RationalWiki talk:What is going on in the world?/0004

HA HA I get to make first comment. Um, there is some interesting stuff in the newspaper today. Um, nice weather we are having... $\approx$$\pi$ 10:07, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Problem with plainlinks - it makes it harder to see which links are "on wiki" and which are the "outside" refs the blurb is actually about.  ħ uman  19:12, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
 * We could make them different coloured but that may cause more problems then it solves. Trent doesn't think it is a good idea to div an entire page any way. The big problem I see is if someone knock of the  at the end it is not until you save you see you have messed the page up. $\approx$$\pi$ 20:01, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

So how do things get archived? Sterilesnore! 17:07, 27 July 2008 (EDT)
 * When there are "too many", cut and paste 3/4 or so of them to a subpage like RationalWiki:What is going on in the world?/0001 and copy the dpl "archives list" thing from one of the other WIGOs. Further archives can increment the number.  If it is very active we could use the WIGOCP monthly name ("0807") style, of course.  ħ uman  17:37, 27 July 2008 (EDT)
 * What am I thinking, there are already three or four copied over from the old "according to", and the dpl is in place. To archive just make the next one in sequence, or change over to monthly naming.  ħ uman  17:38, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

Up/Down arrows
What are we voting for? WIGO CP it is how much laughs we get out of it. Is it we think it is a good article, or we think its contents is good (therefore voted down when we hate the person it is about), or do we think the snark it wrapped in is good? $\approx$$\pi$ 18:55, 27 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Good question, and I think it does vary slightly depending on the item. I think basically it's whether we think they were a good inclusion, though.  ħ uman  19:01, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

A series of tubes... carrying oil... to pay off Senator Ted Stevens.
I think this is newsworthy. -Corry 129.98.85.112 14:04, 29 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Then put it there, by all means. AND MAKE ACCOUNT PLZKTHX! -- 14:06, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

Religulous
Nice catch. Nice grilled cheese. Nice Voice of God.  ħ uman  21:06, 30 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Now we have to ask: Religulous vs Expelled. You know you want to... Or at least wait for someone to put up religulousexposed.com. Armondikov 08:23, 1 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Looks like it could be good far a laugh.--Bobbing up 09:38, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

Radiation eating fungi
That is fucking awesome. 00:42, 2 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Nyum, num, num!  ħ uman  00:45, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

Not WIGOW worthy but ...
A politician in India has sacrificed 200 GOATS. Does this warrant a total boycott of India and all things Indian by true Goat worshipping Ratwikians? 11:09, 2 August 2008 (EDT)
 * I dunno, did they cook and eat them? Are there leftovers?  Were we invited?  ħ uman  22:25, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

Rowan Williams
Did he really say: " a moratoria "? The guy ought to lern hiz gramer befour prownowncing onn liberalizm. 08:30, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Maybe he was speaking Italian. -- 08:35, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Don't forget this is the Grauniad reporting it. Totnesmartin 08:53, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
 * True, very true. 08:59, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Suing God
This particular article is somewhat old news, I remember reading it a while ago. The thing that I find fascinating about this court case was that... http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/09/20/suing.god.ap/index.html there was a response] O_O.

Police and the mayor in Maryland
"Calvo said he was astonished that police have not only failed to apologize, but declined to clear the couple's names." I guess he's not seen that side of law enforcement before. Welcome to the real world. Silver Sloth 05:48, 8 August 2008 (EDT)


 * Another victory in the war on drugs! CorryTalk 10:48, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

Wikipedia's Sean Hannity article
It's not worth an entry, but I thought it was funny. The Hannidate portion of Wikipedia's article list that it matches conservative or Republican-leaning singles, straight and gay. It was the gay part that was kinda funny. Despite what arguements can be made for general conservative/Republican homophobia, it's a good bet that their aren't many on Hannidate. I hope that "the two" that signed up are/were matches for one another. Of course things get far more complicated if those "two" are one gay man and one lesbian. 12:02, 8 August 2008 (EDT)
 * I thought they were all gay.--DamoHi 20:17, 8 August 2008 (EDT)
 * I found 23 gay men and 4 lesbians of all ages on Hannidate, compared to more than 120 females between the age 18 to 25 seeking men. $\approx$$\pi$ 20:46, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

Vote AntiChrist in '08!
As one of the commentators at Slacktivist points out, if Obama IS the Antichrist, then all Real True Christians have a duty to vote for him, in order to bring about the Apocalypse and the return of Jesus, in accordance with God's Will. Ain't logic wonderful? --Gulik 18:04, 8 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Can we have one election that doesn't involve indirect precipitation of the Apocalypse?! 18:19, 8 August 2008 (EDT)
 * When a not insignificant share of your electorate is absolutely convinced that the Apocalypse will happen within their lifetimes... 'fraid not. -- 19:26, 8 August 2008 (EDT)
 * How come the Anti-Christ and the end of the world doesn't get mentioned with British elections? Oh, yeah, right, sorry, didn't think that one through.--Stunteddwarf 22:18, 8 November 2008 (EST)

Man, once my art gets good enough, I've got to do that wonderfully sacreligious story I've got in mind... --Kels 20:04, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

University of California
Gives an interesting perspective about US history courses that "don't follow the liberal college boards agenda". This sort of thing is ridiculous, it is an insult to every other student applying to UC that actually took a course on history that required actual study to pass rather than answering every question with goddidit, that these classes should be given college credit. I love the claim that the schools first amendment rights were violated by this. How is this a first amendment issue? $\approx$$\pi$ 18:15, 12 August 2008 (EDT)


 * My understanding is that it is difficult to get accepted at UC schools. Good for UC, UC students, and UC grads. Bad for bullshitters. You can be religious without going to a bullshit school. Do you want to send your children to a bullshit, unaccredited high school? If you do, you do them a great disservice. Good luck. CorryTalk 00:08, 13 August 2008 (EDT)


 * So I posted the teacher application (it takes a while to download). It seems to require you to be a Christian and sign a statement of faith. I wonder if they'd hire a Jew? I'm sure they have excellent rationalizations, however. CorryTalk 00:28, 13 August 2008 (EDT)
 * The wording needs to be fixed - the snark of "hallowed halls of learning" is unclear which school's ap is linked there (UC or Calvary Chapel Christian Schools).  ħ uman  00:39, 13 August 2008 (EDT)
 * I changed it. Snarky, yes, but they ask for Christian testimony on the job application. CorryTalk 00:44, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

Check out this gem "What is your attitude toward working with those of other races and those of other denominational beliefs". 00:48, 13 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Thanks Corry. I agree the ap link is awesome, just the phrasing was ambiguous, making it truly confusing (to me at least!).  Good fix...  ħ uman  00:49, 13 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Thanks. My Chabad friend, I think your application would go unnoticed. For reason of academic credentials, surely. CorryTalk 01:06, 13 August 2008 (EDT)


