow day, when the only editors left to block are those we mention. How about blocking DouglasA next? You must know he's a parodist, no? Or Jacob? Oh yes, and Jallen hasn't edited in ages maybe Andy should strip her rights and make you a 'crat. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 11:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm surprised he lasted as long as he did, his contributions were obviously not legit. Tetronian you're clueless 12:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm actually surprised Andy hasn't made TK a bureaucrat yet, considering that TK has effectively been controlling the site since mid-2007. --Sid (talk) 13:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually, by giving TK the right to open and close editing and account creation, Andy's probably given TK about the most power he can have. Andy seems clueless about how and when CP is open for editing and new accounts, so TK can basically shut it down. Still, it would be fun to see him made a 'crat, and watch him demote Andy et al and block them, leaving him running the kingdom. --PsyGremlinSpeak! 14:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
One thing I'm pretty sure of is that as site owner Andy can never be locked out unless he gives someone else his master password. As for TK becoming a 'crat there's probably not much more damage he could do that he hasn't already done.  Lily Inspirate me. 14:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
What did I do? Lol. ħumanUser talk:Human 18:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Tisane is totally not a troll, he is however serving 2 years in northern neck regional jail in Warsaw VA for violating the terms of his release after serving 18 months in a federal mental hospital for sending a letter to then Attorney General John Ashcroft declairing his intent to assassinate George Bush. --Opcn (talk) 04:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Aw! Poor widdle Tewwykins

is feeling all sowwy for hisself.img Here's a little help Terry - mocking and derision do not equal hate. You're all too pathetic to hate. But too pig stupid to feel sorry for. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 14:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think that I could hate Terry (and Karajou), the rest of them, Andy included, are just risible. I think he's the one most deserving of real emotion - being a despicable person. 14:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
Ah, but you hate him because he's a two-faced, lying, disingenuous, scummy piece of shit - not because he alleges to be a conservative Christian heterosexual. --PsyGremlinParla! 14:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Goodpost.gif 14:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
Pick any two from three?  Lily Inspirate me. 14:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I think everybody hates Terry Koeckritz, but I have to hate ASchlafy too for his blinkered pig-ignorance and the way he shovels his bullshit down the throats of children. Terry Hurlbut is close too, for being an apprentice Terry Koeckritz in the lying stakes (Digg Patriots and using CP to generate revenue for his blog). The rest of them are fairly pitiful creatures. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 15:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Thing is the rest of them Schlafly, Hurlbut, Ken & even Kara, at least believe in what they say, TerryK has so many faces I'd be surprised if he even knows himself what he thinks. (badly put, but you get the gist of it) 15:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
Yeah, Terry's a bit like a dodecahedron but even on CP you can see that nobody "likes" him. They may appreciate his efforts in blocking the perceived "enemy" but you never get any sense that they like him. Of course thinking about this a bit more, I don't think that any of them like any of the others. They're just a bunch of misanthropes who happen to be in the same boat and can see that it make smore sense not to tread on each other's toes. Ultimately there is no "community" at CP.  Lily Inspirate me. 15:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Kenny attacks non-theist knowledge of religion by showing he doesn't know about his religion

There is little rant byimg Ken over the Pew Forum survey showing non-theists in America being the most knowledgeable about religion. After ranting about how "Atheists and agnostics" knowledge is shallow and ironically talking about supposed spelling errors, he shows that he isn't as informed about his own religion as he likes to present:

"However, the ultimate test of religious competency for atheists will be when they stand before the judgment seat of Jesus Christ and not some religious trivial pursuit game designed by pollsters"

