Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive215

So Iraq DID have WMD---according to the article about Wikileaks

 * Well, I guess it's a case of hate the sinner (Assange), and love the sin (The Leak). At least, as long as it agrees with what you want to believe. Still waiting on the Iraqi nukes, and mobile chem labs though. Jimaginator (talk) 21:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * They had weapons, but they did not have an WMD program as the Wired source states. Most countries have some biological/chemical weapons; mustard gas has been around since WWI.  Iraq used it against Iran in the 1980s.  --Leotardo (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The US and UK knew Iraq had chemical weapons; they have the receipts to prove it. CS Miller (talk) 22:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure if I'm recalling this correctly, but wasn't there a complication that some of the weapons they had weren't effective any more due to the passage of time? If that's the case, he may have had some weapons that were effectively useless.  --Kels (talk) 22:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * From the Wiki article on Iraq and WMD: "The report stated that "Coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent." You can follow the link to the citation of the report.  But essentially you are correct---what they had lost most of its potency over time.12.16.112.2 (talk) 15:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Somewhat apropos, the US failed to secure Iraq's main research plants; were looted by all and sundry, including al-Qaida . CS Miller (talk) 16:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

A reflection on the twilight days of CP
It struck me a few minutes ago that out and out racist sites like metapedia can get people to come edit them, but Andy's little blog project never gathered more than a dozen like minded souls at one time. Maybe the problem with Andy is he just isn't insane enough. One day you'll get there Andy. One day. -- 01:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Or maybe the people at Metapedia are more welcoming and nicer (at least if you're of European Christian descent). You should ask Tyler Zoran. --Leotardo (talk) 01:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I would say the opposite, that Mr. Schlafly is too nuts, or more specifically that his delusions are not shared by a wider audience like the Metapedians' are. There are more people who hate Jews than people who think that there are twice as many new conservative words with each passing century. 03:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Aye, Andy's problem is his desire to be a visionary intellectual whose insights drive the conservative movement. He could never be content with being just an activist, a small cog in the wheel. He'd rather have CP fade into irrelevance than embrace an orthodoxy somebody else developed. Röstigraben (talk) 07:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Slightly OT, but following the link to Tzoran's edits on Metapedia I became curious and looked up their article on Obama. I was surprised to see that their article is far less unhinged than CP's article.  Stile4aly (talk) 03:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * lol - a white supremacist site is more reasonable about our black President than the "Christian" Conservapedia. In Alexa rankings Metapedia is 75,000th and CP is 60,000th. Even better:  they blocked Rob Smith as a troll from RationalWiki.  --Leotardo (talk) 03:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Just because they are racists doesn't mean that they don't know how to run an organization. If Schlafly had handed the reins over the PJR Conservapedia would be bigger than metapedia, maybe as big as memory alpha or wookieepedia, he got plenty of press and has a strong conservative name. He just bungled his good fortune by constantly choosing the parodist who said what he wanted to hear over the honest editor who wanted to help. Andy is allergic to a real debate, and wiki's are allergic to that sort of person. --Opcn (talk) 03:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, the fascists were always good organisers (and had smarter uniforms). 09:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 *  'Just because they are racists doesn't mean that they don't know how to run an organization. ' Good one!.-- 10:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

LarryHammond
Anyone know how this guy got past the profanity filter? Just curious. DickTurpis (talk) 20:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking that Andy didn't think of "FUCKITY" - we wouldn't had either, would we? --Ullhateme (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * He still got in with FUCK, perhaps he didn't regex for UPPER. 20:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That was me. Was fun while it lasted. Surprised it worked myself. 67.241.191.198 (talk) 02:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Questions for CP sysops
You can answer them if you'd like, I know none of you will, but it would be interesting to see just what constitutes "charity" in your warped worldview.


 * 1) Given that atheists "don't build hospitals" and Christians do, please name at least one hospital where you have directly contributed towards its building costs.
 * 2) Excluding tithes and/or the dollar you drop in the collection box on Sunday, please name the charities you contribute to.
 * 3) Given you are pro-life and anti-abortion, please list how many unwanted children you have adopted and/or how much you donate towards children's homes, or sex-education programs.
 * 4) Please indicate if you are a registered organ donor.
 * 5) Please indicate if you are blood donor.