 * "The church will observe regularly the two New Testament ordinances of water baptism and the Lord's Supper. These ordinances are observed in obedience to our Lord Jesus Christ, acts of loveand devotion, and are not to be considered necessary for our salvation." Is this a really complicated way of saying Catholics need not apply? $\approx$$\pi$ 00:55, 13 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Someone should email CCCS and let them know about Conservapedia. It could save them a lot of money they waste on textbooks!  ħ uman  01:07, 13 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Well, they do have some great ideas for an unbiased conservatively biased U.S. History text. CorryTalk 01:11, 13 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Anyone fancy submitting an honest application and seeing what response you get? [[Image:jollyfish.gif|25px]]Genghis   02:49, 13 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Another gem from the document: ''"I understand that Calvary Chapel Christian School does not discriminate in its employment practices against any person because of race, color, national or ethnic origin, gender, age, or disability."
 * Anyone else notice they don't mention religion or sexuality 03:30, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

They bang on quite a bit about physical punishment. What's the legal position on this one? Isn't corporal punishment illegal? It certainly is here in the UK. Silver Sloth 05:25, 13 August 2008 (EDT)
 * According to Wikipedia, in the USA "spanking children is legal, with 49 states - every state except Minnesota - explicitly allowing it in their law - and 23 US states allowing its use in public schools". It's astonishing.  (NB. I'm in UK also).   w easeLOId bite me 05:59, 13 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Spanking, if that's really what it is limited to, should never be eliminated from parent's ability to punish a child, i think. In some cases, pain is a serious deterrent that "no desert after dinner" isn't. it depends on teh child and the situation, i think.  having said that, no school ANYWHRE, should be able to spank a child.  teacher lays one hand on my kid, that teacher gets flattened quickly, i think.  (i'm not mean, i just play one on TV).
 * By the way, UC (at least UC Berkley) has one of the single best Religion Studies (world religions) in the nation. They probably know a thing or two about what texts are out there, and if they qualify as true, non-biased, rigorous studies of world religions.  Course, CU berkely would not want to be the place an xian went anyhow, since they spend delightful time talking about things like "the historical jesus", and "how the bible has been corrupted over time" and "how the bible is really someone else's texts just stolen and turned into jewish and Christians ones. ;-)   Waiting for Godot 17:24, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

Saddleback debate
I'm reading a lot about how McCain "won" this debate. Since the US's attention was also focused on Michael Phelps winning his last gold that night, does anyone else think Obama may have dodged a bullet?Shangrala 11:23, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
 * I was about to post my own thing ont he subject to WIGO blogs :)- 11:30, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
 * The word on the extremist left wing talk radio I listen to is suspicious of the "cone of silence" that McCain was supposedly in. IE, the consp. theory is that he heard the questions and Obama's answers before he went on.   ħ uman  18:03, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

Denver Convention
This is not WGOIW news worthy, but man is it strange to watch a Convention being staged. There are strange people walking around all over Denver with odd lumps near their waist.. looking up at roofs, in holes, and anywhere else a protester or terrorist might be hidden. Our building is next to where the DNC are staying, across from Haliburton, and has the Dept of Energy, Xcel, and the Japanese consulate here. whee, this is fun. --Waiting for Godot 14:55, 19 August 2008 (EDT)
 * A fellow Denverite.... Why didn;t you say so earlier... Yeah, it's pretty funny, Secret Service is really going into overdrive... They did a very detailed check of my entire College campus (Auraria) and the construction projects around it... they're probably gonna have people staking them out through the entire convention. the campus is closed and we're getting all these warnings about no loitering on campus. SirChuckB  14:59, 19 August 2008 (EDT)
 * I'm from Boulder, and planning on staying OUT of Denver 'til the circus leaves town. (There's some gang of idiots who want to "recreate '68", which to me sounds like a bad idea on every conceivable level.)  Where's the DNC setting up the "Free Speech Zones", Greely?  :)  --Gulik 17:04, 20 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Recreate 68 is the very reason our building is on high alert. we aren't worried about terrorists, or someone who doesn't like blacks... no we are worried about numbnuts who are staked out at the Skyline Park who want to intentionally cause chaos (no, not user:chaos).  My boss and I (we are a small law firm, he's the lawyer, i'm the paralegal and everything else) are working from home that week.  why bother trying to get here.  :-)  Waves to chuck at Auaria.  I did my undergrad there at metro.  And Gulik, i lived in your neck of the woods from Grad on for 10 years.  but when we went to buy, i just couldn't afford it on a work-a-day salary.  how do you afford it, man (woman?).  --Waiting for Godot 17:16, 20 August 2008 (EDT)
 * I know there's a little fenced off area in the far corner of the Pepsi Center Parking Lot for protestors..... I think that's the only one... I may head down there for a little bit.... Even if only to heckle the WBC group. To Godot, I agree completely. I think this recreate 68 business is largly overhyped, but you must a sad, pathetic person to think that this sort of tactic helps spread your message in any way shape or form.... Just like the idiots at PETA SirChuckB  17:18, 20 August 2008 (EDT)
 * How do I afford it? I live like a monk.  A video-game addicted monk, but a monk nonetheless.  :)  Also, I work in computers, so when I _am_ employed, I make decent money.  And I sold a condo in my old hometown and bought a condo here with the proceeds.  Owning instead of renting is the best investment I could make, for all the $$$ it's saving.
 * The 1968 Democratic convention gave us: Chicago cops savagely beating and tear-gassing  protestors, Hubert H. Humphrey as a candidate, and President Richard M. Nixon.  What part of that could sound like a good idea to anyone? I just don't get it... --Gulik 04:02, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Just hope the PUMAs don't wreck the party? Either way, would you actually wish the disaster the country is in now on a Dem. President?  Malloy is saying, let McCain win, and let him suck on the lemons.  Obama can be pres in 2012, after it's really obvious to everyone who fucking made this mess - the GOP, since 1980.  We can only hope.  Or maybe Obama, with a  60-67 or so majority in the Senate can... who knows.  I HOPE he can. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  04:07, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) What really needs to happen is that Obama needs to be elected (and hopefully with that Filibuster proof majority) and then people can see the stark difference between a Democrat and a Republican presidency. It's all black and white between Reagen/Bush 41 and Clinton, but Clinton fucked an intern so it's easy to whitewash everything else that happened in his presidency. It's a pretty clear historical trait, the Democrats gain power, things get better (I speak of the modern democratic party of course.... The old one would've lynched me) <font color="#000066" >SirChuckB  10:33, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Human: While I can appreciate the thought in letting McCain run this country further into the bedrock as a Horrible Example to future generations, it ignores the fact that government idiocy has a body count. I wouldn't wish the mess this country's become on ANYONE (except the idiots responsible for it), but I'm kind of stuck in it, so I'd like to see someone who can at least admit there is a problem in the White House TRYING to fix it. First you get the elephant OUT of the living-room, THEN you worry about how to clean the carpet. --Gulik 11:28, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Hehe, nice choice of "metaphor"... <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  19:51, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