The "Judgment Seat of Christ" is according to Christian theology where the saved go to have determined what rewards will be given or lost depending on their faithfulness and obedience. In short Ken is ironically saying all atheists and agnostics will be in heaven, because he is mixing the "Judgment Seat of Christ" with the "Great White Throne Judgment". The latter in Christian theology being where the all the unbelievers go, get marked as guilty, and tossed into Hell. Thanks for proving the point of the Pew research findings Ken! --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Ken's Freudian slip
The only spelling error that I noticed (TL:DR) was the singular atheist instead of atheists. And that criticism comes from the man who typed "homoschooling". That said, Little Miss Pedant has noticed a lot of people here who type "athiest" and it was that which I exepcted to see in Ken's ref.  Lily Inspirate me. 16:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
P.S. I have only just really taken in BMcP's post. That's an excellent bit of info. I'll store that away for future use but you need to make a WIGO out of that.  Lily Inspirate me. 16:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I think Ken is the last person on this planet who should mock people for typos. But I do find his post enlightening since it basically says that you don't have to know shit about The Literal Word Of God to be a Good Christian. The only way I can see this working is if you make up your own rules and messages and then just project them into the Bible. Which nicely explains Andy's Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge article, the CBP, the "The Bible contains anti-abortion, pro-gun, pro-capital-punishment, anti-gay messages" movement, and whatever else I might've missed. --Sid (talk) 16:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
That seems to be the case for most of the fundy bigots who profess to be Christians. Use all the OT hate and revenge quotes while ignoring Jesus's 'love your neighbour' and 'turn the other cheek'.  Lily Inspirate me. 16:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
That's always been the case with the fundy bigots: they pick the bits out of the Bible that reinforce their own beliefs, such as quoting Leviticus to justify hating on gays, but then ignoring all the other bizarre shit the Bible says about everything else. --Leotardo (talk) 17:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
My aethiest knowledge may be a mile wide and a quarter inch deep, but that's better than Ken's own 6 feet wide and 3/8ths of an inch deep. --Opcn (talk) 17:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I admit, I'm only four inches. Then again, most women don't like it that wide. ba-zing AndyToad.gifNorsemanCyser Melomel 18:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Goodpost.gif Tetronian you're clueless 20:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I still don't get the idea of Bible supporting Guns, when guns or even gunpowder aren't invented back then. Another piece of biblical scientific/technological foreknowledge? And how does one become athier? As in if someone is the athiest, he has to be athier than someone else, right?)? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 22:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Isn't that chronological snobbery to assume they didn't have things that weren't invented until later (according to atheist history). After all, they needed to defend their pre-deluge chimera labs somehow. --Kels (talk) 00:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
You probably start by being athy and keep being so until you get really good at it. Hateboy (talk) 23:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Ken has a responseimg for you. Do you reckon he and Terry Koeckritz actually spend more time reading RW than CP nowadays? -- Iscariot (talk) 02:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

That's so cute. Now get a room. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
And oh so quickly he's been bitchslapped via email and hidden the evidence. -- Iscariot (talk) 03:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Can you blame them, Iscariot? Reading CP is an awful chore, given how terrible most of the content is (especially articles beginning with A, E and H). RW by contrast is a blast. --Kels (talk) 03:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
You make a fair point. In related news Ken has had a panic attack and recreated the page to prove his ma-CHEESE-mo. Apparently TeaKake is incapable of bitchslapping him enough. -- Iscariot (talk) 04:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
LOL, that just made my week. It's cool Ken, if you need any other theological assistance you can always AIM me, I think Terry Koeckritz still has it, feel free also to continue reading RW for factual corrections. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 04:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

for funimg: No one but Ken contributed to Atheism and debateimg - who else starts a sentence In regards to athiesm [sic] and debate...? larronsicut fur in nocte 07:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The opening line to the article is Klassic Ken:
In respect to atheism and debate, although atheists claim there are reasonable arguments for atheism, the quality of atheist debate has been quite poor from the proponents of atheism.
ONE / TALK 19:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
It's like GCSE English student writing an essay and not quite having the actual knowledge or ability to get an A, but is going to give blagging it a damn good try... Scarlet A.pngbomination 00:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Andy making shit up again.