(feel free to add to the list) -- Ψ Gremlin  15:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Instead of wasting CP sysops time, why don't you build a hospital instead? Senator Harrison (talk) 15:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I want so much to answer those questions but my innate British modesty precludes me from doing so. 15:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * When you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men... Matt 6:2
 * Bonus rhetorical nonsequiter: Is a "warped worldiew" symptomatic of a mental disorder or an inherently evil disposition toward one's fellow creatures? nobsdon't bother me 15:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Great work in your non-involvement in that horrendous trainwreck, Rob. --59.161.83.198 (talk) 16:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure why that is a nonsequiter but I'll answer for you. In ken's case I think the WWV is a sign of boderline mental illness.  In your case I think it is a sign of intellectual dishonesty, I think you know you are not being honest but lie to both yourself and others.  In tk's case, he sometimes appearrs to be boderline sociopath in that he actually seems not to care who knows he's lying - lets face it you all know he is and do nothing to stop him ruining andy's blog.
 * Which brings us to andy himself. His WWV is the result of his dominering mother, see the film psycho for an example, and his massive insecurity and feelings of inadequacy.  Let's face it, he has succeeeded at nothing in his life.  Failed at Harvard despite mummies money, beaten by one Barrack Obama.  Failed as a patent clerk.  Failed as a lawyer.  Failed as an engineer.  Failed as a father when even little phyl disagrees so publicly with his insanity with regards to physics.  Successful at?  conservapedia.  And that is one of the biggest laughing stocks on t'net.  Way to go RobOldusgitus (talk) 16:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your quote "nobs", similar sentiments were well to the fore of my mind without resorting to any religious obligation. I do what I do as a rational Humanist and good citizen, not because it will get me a ticket to heaven. 16:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah good. God's still gonna tell you to go screw yourself come judgement day. nobsdon't bother me 16:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "God's still gonna tell you to go screw yourself come judgement day". So you rather fail to understand the 9th commandment as well then?  You have consistently borne false witness on the subject of Obama.  You have had this pointed out to you time and time again.  By your inaction you have allowed lies, which you know to be lies, to be propogated on your tatty little blog.  Lies like Obama's place of birth and his "muslim" faith.  You could have stopped those lies and you chose not to.  It is said that your own god knows what you mean in your heart.  Will you be willing to stand in front of him on your imaginary judgement day and claim good faith?  I don't believe in your fairy tale deity but should he prove to be true then I know that with a clear conscience I will.  Somehow doubt you will be able to stand next to me and do the same.  Remember, he will see into your heart, past your lies and prevarications.  Oldusgitus (talk) 20:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Bull. I inserted the phrase, "said to be born in Honolulu", which, given known facts, is best we can do as hisotrical narrative now. I've never contributed to birther allegations, as far as I know, and haven't taken it seriously either. Secondly, I inserted a Poll of Democrats where a large number (I forget how large) beliewve Obama is Muslim. A Poll of Democrats. Just straightforward facts. No editorial comment. nobsdon't bother me 03:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey Rob. Answer the original questions, willya? P-Foster (talk) 03:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You also inserted the phrase "birthname Barry Soetoro" or at least allowed it to remain there, knowing full well that he could not possibly have been born with that name, as his mummy hadn't even met him yet. Then again, it was in Pravda, so it must be true, right? By the way, don't you think your "god" is a jealous little drama queen? "Worship me or I'll stamp my feet and throw you in the pit of fire. Sounds a bit like Stalin actually. -- Ψ Gremlin  08:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You're partly right, I did allow it to stay there suspecting it was not true. I assumed it was a ratvanbdal that did it, but didn't want to get charged with not reverting edits or locking the page. Maybe there was new information that needed to be vetted. Or maybe it was just more evidence of ratvandal trolling. You must've put it in, I assume. Is that good faith? Does that make you credible? Are you in the habit of deliberately spreading disinformation? Or maybe you are a closet racist resentful of having an African-American president. nobsdon't bother me 14:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It was added by this guy here, later banned, and reinserted later by another parodist, DerekE. But really, your cop-out for why you didn't revert is the lamest excuse I've ever heard. You "didn't want to get charged with not reverting edits or locking the page"? What the fuck does that even mean? You were worried you'd get punished for reverting vandalism inserted by Rationalwikians? I don't believe that for a