Being gay in America
That story of the school girl who simply wanted to go to school and be left alone, but who was then outted to her parents, and the following "witch hunt" in the name of gay-bias is what is truly wrong with this country. I don't understand where anyone has a right to take it upon themselves to out a child for being gay; to not only not help the child who is gay, but actually tell others they cannot support him or her. To say to a preganat woman "I, a male non-doctor, who knows nothing of your life, your choices, your religion, determine that you do not have a right to abort your baby using this particular medical procedure cause *I* don't like it, even though i'm not a doctor." Or to have the audacity to make a law saying doctors do not have to see clients who's sexuality they disagree with, or worse, "I do not have to use my ambulance to carry this dying woman to the abortion clinic, even though it will save her life" (yes, that is a real story from Alabama, that i think i read about from here). Don't like gay marriages, don't have one. Thing abortions are wrong, then tell your children that. But stay away from other people's children, their choices, and their rights!--Waiting for Godot 13:25, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
 * you're right one hundred percent. The problem is that people see their opposition to these things (gay marriage, abortion, etc) not as personal choices, but as unquestioned moral laws.  They don't see it as "I feel homosexuality is wrong," to them it is "homosexuality is wrong."  This principal also figured that the community and the courts would support him, and most likely, the whole situation spiraled out of control after it got started and he felt himself backed into a corner.  More importantly, things like this happen everyday, especially to students, who have less knowledge of their options to defend themselves.  As for your first main point, the principal outed this girl to her parents (on a side note, outing someone is awful on so many levels) because he felt they should know about it.  I don't know if he considered it a punishment or figured that if they knew they could get her help (anybody ever see But I'm a Cheerleader?).  He probably also bought into this crap about gay people aren't really harrassed, they just say they are to get special treatment and acted accordingly. <font color="#000066" >SirChuckB  13:36, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
 * This reminds me of something that happened when I was living in Florida, close to where this bullshit happened. Just unbelievable. Corryundefined 14:26, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Bastards the lot of them. People are always going to stick their nose in and force their beliefs on others, no amount of rational thought or saying "If you don't like abortions, just don't have one" is going to stop these people being narrowminded arseholes. The best we can do is to try and support the people who want to lead a life that doesn't conform to the Fundamentalist Christian Ideal and let them know that there's nothing wrong with them or their life. Just rest assured you're certainly not alone in feeling that this kind of persecution is wrong. Armondikov 07:30, 24 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Can't the bastard be prosecuted for breach of confidentiality while in loco parentis or whatever. And probably the school, school board for allowing it? If he'd intentionally broken her leg he (and they) could have been - where's the difference? 15:52, 24 August 2008 (EDT)
 * The rest of the (first) article is actually worse... urgh. 16:52, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

Joe Biden
Meh. I was hoping for Dennis Kucinich. Though I still love what Biden said about Rudy:
 * And the irony is, Rudy Giuliani, probably the most underqualified man since George Bush to seek the presidency, is here talking about any of the people here. Rudy Giuliani... I mean, think about it! Rudy Giuliani. There's only three things he mentions in a sentence -- a noun, a verb, and 9/11. There's nothing else! There's nothing else! And I mean this sincerely. He's genuinely not qualified to be president.

RON PAUL! (not...)

00:49, 24 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Biden:
 * Pros - led the fight against Bork nomination back in the day (yes, he's that old).
 * Cons - claimed he gave up seeking the Pres. nomination to do so. Probably did so over perceived weaknesses due to plagiarism scandal.  Watch for a flare-up on that... <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  01:21, 24 August 2008 (EDT)
 * I don't think any of the "major" issues are going to be worth the time... The worst thing they have is the clips of Biden saying Obama wasn't experienced enough to be pres... but they really don't wanna open the door to pointing out political flip flops... If Mccain flopped anymore, he'd be a professional Soccer player. <font color="#000066" >SirChuckB  03:10, 24 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Don't you mean high-jumper? <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  17:05, 24 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Pros: He's from Scranton so he has to be a good guy. That there is a coal mining and railroad town dammit.  He probably likes bananas.  I really don't care one way or the other about the so-called plagiarism scandal.
 * Cons: Cozy relationship with MBNA and carrying water for the credit card companies on the Bankruptcy Bill. Voted for NAFTA.  Voted for the Iraq War resolution.  He practically wrote the 1994 Crime Bill - the one Obama praised him for yesterday with the same old cliche about it putting 100,000 more cops on the streets (that's a good thing?).  The 1994 Crime Bill alone should disqualify Biden from serious consideration for dogcatcher much less any other office.   Obama's judgment has just taken a fall in my estimation, which is too bad because I really thought he'd be a fresh break from the past, instead he turns out to be just another establishment hack and politics as usual.  Oh well, McKinney and Nader are both on the ballot here and Barr may or may not be.  Choices, choices... Secret Squirrel 08:42, 24 August 2008 (EDT)
 * I've never understood people who say things like that..... I'll throw my vote away on someone who has no chance of actually winning so I can make a political statement and give the election to someone completely against my values and make things worse..... <font color="#000066" >SirChuckB  15:44, 24 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Why is supporting NAFTA a con? Isn't free trade a good thing? -- 17:13, 24 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Free trade kills jobs, the environment, wages, unions, and drastically raises gas prices. I would say not. Secret Squirrel 20:21, 24 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Votes have to be earned. In this case it's still up in the air and it is ultimately Barack Obama I will decide to vote for or withhold a vote - and up to this point Obama had impressed me.  He picked the one person to run with that I find unacceptable.  I would have been fine with for example Tim Kaine.  Biden didn't just vote for the bankruptcy bill, he was the credit card industry's freaking point man on the whole thing.  He didn't just vote for the crime bill, he was the one who wrote it.  Both unforgivable.  Again at this point: Obama has earned my vote, but Biden has not.  In 2000, neither of the running mates had done anything to earn my vote, whereas in 2004 Kerry had done some things to earn it so I was able to overlook his votes for NAFTA and the Iraq War - he had several plusses that balanced those out.  Gore had none that I can think of.  What was the Gore legacy as of 2000, the Parental Advisory sticker and NAFTA?  As for "giving the election to someone completely against my values" - Biden is completely against my values.  So is McCain.  I'll probably vote for Obama but is there some way of marking the ballot "Obama only and not his running mate?" Secret Squirrel 20:38, 24 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Not anymore as we know select a full ticket, not individuals anymore... but that's beside the point. I'll agree the bankruptcy law is bad, but what is your issue with the crime bill?  Also, you say that free trade kills jobs, which I disagree with.  I think the enron loophole and Oil companies writing the energy policy drastically rose gas prices... I have issues with some of your other points, but the bigger issue here is the whole Biden thing... You say that he is against your values, but by voting against Obama and for Nadar or the Green Party or Ross Perot or whoever the hell else you'd wanna vote for, you're only hurting the Democrats and, in essence, voting for John Mccain.  The Republicans figured this out in 1992, when Bill Clinton split the vote between Bush 41 and Perot.  But Liberals seem to forget this... whenever people vote for Nadar they think they're making some kind of big statement and whatever... but in reality, they're shooting themselves in the foot because they don't the color shoes they've got on.  They're hurting themselves and putting someone worse into power when they have the ability to help.  I think one politician can change things, but I have never seen a perfect person running for office (I love Bill Clinton, but he has non sex related issues I didn't like) and I probably never will.  But I will accept the imperfections of the guy I like to defeat the guy I loathe. <font color="#000066" >SirChuckB  20:52, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