So now linguists suddenly agree languages don't have a common ancestor.img I must have missed that meeting. Must be so nice to have your own blog where you can say whatever you like, without providing sources. Clearly Andy has never heard of Proto-Indo-European. Or Latin being the base of the Romance languages. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 08:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what he's trying to say. There are languages isolate such as Basque, which have no known ancestor. The WP article language family implies that there are 18 ancestral languages, and they are isolated from each other. Even if there was not ONE universal ancestor, that doesn't mean languages split and evolve. In biology abiogenesis is separate from evolution, and there is no reason why two abiogensis events could not occur at the same time in two different locations (apart from how unlikely abiogenesis is). CS Miller (talk) 10:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
"there was no common ancestor of all language families, therefore all languages came about independently." Even, I suppose, languages whose origins can be traced historically, like Afrikaans, Romanian or Icelandic. Andy, you really are a numbnuts. Totnesmartin (talk) 10:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
What's the problem? Andy writes, "The theory of evolution suggests that all languages are descended from a common ancestral language, and for a century (1860 to about 1960) scientists clung to that view. But now most linguists identify many different families of languages that have no common ancestor, just as described in Genesis 11 with the Tower of Babel." As I'm reading it that's completely correct (aside from the obvious nonsense about evolution, and Genesis). He never says that all languages came about independently, just that there are language families with no common ancestor (e.g. Indo-European and Na-Dene). And monogenesis was indeed a fairly widely held belief, though perhaps he overstates its historical prevalence. --MarkGall (talk) 14:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Whoops, I see now that he posted this crap in the evolution article too. But it sounds more like poor wording to me than Andy actually not believing Indo-European languages are related... --MarkGall (talk) 14:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, as a YEC, Schlafly couldn't accept one single original language because that would surely have been a lot longer than 6000 years ago. Indeed, I'd say the trouble with finding a common linguistic ancestor would be that this ancestor would be so old it would be barely recognisable as a language! Scarlet A.pngbomination 14:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Well surely Adam and Eve spoke English? And all those other languages were created in Babel.  Lily Inspirate me. 14:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Adam and Eve spoke the language of the serpent, in order for the serpent to communicate with them. There are no known changes in languages of the serpent recorded in the Bible. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 23:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Evolution never claims that all human languages have a common origin, neither does linguistics. There is no reason to ever assume that there would be, and the idea of several basal isolated mother-tongues developing for early humans make perfect sense. Ironically, according to the Bible and YEC history, all of humanity did have a common single language until Babel, and who is to say that language isn't common to all the languages that came out of Babel?
Also notice he has no references to cite that show scientists claimed for a century that all languages have a common ancestor, he is simply lying.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
For additional hilarity, the CP Language article has since become a target for parodistsimg. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Not entirely lying -- the idea the all languages have a common ancestor ("proto-World", "proto-Human") has been around for a long time and it still has a few supporters today (though I don't think it has ever been a majority opinion). Joseph Greenberg (who did a lot of work on linguistic typology) endorsed this view. Some people have even tried to work out its vocabulary. There's also a strange paper by Murray Gell-mann of all people claiming that proto-world must have had SOV word order. --MarkGall (talk) 17:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Well like you said, it was a minority-view and of course the idea that not all languages have the same original proto-language certainly doesn't show Bible Scientific Foreknowledge in any way or put any doubt on Evolution, in fact I cannot see how it could. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh, yeah, of course not. I don't mean to argue -- proto-world is just one of those crazy ideas that's probably wrong but still fun to think about, so I figured I might as well point it out here. --MarkGall (talk) 18:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Yeah, the basic point is that it's a total strawman to claim that the belief in a common origin for languages was a product of evolutionary thinking. I think it's totally hilarious, by the way, that Amanda Bunting's edit will probably be allowed to stand. Junggai (talk) 21:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course it will, since when did they ever care about factual science? It doesn't matter if it was written by an obvious parodist. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 00:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Now, I'm not a linguist, but surely language doesn't just spring from fricking nowhere like the creationist orchard, right? If you accept common descent for biology, then language has to follow that sort of track slightly, right? Otherwise you're proposing that the the homo genus appeared and diversified and then a magic fairy waved a wand and language appeared, with no relation at all to the grunts and calls that came before it. Anyway, I might just head off and read WP on the subject. Scarlet A.pngbomination 00:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
You're surely right, but on the other hand human language is fundamentally different from animal grunts and calls. Those don't have anything resembling a grammar with the capacity to generate anything like sentences, they're just repeated utterances from some finite set and with some fixed meaning. So what exactly is the difference, and where is it coming from biologically (did it require some sort of brain evolution?). Chomsky-Hauser-Fitch argued in "The Faculty of Language ..." that the basic new property of human language is a capacity for recursion. Pinker-Jackendoff say this is crap, though I don't remember what exactly they're proposing. There are a lot of other strange theories about origins of language too, but Wiki could tell you more about that than I can. I don't really know much about this either, maybe someone here actually has a clue... --MarkGall (talk) 00:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm also not a linguist, but I've read enough about the history of linguistics to know that the first search for common ancestor languages predates Darwin by several decades at least, when certain Sanskrit scholars were compelled by that language's many similarities with Ancient Greek to search for an answer. Proto-Indo-European was the resultant theoretical language. The overweening search for "the origin of language" might have been influenced by Darwin's work, but by 1860 it was already a forbidden discussion in the linguistic societies of both London and Paris for being hopelessly speculative. So much for Andy's "widespread evolutionary/atheistic belief lasting from the 1860's to 1960's.
As for the question if accepting common descent in biology makes such a model for the development of languages plausible, it's probably not that simple. For sure, the capability of language was an evolved trait in humans, but between that point and the development of linguistic complexity we can only speculate. Did languages spring up right away after the capability was evolved, or did the capability lie dormant for tens of thousands of years? How quickly did languages become complex after that point? These are questions we can never answer. AFAIK, we can't even really be sure whether the Neandrathals had language. What's for sure though is that languages don't evolve complexity. Modern German is not necessarily more complex than Old Norse. If anything, it's the other way around. Junggai (talk) 11:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