nanosecond. Are you that afraid of TK? Someone is lacking some serious MA-CHEEEESE-MOH! I bet you're obese too. Oh, and accusing us of spreading disinformation is rich, considering you admitted you're using the 2012 election article to spread disinformation. Hypocrite. DickTurpis (talk) 15:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Dick, this is below you. You're practically alone amoing RW editors with a semblance of rational & analytical skills yet here you're within a hairsbreadth of admitrting to vandalism. And I was affraid of being accused by you guys of shutting the page off to open editing. nobsdon't bother me 15:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't know whether to take that as a compliment or an insult. Being referred to as having a semblance of analytical skills by someone completely devoid of them doesn't carry a lot of weight. In any case, I'm not admitting to anything. The initial edit seemed to be vandalism, and the editor was banned, but his edit allowed to stay (which, for some reason, seems pretty standard at CP; I have no idea why). DerekE, who I am not admitting be being, but who is certainly a parodist (I can say this because if Bugler proved anything it's that telling you guys someone is a parodist is only more likely to make you refuse to accept that they might be one), reinserted it, and has been allowed to remain an editor there even though you just said that he must be one of us. Ban him then. See if I care. None of this explains why you let the edit remain for months, as well as the editor, who you claim to know is one of us. You could, you know, have reverted without protecting. This happens on Wikipedia, like 500000000 times a day. This "if Wikipedia does it one way then we must do the opposite" mentality us really getting you guys nowhere. And are you really afraid of being accused by us of something? You really need to talk to Ken about getting more machismo. You seem to be running out. DickTurpis (talk) 15:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Nothing explains why it was left for months? Call it NPOV. Between the pro-Obama and anti-Obama rhetoric, who knows which side has more credibility? It was placed by a ratvandal, I presume. Good. Let them have thier say. nobsdon't bother me 21:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Just about the biggest load of shit I've heard in my life. You don't really believe the crap you spew, do you? So in the mind of Rob Smith "demonstrably untrue" = "NPOV"? Who knows if someone from RW put it in as parody; the fact that you can't spot obvious parody over there shows just how much wingnuttery there is. If you were to do a blind run on edits (without looking at who made them) and reverted everything that was obvious parody you'd revert half of everything by Andy. (And if you're convinced DerekE is one of us, why hasn't he been banned yet?) As for your statement that you think RW should have a say at CP, that has never been the case before - quite the opposite, in fact. Show me one article where the Rationalwiki point of view is allowed to remain. DickTurpis (talk) 04:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So if I revert a RW editor, I'm accused of totalitarianism and the troubled soul goes off and hangs himself. If I leave "demonstrably untrue" contributions of a RW editor in, it underscores a total lack of good faith. Does this best summarize the Rationalwiki point of view, lacking in good faith? nobsdon't bother me 14:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * First of all, you have no proof whatsoever an RW editor added the "birth name Soetoro" bit. If it was one of us it was obvious parody. No Rationalwikian has ever criticized a Conservapedian for reverting obvious parody (though we have expressed disappointment that maybe, maybe, some of you are occasionally no as stupid as we thought). In any case, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO MADE THE EDIT'. What matters is whether it is factual or not. That is what CP can't get into its head. This is one of many reasons why Wikipedia is so much better. To them, what matters is the edit itself. Is it true, reliably sourced, NPOV, on topic, etc.? Beyond that it doesn't matter if it was made by a senior bureaucrat or a n00b who's trying to be obnoxious. At CP, all you care about is who made the edit. If it was Andy, it doesn't matter if it's completely untrue; it will stay. Someone else could make the exact same edit and be reverted for parody or vandalism. If Ken writes the most embarrassing puerile shit and plasters it all over the main page, it will stay because it's Ken. As has been established by at least two other editors, no one else can do this. Why do think Wikipedia doesn't have a big problem with parody? Because it's very difficult to parody Wikipedia articles. Every time someone inserts parody into a CP article and it is allowed to remain, it just proves that you guys have no standards for accuracy and all you care about is supporting your own POV. You prove us right. In that sense, yes, I am disappointed that you (finally) removed the "birth name Soetoro" bit (no, I did not add it), as it shows you have a semblance of a working brain in your head (proving me wrong, at least in this one singular instance). No one is accusing you of totalitarianism for that, or hanging themselves (which you would only encourage anyway). What we do have an issue with is when you ban people for disagreeing with you on talk pages. This happens all the time, so don't pretend you "Let them have thier [sic] say." You don't. Every time I've got the better of you or Andy in arguments at CP I was banned (and it has happened several times). That's cowardice. As is pretending you left a fact you knew was false in the Obama article for the better part of a year because you somehow owed it to Rationalwiki. Bullshit. DickTurpis (talk) 15:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