Everey time I hear Biden's name, I just flash back to Hunter S. Thompson's comment about him during the Iran/Contra hearing: "The man has a brain like a cow's udder". That said, I'm voting for him. I like 60% of Obama's policies, which is about 55% more than McCain's, and the GOP desperately needs to lose this election so they can sober up from the hubris-binge they've been on for so long if this county's going to remain become functional again. --Gulik 14:57, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

the biggest "con"
Sadly, "Obama - Biden" is even closer to Osama Bin Laden. Simply reading the phrase in a hurry makes me think "9/11"? Huh? Now the only thing that would make it worse was is Osaka was a US city and they had a debate there, or if there was some sort of billing of "Obama - Biden in LA" (South LA?) giving the rest of the letters for the anagram... <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  17:09, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

Maltese dinosaurs thing
I think it's on the wrong WIGO. Shouldn't it be at blogs? Since it is an opinion-type piece, about a crank, not really "news"? <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  20:08, 24 August 2008 (EDT)
 * I wondered that, but seeing it was a news report, I put it here, rather than leave it out for not knowing the right place. Totnesmartin 15:13, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

Puma
How, in any way shape or form, is mccain less "dangrous" or "scary" than "the alternative". Hello... Abortion rights? Miltiary views? Mudslinger? what the hell???--Waiting for Godot 12:33, 25 August 2008 (EDT)
 * My thoughts exactly... basically, these people are like little kids. they didn't get their way, so they blame everything in their path.  Seriously, read through some of the comments... They bitch and moan about how the Democratic party rigged caucauses and elections, and about Hilary was defeated by the sexism of the media (cause the Black guy was treated sooooooooo well.... out of context God Damns America anybody?) and now they're trying to hijack the party and basically blackmail everyone into picking Hilary over the winner.  They're all saying "if you don't put the person we want on the ticket, we'll throw the election."  read this blog and see exactly how they view their fellow Democrats.  They say we're all teenagers swooning over the latest hearthrob and need the parents to step in and tell us what's best for us.  Isn't it amazing how soon people convert to idiots when things don't go their way? <font color="#000066" >SirChuckB  13:26, 25 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Update: Here's a nice blog post talking about the same thing <font color="#000066" >SirChuckB  13:43, 25 August 2008 (EDT)
 * PUMAs are batshit insane. True story.  YesToDemocracy and I routinely cover their loonery.- 14:08, 25 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Well, Obama is black, left-handed, and if you assign a numerical value to each letter on his license plate... Corryundefined 15:12, 25 August 2008 (EDT)
 * On a seperate note... did anyone notice how everyone is lightly treading around Jesse Jackson (Jr?) statment about how nobody wants an Angry Black Man in office? It's funny because it's absolutely true.  There is still a very deep seated fear about angry negros in this country. <font color="#000066" >SirChuckB  15:46, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

Arkansas (proposes to) ban unmarried adoption
Isn't this unconstitutional? How is it different from an unmarried couple having a child via sex?Shangrala 09:56, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
 * It's not different... very puzzling. Perhaps a slippery slope to banning everyone having children out of wedlock? Armondikov 10:00, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
 * "Sorry ma'am, you had a kid out of marriage, we're gonna have to take it away"
 * "Where are you going to take my child to?!?"
 * "The adoption holding pen. There's a big backlog there right now. Can't figure out why though...."Shangrala 10:11, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Legally speaking, it would be very hard to show that this law unfairly discriminates over "legitimate state right to care for teh children". Mind you, I find it totally repugnant, but enough evidence exists to show that children raised in homes of two parents are statistically better off than children raised in homes with one parent.  The marriage thing really has not been looked at, cause historically, people raising kids - marry.  What it *does* set up, however, is one more argument why gays should be able to legally marry.  By the way, what happens to kids of legally married CA gay couples who are transfered?  are they suddenly "un adopted".  (kinda like - how can dont ask don't tell" in teh face of a legal cirtificate.  I didn't tell, but here's my marriage liscence".--Waiting for Godot 10:17, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
 * I'm quite sure the law would only bar such adoptions from happening within the state, not remove children who were legally adopted in other states. I'm not sure if there are laws about cross state lines to adopt a child. I imagine you have to be a resident to adopt a child in a certain state, but I admit I have no idea. DickTurpis 10:39, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
 * There are plenty of laws that stop you crossing a state line to do something that's illegal in your own state, although it is interesting if you have a legally adopted kid that suddenly becomes illegally adopted when you move. Do they annul a civil union if they move from a state that recognises it to a state that doesn't? Armondikov 10:45, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
 * I think they just refuse to recognize it.Shangrala 10:47, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Legally speaking, it would be very hard to show that this law unfairly discriminates over "legitimate state right to care for teh children". Mind you, I find it totally repugnant, but enough evidence exists to show that children raised in homes of two parents are statistically better off than children raised in homes with one parent.  The marriage thing really has not been looked at, cause historically, people raising kids - marry.  What it *does* set up, however, is one more argument why gays should be able to legally marry.  By the way, what happens to kids of legally married CA gay couples who are transfered?  are they suddenly "un adopted".  (kinda like - how can dont ask don't tell" in teh face of a legal cirtificate.  I didn't tell, but here's my marriage liscence".--Waiting for Godot 10:17, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
 * 4 Edit conflicts for Goats sake...... Anyway, I disagre with you Godot, you forget that laws cannot be writen specifically to deny the rights of a single group of "citizens. For example, if the state passed a law that banned black people from adopting white children and vice versa, it would be destroyed (in fact, many such laws were obliterated(sp?) by court rulings in the 80's.  Even though the state could produce mountains of evidence that children often fair better in "their own" environment (a fact which numerous dubious studies do show) the court we see through it and shoot it down rather quickly.  I think the court is going to see this for exactly what it is, an attempt to circumvent an earlier ruling and reimpose the law that was already overturned.  I also think the court is going to be very pissed about this and will probably say as much (courts can be nasty when you try to circumvent them).  As for your other point, Don't ask Don't tell doesn't just mean you have to tell somebody.  Any overt activity that draws attention or makes public your homosexuality is cause for dismissal.  Don't you remember the cases where the brass were sending guys into the units pretending they were gay and trying to out other soldiers?  I recall that being a very big deal a few years ago... <font color="#000066" >SirChuckB  10:49, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