A little evolutionary biologmixed with memetics for you for you. Since language is a thin memetic layer built on a deeper genetic structure the memetic layer can shift profoundly while still holding on to its deeper genetic universal structure and not hold onto the vestiges of its former self. The genetic backup copy of gramatical concepts of communication in humans means that the memetic body of a language could in principle start from scratch if say for instance you had a village that was all deafened by some pathogen or fluke of genetic luck and then had hearing children. --Opcn (talk) 05:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Andy - the perpetual Aunt Sally

It's hilarious how Andy lets himself be duped by people pandering to his vanity. Although TK is the biggest perpetrator of this tactic we have seen how he has been conned into foolhardy escapades like the Lenski, PNAs and Moo letters. Now someone has persuaded him that Bible quotes should come from the Conservapedia Bible Project. The Emperor's clothes are getting increasingly transparent and substanceless.  Lily Inspirate me. 10:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Brilliant. Then again, I suppose somebody has to use it. Can't let all that work by the Best of Parodists Pubic go to waste. Btw, how's their translation of Song of Solomon coming along? Or is that project also dead now? --PsyGremlinSprich! 10:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I think this actually marks quite a milestone. It's one thing to try and rewrite the Bible, it's another to successfully implement and use this "translation", elevating it to the status of One True Version. Scarlet A.pngbomination 14:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Who was the person who stroked Andy's ego enough for him to make the switch? It's only a matter of time until every Bibble ref on CP is a CBP ref. In fact, I wouldn't mind betting there's a commandment along those lines in the pipeline. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 14:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
It was TeacherEdimg.  Lily Inspirate me. 16:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Ah, another one to whom the "real name and initial' doesn't apply. Hmmm... a teacher... from New York... called Ed. Now, where have I heard those before? Lol, I first heard of Conservapedia when I learned about its amazing project to create a new translation of the Bibleimg Yeah, he's legit. --PsyGremlinParla! 16:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
From his contributions listimg, it would appear that "TeacherEd" is the only one still contributing to the CBP, I smell parody. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Okay, either he's real or he's aimingimg for the "Most thorough non-asshole parodist" award of the year. Entertaining either way, though. --Sid (talk) 21:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
For the Song of Salomon, it was me who started "translating" it, but TK blocked my IP for a completely different reason, so I'll never going to finish it. I did "translated" the whole book of Jonah though, and its have been there for more than 3 months (although it is more stupid than funny, I was not a good parodist). Its obvious that Andy dont really care about his bible project any more. --Tlaloc (talk) 22:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Speaking of the bible project what ever happened to DeniseM? What she just trolling and gave up? Did her discussions and work in the world history pages make her realise she was wasting her time? Nil Einne (talk) 11:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