It works like this: as long as leftist partisans, rightly or wrongly, keep alive the fiction that George W. Bush was an illegitimate president by stealing the Florida election, rightwing partisans, rightly or wrongly, will keep alive the fiction that Barack H. Obama is an illegitmate president by virtue of his birth in a foreign country. nobsdon't bother me 19:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure, Rob, sure. You've really outdone yourself this time. Once again your cheap insults demean you and lower your level of argument to that of the kindergarten playground. You are pathetic. Oh, and I've had an African President for years and I'm quite happy thank you. Don't project your racism onto others. -- Ψ Gremlin  15:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I see that the parable of the Good Samaritan has been completely lost on you. 16:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I missed the part where the Good Samaritan was a godless athiest; I thought the teaching had more to do with them who thought being in God's family was a question of natural birth (basically, racism) vs doing the will of God. nobsdon't bother me 17:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * A word of friendly advice Rob, ask Ken how to spell "atheist" - you're letting his side down. 20:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I know you're stupid and intellectually dishonest but can I suggest you contact someone with a basic understanding of the middle east, particularly at the time the parable was supposed to have been told, and ask them to explain the difference between Judea and Samaria. What you find may, I emphasise MAY, help you to come to an understanding of what that parable actually means. Oldusgitus (talk) 17:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Must we have sections called, "Questions for CP sysops"? It only encourages Rob to crawl out from beneath his rock, and nobody wants that! 15:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Considering your worldview is easily the most warped of anyone I know, perhaps you can enlighten us on that, Rob? DickTurpis (talk) 15:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a very good question, Rob. I think in your case it's mostly stupidity. --Kels (talk) 15:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You might want to quote that to "Lookit me, I'm soooo pious" Schlafly. As for the mental illness bit, have a look at Ken's recent edits and tell me that's the work of a sane man. -- Ψ Gremlin  16:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * @the Pepperpot with attachments: I'll say one thing for Rob - at least he has the balls to crawl out from his rock and speak what passes for his mind. Teh man has teh ma-cheese-mo. -- Ψ Gremlin  16:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey lookie, WP has two pages on nonsequiturs, wp:Non sequitur (logic) and wp:Non sequitur (literary device). Now, which of the two does this recent DNC talking point belong to:
 * "Republicans opposes Unemployment Compensation extensions (temporary, or emergency spending) and favor Taxcuts for the Rich (permanent spending)." nobsdon't bother me 16:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * For someone who claims to work in prisons Rob should look up schizotypal personality disorder and schizoaffective disorder. I'm sure the DSM criteria will seem familiar. 16:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I know we have to make exceptions for you, Rob, due to your obviously subnorm intelligence but most people when reading that part in the Bible spot the unspoken corollary, "don't be chiding others when they do their good works in secret either." Something for you and the Assfly to go away to the naughty corner and think about, eh? -- 17:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Rob, that actually isn't a non-sequitur in either sense.... That's simply a statement representing how the DNC views the Republican party's stance..... Not that this is in any way pertinent to the discussion at hand. 17:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yah well revenues are a matter of permanent law and do not require annual action, that is to say, it's nondiscretionary. Whereas emergency supplemental appropriations are discretionary. It's apples and oranges. And the commies who spew this garbage know it's a bogus argument. nobsdon't bother me 18:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Bogus argument? ROTFLMFAO.  Mr Pot, please step over here there's someone I'd like you to meet.  You can call him Mr Kettle.  