The in joke spoiled it
The last word in Hillary's speech tonight was "Godspeed". Thank you, Andy, for ruining the moment ;) <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  23:09, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

New Tactic
Uh...what is it? --Kels 19:45, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

Yr sposed to put a LINK (doubtless obvious to you klever peeple but I dont unnerstan it) 20:39, 27 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Having looked all over the Xtian Science webshite and Fark. com, I can't find anything. CAN HAZ LINX PLEES. 21:00, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

The Obama assassination threats have begun
The RS story re: Ted Nugent is a year old... nice find though - awesome image for teh article and stuff. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  19:53, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

Watering down listeria
The Minister of Health making fun of 15 dead people on his watch, and largely due to his own cuts of meat inspectors, isn't good enough to stand alone? Well, if you want to water it down with PETA doing what they always do, it's not worth an edit war over. --Kels 16:44, 28 August 2008 (EDT)
 * The peta thing is what I felt wasn't worth a "stand alone" editions. 16:51, 28 August 2008 (EDT)
 * I'm not really sure it's worth including. PETA does this sort of thing pretty often, it's their standard operating procedure. --Kels 16:54, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

Sarah Palin


Does somebody here read the GNB? --Kels 11:14, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Eh? 11:31, 30 August 2008 (EDT)


 * Oh, commenting that this was posted about an hour before the pic made it here. I assumed that maybe someone else was a reader of a well-established, popular political blog. --Kels 11:36, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
 * I got it from here.  11:46, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

Police state in Minnesota
Anyone else as angry as I am over this? 23:24, 31 August 2008 (EDT)
 * I am absolutly pissed off into the dark depths of oblivion, to be percise, daggers are raining from the sky over the simmering waves of hate erupting from the darkest bowels of my.... erm... fucknabbit
 * Yes. It's sickening. 15:11, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

Sarah Palin take 2
Just come across this....don't know if I should laugh or cry, can our American friends please advise! Mick McT 04:53, 1 September 2008 (EDT)


 * Heh! found it also coincidentally - I've reffed it in the article. (I've re-arranged your comment, no offence intended) 13:24, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
 * I've found this the funniest. From the AP write up of the same issue:

Prominent religious conservatives, many of whom have been lukewarm toward McCain's candidacy, predicted that Palin's daughter's pregnancy would not diminish conservative Christian enthusiasm over the vice presidential hopeful. "I think it's a very private matter," said Roberta Combs, president of the Christian Coalition of America. "It's a matter that should stay in the family and they have to work through it together. My prayers go out to them." Added Combs: "We're excited about the governor and think she's going to do well." Mathew Staver, dean of Liberty University School of Law, said: "We're all sinners." "We all make mistakes. Certainly, the ideal is not to get pregnant out of wedlock. But she made the right decision after her mistake," he said. Staver also criticized anyone who would seek to make it a negative campaign issue: "It's absolutely shameful to put her child in the spotlight. She's not running for office. When someone can't face issues, they try to tear down a family." Anybody think for two seconds that if this were a Democratic candidate, the media and the fundies would be all over them for immoral behavior and allowing their children to fornicate wildly? It's really funny how obviously hypocritical they are. <font color="#000066" >SirChuckB  14:57, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
 * What about this? Lulz. 86.143.215.27 18:06, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
 * What I thought was funny was reading scurrilous rumors over the weekend that Bris was the mother of the fifth child, and then today learning that she is, actually, really, pregnant. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  18:14, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
 * It's the hypocrisy that always makes me smile... Had this been the Democrats selecting a women with no qualifications to be Vice President, after months of attacking the Republican nominee for that very same reason, the right wing smear machine would be in full force pointing this out, attacking the party and the candidates and Andy would screaming himself horse over affirmative action, but their response to this whole thing has been hilarious.... I just remembered something, when talking about personal affairs (no pun intended) why did we get 24/7 Edwards details? <font color="#000066" >SirChuckB  18:25, 1 September 2008 (EDT)


 * That's what makes Obama's statement brilliant, because it effectively short-circuits the noise machine's ammunition based on his own family, such as CP's use of his half-brother. In a way, he's starting to force them to run a cleaner campaign without making it obvious. --Kels 19:16, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

According to CNN...
I just heard this a few seconds ago, but...

THE LEVEES IN NAWLINS ARE BREAKING!!!, someone get FEMA on the phone!

Thank you.


 * Uh, where did you hear that from? All I can find are reports that they're holding, but only barely, and there's some overflow.  Got a link? --Kels 19:12, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Shibe, turns out it was just a pasture (pastuir? Pastor!!!!) in New Orleans trying to get attention. I was watching CNN, and his announcment amounted to "just kidding".

Sarah Palin take 3
Let the lulz begin! First, an ad for the "GOP Vetting Emporium and Taco Stand"

Enjoy!

22:38, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

Excellent!

RNC/Palin
Palin is on, but hasn't said anything substantial yet. I turned the volume down so the neighbors won't think I'm a Republican. Corryundefined 22:39, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Her role - a bone thrown to the social conservatives, and to be the attack dog on Obama. Pretty mundane, really.  The wacky thing is that "the base" will only see her personal tribulations as evidence of her pluckiness. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  22:56, 3 September 2008 (EDT)


 * I'll say, she's doing a fine enough job at the lectern tonight, but she's hardly in front of a tough crowd. I'm eager to see her in front of reporters and in a debate. I just hope the Democrats don't dick it up by playing to sexism regarding her appearance and family. Corryundefined 23:03, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Anyone who did not see the Daily Show clip montage on Republicans and Sarah Palin, go to www.comedycentral.com RIGHT NOW and laugh your balls off like I did. <font color="#000066" >SirChuckB  00:51, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

Poe Problem
Is this website real? $\approx$$\pi$ 20:28, 6 September 2008 (EDT)
 * I think so, yes. I might be imagining it, but I think I've actually heard of this group on my commie talk radio. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  21:36, 6 September 2008 (EDT)
 * It just reminded me of swift boat veteran for truth too much, I thought someone might be taking the piss. $\approx$$\pi$ 21:47, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