CP on Rick Sanchez's Firing

JPatt and teh Assfly point out that Rick Sanchez was fired by CNN after criticizing Jon Stewartimg. They, of course, leave out the fact that Sanchez also claimed Jews control the media. MDB (talk) 14:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

It's even in the seventh paragraph of the article they link to:
"I'm telling you that everyone who runs CNN is a lot like Stewart, and a lot of people who run all the other networks are a lot like Stewart, and to imply that somehow they, the people in this country who are Jewish, are an oppressed minority?" Sanchez said, adding a sarcastic "yeah."
Don't expect CP sysops to read beyond the intro paragraph of stuff they cite. --Sid (talk) 15:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Heck, half the time they don't make it past the title. --Kels (talk) 16:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I love the contrast with the Helen Thomas thing... They were out for blood then... Guess they really don't mind you insulting Jews, just leave Israel out of it. SirChuckBGentoo Penguins is the best kind of Penguin 23:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Andy's Predictions

Do we have a list of all the predictions Andy has made along with the eventual result? The two that spring to mind are when he predicted the Tories would win with a landslide in the UK General Election (they didn't), and that a woman would win the Fields medal (nope). Now he's predicted that the Democrats will lose control of Congress (they won't lose the Senate and might just hold on to the House). Can anybody remember any others, and is it worth creating an article / section somewhere? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 17:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Last presidential election should be a no-brainer, I think, though I'm too lazy to dig for links. --Sid (talk) 17:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
We might need a Nostrandymus article.  Lily Inspirate me. 17:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Didn't Androdamus make predictions about the imminent demise of Wikipedia? Auld Nick (talk) 20:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Lily, are you referring to Nostradamus or is it some other dude? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 23:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Lily and Nick are both proposing mashups of Nostradamus and Andy Schlafly's name for a CP namespace article on Andy's various and sundry predictions. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Didn't he say that WP would be dead within 5 years, or that CP would be bigger than WP within 5 years? --PsyGremlinSiarad! 08:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Andy finally also picked up the "Atheists more knowledgeable" article...

And manages to fail even more spectacularly than Ken (IMHO):

Andy says:img

67% recognize that public school teachers cannot read to class from the Bible. The clueless L.A. Times claims this answer is wrong, but fails to recognize how liberals who run schools will punish recognition of God.

Article says:

The question that elicited the most correct responses concerned whether public school teachers are allowed to lead their classes in prayer. Eighty-nine percent of the respondents correctly said no. However, 67% also said that such teachers are not permitted to read from the Bible as an example of literature, something the law clearly allows.