And please don't mention the fact Mr Kettle is black, he may point out that fact you are also black. Oldusgitus (talk) 19:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So by your definition the inverse of that argument (that Republicans oppose extending unemployment benefits, and favor extending tax cuts for the rich) is also a "non-sequitur". Yes, one is discretionary and one is not, but that doesn't mean there is no connection between the two. If you look at long term deficit reduction, which will actually make more of a difference? Obviously the Democrats' plan. DickTurpis (talk) 20:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That would be assuming taxpayers now with $250K in taxable income would earn, report, and pay an additional $700B in taxes over the next ten years at the higher rates. That is a lare assumption. Conversely, the economic scholarship and concensus, based on past experience and rational expections says that $700B would never materialize in the US Treasury, or for that matter, in the aggregate GDP output figures. nobsdon't bother me 03:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't speak to the numbers, but I'm not sure your implication that all rich people are tax cheats holds up. Aren't they mostly conservative, and therefore incapable of engaging in cp:deceit? Obviously revenues would have to go up at least some sort of measurable amount; you can't have everyone suddenly magically earning just enough less than the previous year for their taxes to remain exactly the same. That would be a bit suspicious. We're just talking about restoring the tax level that existed 10 years ago. They were paying more then, so I see no reason why they wouldn't be doing so again. So maybe it'd be $500 billion instead of $700 billion. Either way that is going to do more to reduce the deficit than cutting off unemployment benefits. DickTurpis (talk) 13:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Point is, there is a strong liklihood the $700 billion in new wealth will not even be created. That postulate, if true, however would not stop $700 billion from being addded to permanent government spending, the deficit, and the national debt.  nobsdon't bother me 21:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Now you're arguing that $700 billion in increased revenues for the federal government increases the debt by $700 billion? Do you know anything about anything? Please, you've proved to all of us what an moron you are. Drop the sales pitch, we've already bought it. DickTurpis (talk) 04:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Raising rates to where an anticipated $700 billion in revenues will come in does not guarantee $700 billion will come in. Example: in my state, the Democrats raised the cigarette tax last year, supposedly it would produce $30 million in revenues. Guess what? It hasn't produced anywhere near that (or jack shit) in revenues but the Dems spent $30 million anyway to create new, permanent spending programs. Spending programs with a baseline of $30 million that need a source of revenue from somewhere. And it won't come from the cigarette tax or the income tax. nobsdon't bother me 15:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * All right. So we agree that anticipating $700 billion in revenues does not guarantee those revenues. But in this case, it guarantees at least some substantial increase, as it's based on income, which is generally consistent, not cigarette taxes, which can be more easily circumvented though online or out-of-state purchasing, or by giving up on smokes entirely (which, let's face it, is partially what the tax is for). Especially at a time like now, when people with high incomes are seeing those incomes grow substantially, much of that revenue is assured. Is someone making $400,000 a year suddenly going to decide to take a pay cut of $150,000 in order to not see their taxes on that extra amount rise by 5%? Of course not. Will they try to cheat in order to pay as little as possible? Sure. But, by and large, they can't cheat out of all of it. People pay less when rates go down; conversely, they pay more when rates go up. If no one is going to pay any more taxes if the rates go up, why object to them?
 * As for the spending, this assumes a $700 billion spending increase goes along with the extra projected $700 billion in revenues. It appears that the government will spend what it will spend, regardless of what it takes in. The increase on incomes $250,000 and over will just lead to more money coming in. Or was there to be some $700 billion spending increase that was contingent on the expiration of the tax cuts? If so, please show me a reliable source indicating this. If not then we're looking at hundred of billions in deficit reduction that is now off the table for at least 2 years. DickTurpis (talk) 15:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The $250K+ class generally is an entrepenuriual class whose income does not derive from a bi-weekly payroll. This class of income earners generally are the people responsible for innovation--the lifeblood of economic growth. Thier income tends to be the result of invetment, i.e. employing other people, and capital accumulation, that is, to produce and preserve the capital necessary to allow other potential entrepenuers and employers to borrow what's necessary to employ people. The $250K+ earners, at least those who are of the entrepenurial class, tend to not direct thier resources into wasteful cp:personal consumption expenditures; that is anathema to the very essence of capitalist accumulation, and capitalist gain. IOW, the $250K+ crowd tend to distribute thier time and resources to produce income when, and where, the best opportunities for gain (and gain in this sense means not only personal profit, but affording others employment, because helping them to find employment is the only way a greedy capitalist can gain personally. And of courss all rich millionaires understand this; ignorant M arxist hatemongers and class warriors, to nobodies benefit, can't grasp this fundemental principal.