Kennedy
Ok, I'm quitting today. I can't seem to differentiate between "will" and "won't". I'll come back tomorrow, and maybe drown my brain in a few sips of something that has OH in the chemical symbol. --Waiting for Godot 16:32, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

Obama/Bush
Youtube is blocked at my work, so I can't investigate for myself... but what was so bad about the last update that it had to be reverted (I undid the revert, but I commented out the post for now) <font color="#000066" >SirChuckB  15:16, 9 September 2008 (EDT)
 * It's the Rick and Roll'd vandal with his Rick Astley music video. So long as there are no votes then reverting does no harm but in general I agree that commenting out is the way to go. I'm going to delete it as there are no votes. <font color=Blue>Генгис    15:37, 9 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Ah, something I would have noticed right away had my work not blocked Youtube. By all means, delete away. Thanks for updating me. <font color="#000066" >SirChuckB  15:43, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

McCain ad
The link over "EPIC PHAIL" is epic phail. Did utubez pull the video? <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  17:51, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Yes they did. CBS called them out for using Katie Couric in the ad, particularly since she was talking about Clinton's campaign, not Obama's.  Stile4aly 18:08, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Course they out right lie about what the comments made by Obama were. This is twice in one day they have been called for out right lying.  Then there is teh anti-obo ad about Obama thinking children should be taught about sex, when teh bill was to teach kids about preventing child molestation with "what is an appropriate touch".  sighs..... lier lier pants on fire!--Waiting for Godot 18:26, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Sorry, yeah, that was deliberate - I wanted the epic phail displayed, but of course it wasn't very helpful.  I wonder is it elsewhere online?   <font color="#00F0A20">DogP  23:13, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

Palin trip
Why not use the article at the Boston Globe as the link?

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/09/13/palin_camp_clarifies_extent_of_iraq_trip/

Or at least add it as well as the blog entry? <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  16:13, 14 September 2008 (EDT)


 * I like adding Murdoch News links.  It somehow bumps authenticity when such a biased news source reports on something from the right, as you know the right is reading it.   No self-respecting rightist would ever give the Boston Globe the time of day.   Nevertheless, I will indeed ad the Globe link.   <font color="#00F0A20">DogP  12:18, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Thanks, and I certainly appreciate your point about the RW (hahahahahahaha) sources picking up on things being lulzy. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  02:20, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

More Palin
StorytellerShrink was spamming the frontpage with this;

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/2008/view.bg?articleid=1118416&srvc=2008campaign&position=9

It has to be about the worst thing I have ever read. Seriously if someone can come up with something better than STS' story "Palin is a fucking bitch" they are doing well. $\approx$$\pi$ Mowse 01:28, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
 * What is so worst about it, to you? Of course, it should be in the Sarah Palin article, not spammed on the main page... <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  02:20, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Women who are raped tend to be afraid to come forward about anyway. How is going to make them come forward if you are are going to be lumbered with a $300-$1,200 bill? It is going to impact low income women, the most likely victims of rape, to discourage them from coming forward. "Sarah Palin is a fucking bitch" is the nicest thing I can come up with. $\approx$$\pi$ [[Image:Toxic mowse.gif|25px]]Mowse 04:26, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
 * So put it in our article on her. I doubt you would meet with resistance. Feel free to use your characterization of her as a heading... won't bother me. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  04:34, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

http://fafblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/sarah-palin-sarah-palin-sarah-palin.html ! --Gulik 15:53, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

So now they're afraid that Sarah Palin, the "Maverick", is "going rogue"? Gee, nobody could have expected that. For some reason, I'm imagining McCain in a black and white movie, wearing a lab coat, and backing away from a menacing shadow while shouting "Back! Back!  I created you!" --Gulik 23:52, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Sharia law
FYI this is sensationalist tripe. This article explains it much more clearly.-Shangrala 13:51, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
 * The kind of "law" being ajudicated by Sharia courts is much teh same as has been allowed by Catholic hearings, by jewish experts, etc., and really has little to do with teh "real world" in any practicle sense. "Should my wife and I disagree on when to start having kids, who tells us".  Easy, go to "court".  The word "Court" scares many Europeans, since it sounds like it has state backing in teh same way a Federal or State court does.  But it is simply a term for someone who knows the religious laws and interprets predominantly domestic or religious-business issues.  "What rate should I charge my clients to take a loan out with our Butcher shop if they feel they cannot afford it right now".  "My father does not agree with his Brother who is the head of the family, about something.  Please tell us who is right".-- 14:13, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
 * All you have to do is imply Islam is permeating Western life and people freak the hell out.Shangrala 18:40, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
 * I think it means that a relgious dogmatic law is now capable of overruling the law of the land. Of course, they say that both parties must agree to being arbitrated by what is essentially a religious court but how can you tell it's real concent? "Face a sharia court or we'll kill you" is probably what most people will be experiencing prior to this. The only possible motive for people wanting this is so that they can continue their oppression of whoever they like (i.e., women) without interference from a system of law that's far more effective and evolved. Basically, whether it's like what the senationalists say or a much more reduced version, we should demand that an FSM or Cthlulu arbitrated court be set up too. You know, for the sake of "tollerance". Armondikov 08:05, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Yes. Because we know well that this is what Muslims do. They oppress women relentlessly and threaten other Muslims with lethal violence. It is, one might almost say, an integral part of their way of life to do these things.


 * That said, if the Cthulhu cultists should wish to set up their own courts along the same pattern, they're more than welcome to do so as far as I'm concerned. -- 17:53, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
 * <S>At the risk of upsetting you, I would like to point out that you're stereotyping an entire religion based on the shameful actions of members elsewhere. I would also like to point out that Fundamentalist Christians can be just as bad at opressing women and while they don't often advocate violence as the Muslim community does, they aren't exactly free of blood either. <font color="#000066" >SirChuckB  21:22, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
 * I'm pretty sure AK was being sarcastic. 21:25, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Yes, I see that now.... I apologise for my ignorance. <font color="#000066" >SirChuckB  21:31, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
 * He does hate Muslims, though. Oh yes, very much so. He calls them "footstalls", and throws breadballs at them when he meets them. [[image:nods.gif]] 21:41, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Int'l Talk Like A Pirate Day
It not be going too well in me office. They thought I said it's Talk Like A Parrot Day, but that would be on Conservapedia, right matey? <font color=Blue>Cap'n Geng   04:44, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