*sigh* Andy really doesn't comprehend that the Bible can be read in any mode other than "ACCEPT THE WORD OF GOD OR DIE IN HELLFIRE!", does he? --Sid (talk) 19:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

He cannot understand the different between reading the Bible as literature, which is 100% legal and is done, and preaching to the class from the Bible as TEH TRUTH!™, imposing your religion on a captive audience, which is illegal in public schools. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Andy seems to be of the belief that if you read the Bible and understand it, then you'd of course be struck by how right the whole thing is and have no choice but to convert to Christianity on the spot. Which probably ties in to his belief that any atheist who says they've read the Bible is lying, because if they'd read it they wouldn't be atheists any more now, would they? Checkmate! --Kels (talk) 21:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
As I read it, Andy is yet again struggling with language and grammar as he attempts to convey the idea that the newspaper is "clueless" because it considers those answers wrong based solely on the action's legality, while not taking into acount the real situation (which the poll respondents knew): the existence of a de facto ban on Bible-reading enforced by liberal peer-pressure and tyrannical liberal control of public institutions. According to Andy, although they have the right to read the Bible in class, public school teachers don't dare to do so for fear of liberal retribution; according to Andy, that is the de facto situation poll respondents were aware of (regardless of their knowledge of what the law is).--Xyr (talk) 21:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh my, you guys are right: he appears to perceive all Bible-reading as "recognition of God". I had to re-read it several times before realizing that someone could actually think like that.--Xyr (talk) 22:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Your first analysis is likely right, though. He seems to aim at the "It's not the wrong answer because of liberal censorship" issue (but then his "can't read the Bible without preaching" thing comes in). But his fail starts earlier than "unable to put his ideas in proper words": The question is explicitly about the legal situation (see Q50 on page 13 of this PDF):
According to rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court, is a public school teacher permitted to, (READ FIRST ITEM, RANDOMIZE a-c), or not? And is a public school teacher permitted to (NEXT ITEM), or not?
a. lead a class in prayer
b. read from the Bible as an example of literature
c. offer a class comparing the world's religions
So yeah, answering "No" is indeed the wrong answer, regardless of what you think will happen if you dare read from the Bible as an example of early literature. ;) --Sid (talk) 22:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
lol Thank you for the details, Sid; I had only read the newspaper article.--Xyr (talk) 22:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow, it's been four months since the last "clueless" sighting! Slim pickens the last couple years... ħumanUser talk:Human 22:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

No surprises there - there's no one to say it to anymore. Tetronian you're clueless 05:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Ken being sane?

Is it just me, or is he mostly making sense in his edits hereimg and prior? Seriously. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Never thought he'd be one to turn traitor to Conservatism (Andy style). It won't last, of course. --Kels (talk) 04:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Internet-get.gif Wtf.gifOMG smileysm2.svg Who killed Kenny and replaced him with a real person? 04:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
I fully support Terry Koeckritz in this matter. Especially given the last US neutron bombs were dismantled in 2003....
That man's as up-to-date as Andy's lectures. -- Iscariot (talk) 04:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
That looks like something I would have written ... wow --Opcn (talk) 05:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
It not only make sense, but also was coherent and thoughtful. Huh. Tetronian you're clueless 05:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
He must have found his meds. 05:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
It's beautiful that Terry says: Yes, but your logic goes haywire here. But only when Ken gets perfectly lucid.--Brendiggg (talk) 06:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
In my experience, Ken's political right-leanings do not stretch beyond his extreme SOCIAL conservatism. I know that I've seen him before bash the Republican party (and not in a "they're not conservative enough" way) and maybe even the war in general. Ken doesn't toe the party line outside of stuff like evolution and atheism, so he simply doesn't talk about that stuff very often. -- JArneal 07:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Wow, these posts are also remarkably well written compared to his usual crap - no "regards" and no pointless repetition of key words. Oh, and it's nice to see that TK is always willing to jump in and make up for a temporary drop in insanity by suggesting that the US should nuke the Middle East. Röstigraben (talk) 07:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm guessing his idea of a "well-placed" bomb is right on Mecca. ONE / TALK 08:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Remember the stopped clock principle. Blue (is useful) 08:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Khmer Rouge