The budget is made up of discretionary & nondiscretionary spending. More than 90% is non discretionary, or permanent spending. Like Social Security. Or Obamacare. Congress does not have to vote annually to fund these programs. Defense for example, is non-discretionary, but certain developmental programs or contracts are reviewed annually and tweaks are made. So spending basically is on auto-pilot. The overall problem is, the U.S government has made more promises (old age retirement benefits, subsidized mortgage interest rates for middle income earners, FDIC, student loans, prescription drugs, healthcare, etc. etc . etc.) than the U.S. government, or the U.S economy, is able to deliver. nobsdon't bother me 19:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure what any of that has to do with cutting the deficit, but I'll agree with you on some of that anyway. Of course, if this is the group of people responsible for creating jobs, then why aren't they creating any? I guess your argument is that if we raise taxes on their incomes we'll see fewer jobs created because money they could spend on investment and entrepreneurship will instead go to taxes. And there is perhaps some truth to that; spending is good for the economy. Of course, the Republican House's strategy is to create jobs by cutting spending, potentially laying off thousands of government workers. I'm not sure how that's supposed to work. Likewise your assertion that these are not the people who engage in cp:personal consumption expenditures (I love it when you link to a CP article that doesn't exist, it really shows just how in tune with that trainwreck of an encyclopedia you are) seems hollow. I suppose it's the people earning $30,000 who are buying $100,000 cars for themselves? But nevermind. As you point out, most expenditures are non-discretionary (though hardly 90%) so cutting spending is not easy. Raising taxes is about the only way to close the gap. We're not talking about the top bracket 91% rate that existed long ago, but an increase in the top bracket of 4.6% (35% to 39.6%, if I have my numbers right). Someone earning $400,000 a year is therefore paying about $7000 more in taxes. I suppose that if that money weren't going to the government if would go to job creation? Like, hiring 1/3 of a new employee? Anyway, since you seem to be the one arguing that we need to cut government spending to create jobs, and cut taxes to reduce the deficit, perhaps you can explain how those all work, and the best way to balance the budget without destroying the economy? DickTurpis (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Job creation has somewhat rebounded now that uncertainty over costs (i.e. taxes & healthcare benefits) has receded. Cutting $100B or $200B of discretionary spending to reduce a $1T ($1,000B) deficit is cosmetic. 2011 will be a recovery year, with $600B in Federal Reserve quantative easing, $112B in payroll tax holiday, and $1.8T corporate cash coming off the sidelines (in Federal Reserve parlance, corporations holding cash is called, "negetive business investment", or simply not hiring people; "positive business investment" then would be borrowing, or going in to debt, to meet a payroll). Those three combined total $2.5T in stimulus. Paul Krugman ought not bitch anymore that the $1T Bush & Obama spent over the past three years wasn't enough (unless he wants to bitch that the private sector doing all the stimulus spending deprives Congressmen from building voting constituencies). $2.5T in stimulus, or roughly 1/6 of the nations total output, equals what the federal government collects in taxes.


 * So how much, though, is $600B in Federal Reserve quantative easing (or Federal Reserve notes, that is to say, dollar bills, used to purchase $600B in Congressionally authorized Treasury debt)? Well, if total GDP output is $14,600B (14.6T) growing at 2.8% per annum, that means only $400 billion in new wealth is being created (the captial necessary to hire new workers). But the Congress & Treasury has already committed to borrowing 18 months of gains coming out of total output in the current recovery. Doesn't leave much for private sector borrowing during the next term of Congress. And since the federal government has already spent any gains coming out of the current recovery, high income earners may have to borrow money from elsewhere to pay higher taxes. Doesn't make any economic sense, at least for somebody with experience and knowledge how to create jobs, wealth, and increased output in the U.S. economy.  nobsdon't bother me 18:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * "Not that this is in any way pertinent to the discussion at hand." We should have a script that automatically attaches that statement to any response to Rob. DickTurpis (talk) 18:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Karajou contacts Ford Motor about vandalism
Why do these guys think people have any care at all about whether some random at their company writes on some random hate-filled website that people don't choose to be gay ? I didn't necessarily find that comment pro-gay or particularly vandalific, but Anger Bear Karajuku lets her know that he contacted her employer. It's funny to see Anger Bear lash out, and this is only slightly less funny than when CP called the FBI because their wittle website was being vandalized. --Leotardo (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I sincerely doubt that Karajou contacted anyone, more likely he just appended that comment as a pseudo-threat. Besides everyone knows CP doesn't have any credibility with any real world organization. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's Karajou, so yeah, there's a fair chance that he'll at least send a letter. Of all the CP sysops, he's the most likely to push for real-life consequences. Say something bad on his precious wiki and he'll try to get you fired and/or dragged to jail. --Sid (talk) 19:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't get it. How would he know who was to blame? Ford is a pretty big company. StarFish (talk) 19:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The idea is that he'll contact Ford Motor's IT department, and because like the FBI they have little to do, they will scour their servers for a Conservapedia edit, trace it to a particular user on their network, and that user will be called into HR for violating some company policy against writing 'gay is not a choice' on Conservapedia. Amongst many other reasons why this silly time waste by Anger Bear won't go anywhere, Ford has long been a champion of LGBT equality (they even cover sex-reassignment, as this wingnut gripe mentions) and IT people tend to be pretty liberal. --Leotardo (talk) 20:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Didn't he send a letter to the principal of Icewedge's school (or something like that) too? DickTurpis (talk) 20:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * For work reasons I have a static ip at my place of work, I need it to be able to access ftp sites and gain access through certain firewalls. Ford may be similar in that they either give certain people statics or they operate a policy of semi-static ip's so it would be fairly easy to trace an individual.  I was just talking at work with one of our network admins the other day about how he is constantly having to tell home workers off for accessing places like pirate bay from their work machine.  He gets updates from zen internet and he then bollocks the home workers. Oldusgitus (talk) 20:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * While I was working in the HQ of a major international company all the desktop PCs/docking stations had fixed IPs on the intranet. However, all external http requests went through the corporate firewall/proxy server - a massive T1/E1 (or T3/E3) pipe which only reported a single IP. Of course, IT "guru" TerryH only thinks that four or five PCs can share a single IP, but then he probably hasn't done much more than help out a local machine shop. For security the company used a major IT company (ITT?) to filter out malware and this was located in a completely different country many hundreds of miles away and reported a generic IP. They also had a reasonably lenient internet policy recognising that staff needed to make occasional personal use, however, there was one intranet page that everyone could see which listed all the recent page requests - this was designed to intimidate people into not abusing the system. It was obvious that not all page requests were completely legitimate but the only time I was aware of them taking any action was when someone who was using their work PC to run a business on eBay which attracted the police. Quite frankly a minor edit on Conservapedia is not going to get the corporate IT dept. (which will probably be outsourced anyway) to take much interest. 20:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sadly Sid is spot-on. Reading through the SDG and ZB shows that Kowardjerk really wants to get people in to real-life shit.  He takes great delight in how he (thinks) that his emails will get people fired or booted out of school.  He really is a hate-filled tiny little man.   21:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Fired? Expelled? Karajerk has higher ambitions than that - he wants to see one of us in jail. *stifles laughter* --ONE 23:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Those stupid hate-filled MFs harassed the shit out of me at work.-- [[Image:Asclepius staff.png|8px]]-PalMD -- 01:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I wasn't here during your more active days, and if you don't want to talk about it, that's fine. What did they do? Senator Harrison (talk) 02:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm curious too. --Leotardo (talk) 02:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Karajou is one of those intolerant individuals who make the world a much worse place. His views are analogous to those in Pakistan who think that Salman Taseer got what he deserved because of his opposition to the blasphemy laws. Too many idiots think that those who have opposing views or criticise their own should be put in prison or killed. Yes, Karajou is a fully paid-up member of the American Taliban. 11:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There was a time in ZB, he claimed to have phoned the librarian of some library because somebody there had rearranged some electrons on CP. Besides the fact that the chances of him doing so are zero, he'd be laughed out of town, especially as what he's whining about is neither neither vandalism nor hacking. Then again, Karajou wins the "Conservapede most likely to punch a Rationalwikian" award hands down. -- Ψ Gremlin  08:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

TZoran
Retired. Anyone have anything to say? EddyP Great King! Disaster! 11:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I feel terrible. Ace McfuckingAwesome 11:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Penis envy. 11:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * He clearly wasn't a parodist. That's one less genuine editor. Good luck Tyler and try to avoid the fringes in the future. You can do better.--Brendiggg (talk) 11:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * He also retired from Wikipedia the other day. Neither of them must have been satisfactory enough for him. ~Super Hamster  Talk 12:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As was explained somewhere above - parodist - probably not, genuine - no. Still, it's one editor closer to the Special Six circle jerk that CP is becoming. -- Ψ Gremlin  15:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Is Conservapedia down?
That's what I got when I tried to access it. Forbidden You don't have permission to access /Main_Page on this server.

Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.