They expect the Gov to actually SPEAK once and a while?
Those radial and leftist reporters. how dare they mock her femininity and belittle her by asking to to speak extemporaneously (or, for Palin to better understand -- that means, without cards or script). Grrr... Arrrggghhh... Polly want a cracker?-- 18:18, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Voter caging?
Can someone explain this to me, a poor iggerant furriner, please. 15:53, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Basically, it's a political party taking steps to disenfranchise or discourage voters from being able to vote. For example, a party will send out a political mailer with a "do not forward" stamp on it (usually to areas that vote against them).  Then they take all the ones that come back and document the name and address for a possible voter challenge.  If that voter then attempts to vote on the polling day, they challange his ability to vote in that district, with the returned mailer as proof.  Sometimes this is actually done at the polling place, causing a huge delay, which further limits voting in that district.  The Republican Party is pretty well known for it (although I suspect the Democrats have used the practice as well) Does that explain it decently? <font color="#000066" >SirChuckB  16:12, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Yup, thanks Sir Chuck. (why the name -caging that is?) 16:26, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
 * I'm not sure, and I'll try and look it up... I think it refers to using the law to stop them from being able to vote. You're essentially locking them in a cage. <font color="#000066" >SirChuckB  16:34, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
 * I'm not entirely sure I understand it. What would be the basis of such a challenge? That the voter isn't living at the address the party expects him to? -- 17:12, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Presumably if they aren't at the address they're not in the constituency & not allowed to vote? 17:20, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Right, they challenge that because the original mailing wasn't delivered, there's a question over whether or not they're still living in that district. A protest at the polls can be very hard to get around, sometime requiring another trip back home to get proof of address.  The other situation is that they're given a provisional ballot, to be counted only if they can prove the address.  Many people will just say screw it and forget about it. <font color="#000066" >SirChuckB  20:05, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

Democratic crossword bias
I don't know if this is worthy, but there is a bias toward Obama for crossword puzzle makers. Sterilesnore! 11:17, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

Pastors endorsing political candidates
An interesting story and very apt for WIGO-World. Now, I'm not an expert on any law, yet alone US law but I can see that Hice is probably right that the First Amendment will probably trump the tax law that bans them from endorsing candidates. After all, it's freedom of expression. But I think that Rev. Barry Lynn at the end said it perfectly (If even a muppet like me thought it before I got to his quote so it must be a blindingly obvious conclusion...), that the tax-exempt status is a privilege not a right. So, while they'll be free to endorse candidates all they like because that would be protected by the constituion, their tax dodging isn't protected by the constitution. I can't see where the possible argument is, it seems quite clear cut what the conclusion will be. I hope the IRS slap a good rate on them, it'll go quite nicely towards that bail-out :S. <font color=red face="Tahoma"> A rmondiko V  User_Talk:Armondikov 16:50, 26 September 2008 (EDT)
 * It's not "one against the other". There is no pitting 1st amendment law against the tax law, as they constitute totally different things.  The first amendment says that no law shall be written to impede free speech - ok, who's free speech is being impeded?  The pastor (like the cop, the firefighter, or the politician) has the right to talk about who he wants to vote for.  He has the right to say anything he wants about any issue.  What he does NOT have the right to do is speak AS THE CHURCH, while **maintaining** his right to not be taxed.  Churches have a unique stand in the US in that they are considered beyond taxation... but the flip side of that is they are not supposed to use thier status as a church for political ends.  if they do that, they are subject to taxation.  no rights are violated.  being deemed a church is a privlidge - not unlike driving a car.  if you choose to make your church a political forum, then you are subject to being taxed.  but no one can stop you from being a political forum.  -- 12:24, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

Dick Morris's electoral map
Obama strongly ahead in Florida, leading in Missouri and Arkansas, and tied in Arizona and Tennessee? What is Dick Morris smoking? because I want some. DickTurpis 02:31, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
 * I actually had the same thoughts myself... he really seems to be taking extrapolation(sp?) to the extreme..... I think this website is much more accurate. <font color="#000066" >SirChuckB  12:42, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
 * And this one lets you play with it. PFoster 12:47, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Yahoo has a good page, which also lets you play with scenarios (they have no info on a few states, but none of them are swing states). This site is similar. If you go to the no toss up states option we see a very optimistic scenario indeed. DickTurpis 13:16, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
 * A very optimistic scenario? What, like neither of these turkeys is going to win and we'll see the emergence of a political leader and a political party that isn't beholden to corporate interests and will actually bring about meaningful political and social change? PFoster 13:28, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
 * The only problem with electoral-vote.com is that he tends to shade and include in his counts states that are in the margin of error. While it "looks good" if "your team" is ahead, it's a bit self deceptive. Sterilesnore! 13:34, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
 * I agree with you, and that's something to keep in mind, but otherwise, you'd have all tied (or non committed states) and that wouldn't exactly be helpful. As it is, I think if you use some commonsense and look at the actual numbers instead of just following the pretty colors you'll have a decent idea of what's going on. <font color="#000066" >SirChuckB  14:18, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
 * The idea though is tied up states should break towards national trends more often than not. There are some very fancy algorithms to work that out, fivethrityeight.com is a popular one, with extensive predictive algorithms, data, and much to mine for the data geek at heart. tmtoulouse 15:20, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

Conservative Debating
Is it just me, or has the argumentum ad Nazium become very chic in the Conservative cirles... The other day, Bill O'Reilly compared Nancy Pelosi to Hitler and Ann Coulter makes about five different Nazi references... Is that really the best they have? <font color="#000066" >SirChuckB  11:24, 2 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Nice turn of phrase, is it yours Chuck? I think it looks better in italics. <font color=Blue>Генгис    04:46, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

Ha!
I totally scooped Dean. remember, they're behind us by like four hours Take that ya bastards <font color="#000066" >SirChuckB  13:30, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

European Bailout
So I'm reading from Le Monde, and listening to BBC America that Europe is asking the "bailout" questions like the US was. My question is, what is the take of your average Joe, Pierre, Hans opinion of this? Just curious since American news is horrible about recognizing that there are other countries in the world and the US might actually benefit from listening to people who are, shock, "fer-in-ers".-- 20:34, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

WIGOW
Chuck, a pity your intercom link didn't work (the ? needs to be hex-coded). I add stuff here but it never gets much respronse. People are far more interested in the CP lulz. Also, as a furriner I find there is often too much minutiae about the US election. Things like who's ahead in the polls are meaningless, but McCain getting booed by his own supporters for saying "Obama is decent" does say something about a section of the US electorate. <font color=Blue>Генгис   04:54, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
 * I check here, too, but I rarely add anything in either WIGOCP or WIGOW. So, at least I'm contributing appreciation :-) --<font color="#99CCFF">Arcan   ¡ollǝɥ  12:45, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
 * My comment got lost in the innertubes. I check here too and even vote.  Please don't give up. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  01:39, 12 October 2008 (EDT)
 * I like WIGO:World better than WIGO:CP anyway. It's amazing the stuff that crops up and can be generally interesting rather than just simply people being wrong on the internet. Yes, maybe there's a little too much of the US election but it's a pretty big news item globally at the moment. I think we just need to clarify that it's for anything interesting, rather than just people being idiots, such as the stuff on the LHC. <font color=red face="Tahoma"> A rmondiko V  User_Talk:Armondikov 11:13, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