How accurate is thisimg? It seems like a fairly sane edit, and I am tempted to port it over here, copyright be damned. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be reffed to here. And damn, that capturesnot is fast! ħumanUser talk:Human 04:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Lol, CP is dealing with our Rummel-quoting friend of a few months ago. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Onanation

I saw Jpatt playing with File:Onenation.jpg and assumed it was a typo. </snigger> I suppose it is rather self-pleasuring. 05:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast

The whole thingimg is full of bitterness. " ... the liberals in true astroturf fashion made their way by buses" - don't I recall a certain New Jersey homeschool teacher taking a load to a rally by bus? and Really well sourced: "... includes finding non-union or jobless people that get a minimum wage payment to attend and inflate their perceived attendance numbers." 05:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
While all of the current active sysops have unpleasant characteristics, JPatt is just plain nasty. I know I shouldn't judge someone by their looks but in his FB profile he looks like a typical racist thug. All his CP edits Twitter feeds are largely raw bile.  Lily Inspirate me. 07:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Not to mention the last line, "Barack HUSSEIN Obama as a typical "community organiser" rallied the left *spit* to attend". ONE / TALK 08:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm guessing from the usual bile by Jpratt that the march was a bigger success than Becks'? Lol, found this gem "Beck has estimated that 500,000 people came to his gathering; but according to one count commissioned by CBS News, 87,000 people attended the event." Looks like Glen took Andy's maths class.--PsyGremlin話しなさい 08:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Conservative maths explains how five loaves and two little fishes feeds 5000.  Lily Inspirate me. 11:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
In true Jpratt style, that entry reads like it was written by a 12-year-old. Neither paragraphs, nor commas in sight. (I'm sure if you ask Human, he'll lend you some from WP) Awful sentence construction: "Every conceivable liberal..." followed by "Every socialist organization..." followed by "Every group of the left..." - it's as bad as Ken's "in regards to."
"A typical Democrat event organizing...' what does that even mean? English, motherfucker, do you speak it? It's just another example of the high standards CP sets for its contributors, not to mention the example its administrators set for others. Also - "liberals in true astroturf fashion made their way by buses" (astroturf???) versus "people from all over America made the journey to the Lincoln Memorial" How? On foot? Or in true conservative fashion - each one in their own gas-guzzling SUV, complete with gun rack? It's a bitter little rant, written by a bitter little man and the kindest thing I can say about it, is that it belongs in essay space. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 12:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Government fail 2010

The third lecture is finally up. Well, parts of it. Anyway, the last two paragraphs are rather strange for Andy: he not only argues that the Iranian hostage crisis wasn't Carter's fault, but concedes that the state of the US economy may at least in part be beyond Obama's control, when CP has relentlessly bashed him for failing to turn it around. Hell, half of the main page is exclusively dedicated to unemployment statistics and "Obamunism/Obamageddon" news bites. I'm wondering if this is another cut-and-paste job using material from way back when Andy wasn't a rabid ideologue? Röstigraben (talk) 08:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I liked the endless repetition of He He He he He he He he.... ħumanUser talk:Human 09:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
The entire lecture is moderate and reasonable, if a bit awkwardly written. Credit where credit is due. — Pietrow 10:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
"Awkward" is kind. Sexist is also applicable. ħumanUser talk:Human 10:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
It's also a crap "lecture", at best good for ten minutes. ħumanUser talk:Human 10:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
It reads like it was written by someone with limited attention span who hasn't set up a framework for their project. Something that I would expect from a 14 year old homescholar for instance.  Lily Inspirate me. 11:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Like all his "lectures" it reads like a stream of consciousness - he doesn't outline or plan - just starts somewhere and goes wherever it leads. 12:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
This is cringeworthy on so many levels.
And Human, if you want to pad out this two minute "lecture" in order to make it last ten minutes, you need to intersperse it with eight minutes of Andy's giggles. Think about this. Think about the psychological damage in just thinking about this. Think of the children.--Brendiggg (talk) 12:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)