+50 points for me
Hey, I'm somewhere in that Obama rally pic! Really. You can juuuuuust about see me near that flag in the top left quadrant of the image, next to the 20,000 other faceless people in that area. I had no view of Obama himself, but I had a great spot for watching the guy in an Uncle Sam costume, on stilts, waving a 'JESUS' sign.--Bayes 16:56, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

Twitter....
My favourite part? That vegetarians, atheists and religious groups are invoked in a terror alert. PFoster 14:18, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

Plot to kill Obama


And here's one of the guys they busted, with largely defensive weapon of assault rifle. And swastika tattoo. Makes a mother proud, eh? PFoster 20:11, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Charming. I think I saw that kid or someone akin to him, at a Mötorhead concert.   20:17, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
 * This is what counts as neo-nazi these days? In my day skin-head, racist neo-nazi thugs didn't wear lipstick and eyeshadow, at least, not the male ones.  Talk about declining standards.......--Stunteddwarf 22:31, 8 November 2008 (EST)

End times
The trouble is, with the mess that Dubya's leaving behind, they just might be right! Toast 11:27, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

Mystery solved
I've been wondering where Ed Poor has been the last few months. It's pretty clear he's been in Malaysia as a policy adviser. DickTurpis 14:34, 30 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Lovely Lulz! TOAST and butter 15:30, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

Sarah Palin got prank called
This is definitely WIGO worthy. Sarah Palin recieved a prank call from the Masked Avengers who got her to believe she was speaking with Nicholas Sarkozy. They also did the same thing to several other world leaders (including Nicholas Sarkozy in 2007 by pretending to be Stephen Harper). Sarah Palin fell for a prank call. The transcript of the conversation
 * It was an absolutely pathetic display of "Gidgetness" from her. She was just gushing, and giggling that such a man would actually CALL her.  She has no idea about France, clearly, since she wants the US to "follow" some of his "style" (like, you know, universal SOCIALIST health care).  She can "see Canada" from her window, but has no idea who the Canadian prime minster, nor the premier of Quebec are?  I assure you, they are NOT the singer Johnny Hallyday.  This was just BAD. hehe, gigglegiggle, oh gosh.  and by the way, "oh, for christ's sake" at the end.  That's a conservative xian for you.  Take the lord's name in vain.-- 17:18, 3 November 2008 (EST)
 * Wow... <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  17:37, 3 November 2008 (EST)
 * Yeah, the guys who did it were from Quebec, and now everyone wants them to do guest appearances. Of course, if you look over at CP, the Koward thinks the fact that they're briefly popular as a result of the prank is a sign of spreading hatred and intolerance, which is about as strange a reaction as I can think of. --Kels 17:42, 3 November 2008 (EST)

"de rouge a levre sur un cochon" LOL!! --Kels 17:45, 3 November 2008 (EST)
 * As strange as this sounds.... I have to come down on Palin's side for this one.... Having listened to it a few times, nothing about this call made me think that she didn't have suspicions... Some of her answer seem a little strange when looked at in transcript form, but I got the impression that she was playing along with the joke, not falling for the joke. <font color="#000066" >SirChuckB  17:59, 3 November 2008 (EST) I really just defended Sarah Palin.... The world is topsy turvy
 * I fully disagree. 1) she was just too giddy. 2) she doesn't even blink when wrong names are used for things she AUGHT to have known (which we know she didn't know)., 3) when they say "you've been pranked", she gets off the call, and you can hear her say to her assistant, "jesus christ, deal with them".  Clearly surprized, and very clearly annoyed.  When you look at pictures of her at the UN, she has no idea who leaders are, who assistants are, and who UN council reps are, she is just overwhelemed.  I actually suspect (living with someone who has a thick accent), ms. palin's hesitations were because she couldn't understand what the guys were saying, due to the speed of speech and the accent. -- 13:28, 9 November 2008 (EST)

8 year olds with guns
I can't believe Texas wants to try an 8 year old as an adult. 1) healthy 8 year olds do not just kill daddy and friend for no reason, 2) that either means the kid wasn't mentally competant, or something was going on... abuse maybe? I don't knwo, but "gosh, a gun. I'll shoot daddy" is just not something done by kids. 3 fatal "intentional shootings" in as many years, world wide, suggests there is more to this than so far meets the eye. and EVEN IF THERE ISNT, an 8 year old is simply not an adult. you cannot try them as adults, even though the world is shocked by something like this. it is simply not justice to say to an 8 year old "since you are fully aware of what life and death are, since you understand the difference between tv and life, since you have a fully developed sense of morality and ethics - you chose to kill your dad in cold blood and should spend the rest of your life behind bars you 8 year old, hardend criminal you. And clearly, at 8, you have no chance to reform, and jail, where you will grow up with other criminals is just *the* place for you, you 8 year old, you! HELLO?????-- 13:28, 9 November 2008 (EST)

It gets better. According to what I've been hearing, the 8-year old kid was questioned by the police at or near the scene, they got a confession but didn't bother to make sure that the kid had a guardian or a lawyer present.--<font color="#461B7E" >SakuraNoSeirei  14:32, 9 November 2008 (EST)

U.S. Americans stock up on largely-defensive weapons of gun in wake of Obama victory. What the hell is wrong with you people?
It's got nothing to do with Obama, it's "survivalism" - people are so worried about the economy, they want to make sure they can 1. shoot them at some food, and 2. Fend off the pillagers and rapistss. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  01:06, 12 November 2008 (EST)

Palin Asked to Appear in Porn Film
I swear I'm not making this up I will laugh my ass off if she accepts the $2,000,000 to star in it. What are your thoughts?
 * I'll co-star! I play the liberal geek who earns her wrath by treating her well. She converts me into a sexist, gun-toting, check shirt wearing man who flings her over a dead moose and **** *** ** *** arse. --Toffeeman 08:24, 19 November 2008 (EST)
 * Sounds hot. I'd watch it. <font color=red face="Tahoma"> A rmondiko V  User_Talk:Armondikov 08:32, 19 November 2008 (EST)

Lets get it on... a T-shirt!
I still wonder who thought up of this idea at CNN. It looks like something the Onion should be selling instead. This is mildly ironic. This one is something to wear to work on Friday, though might be a bit off in Silicon Valley... one way or the other... not sure. --Shagie 01:27, 17 November 2008 (EST)

And some follow up of other fun shirts... --Shagie 02:57, 17 November 2008 (EST)