Is it down for everybody or just for me? Kirk Johnson (talk) 09:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's intermittently "403" blocked from various UK German and other ISPs -. Him (talk) 09:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (see above Him (talk) 09:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

They're back for the moment. Kirk Johnson (talk) 10:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It occurs to me that, if they've got the brains, they can just switch off selected UK ISPs and see who squeals here, thus finding out who's on what & then close down whoever they want. (IF they've got the brains) Him (talk) 10:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Until yesterday, I couln't access CP for a weekAMassiveGay (talk) 14:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * They could also block by referrer, thus instantaneously breaking ALL RW links to CP. --Idiot numbre 188 (talk) 15:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Great idea writing that, were they probably read it. Seriously thank you. --Ullhateme (talk) 15:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you. It's about time we let CP die. -- Nx  / talk 15:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Isn't TWIGO:CP generating more content than CP these days? It's not going to die any time soon because laughing at it is just so easy. People gave up "refutation" a long time ago. 15:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess if you count in the talk page… --Ullhateme (talk) 16:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Mr Adams
I see Douglas is bored again and has decided to prune CP's English literature collection. Go Douglas! -- Ψ Gremlin  15:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Vaccines
Isn't Andy one of those morons who fell for Wakefield's vaccine/autism fraud? I wonder if he's going to retract his statements on that, or thunder on blindly. After all, Andy is never wrong. -- Ψ Gremlin  16:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Go Go Cognitive Dissonance Rangers! But really, it'll either be ignored or being Professor Values or something. My prediction is that it's the fault of scientists (and peer review) for letting the paper be published in the first place. Therefore the blame will be purely on the Liberal scientists and not at all on the media for blowing the thing out of proportion. 16:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I might stand corrected. From cp:Vaccine "Despite the claims of certain high-profile figures such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr., there is no link between the Measles, Mumps, Rubella (MMR) vaccine and Autism." Still, kudus to CP for attacking a liberal and not Wakefield. Still, I thought there's a CNN clip of Andy defending the anti-vaccine mob? In other YouTube news, have we seen Andy's lecture on how "Litigation and Junk Science Help Bring Down the World Trade Center"? -- Ψ Gremlin  16:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I tried watching that but Andy woffled and wasn't getting to the point. Can someone who managed to watch it summarize what Andy's 'evidence' is? Auld Nick (talk) 18:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's his standard spiel on how asbestos is A-OK, and it shouldn't have been removed from the WTC because if it hasn't, somehow that would have stopped the buildings from falling. No evidence of course, it's the Assfly. -- 18:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Way to go. Head for 47.13 in that pile of shite and the first question gets straight to the point for the wingnuts. 'I understand there are 2 kinds of asbestos and its that nasty African kind that is dangerous, not our nice good Mercan asbestos' and of course assfly agrees.  Way to simplify the matter AND get to blame them furners at the same time AND it's asked by someone who is supposedly qualified as a doctor.  How the fuck do these idiots tie their shoelaces in the morning? Oldusgitus (talk) 18:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "kudus to CP" - why are you sending them Afrigan antelopes? 22:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Unrelated to Assfly: seems like every 9/11-related video or article has comments that are dominated by lunatics. Ugh. – Nick Heer 22:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Healthcare - Donna Reed WIGO
"The argument about the 30 to 35 million uninsured people has nothing to do with whether or not the uninsured can find a doctor to treat them. Gosh, just tell the doctor you'll pay by cash ... and then fumble for your wallet on the way out, and mumble something about paying $20 a month. You think he'll try to repossess the treatment he gave you? - Ed Poor" Obviously, this is exactly the advice Jesus would give. Ed Poor is suggesting 1) A sick poor should go from doctor to doctor until he finds someone who will treat him without an insurance card; 2) Assuming the doctor doesn't demand payment up front as is likely, the sick poor should feign as if he has the cash to pay; and 3) Haha! He doesn't have the cash, so as he's heading for the door, fumblin' and mumblin', he promises to pay 20 bucks of a month.

Uncle Bad Touch recommends deceit to receive medical treatment, and once that doctor is deceived, what's the likelihood he'll ever do that again. These guys are such assholes. I would LOVE--in fact, I may pray to god--for Ed Poor to lose his health insurance and have to follow his own advice. Let's see how much Donna Fucking Reed is a comfort to him then! Really, if there's any cosmic justice, if there is a god, that's exactly what will happen. --Leotardo (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In what deluded world does he live in?  15:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I remember just after 1962, when the seniors were all herded onto Medicare collective farms; the resulting high prices and doctor shortage. I can still hear my grandparents bitching after they were forced to lookfor new doctors; and they'd always end with, "and he doesn't make house calls." nobsdon't bother me 15:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Medicare has been just horrible for old people. They hate it. That's why promising to repeal Medicare always ensures the senior vote. DickTurpis (talk) 16:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Rob, I still think you're an idiot... But congratulations on actually staying on topic for once. 16:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Ed is certainly an idiot. He does, however, correctly state that emergency rooms by law have to treat patients who come to them, whether or not they can pay. This doesn't mean much, as it does not, say, demand that they administer a chemotherapy regimen or admit them for long term care. It does, however, tie up emergency rooms, force people to wait in triage for hours waiting for a doctor who can see them, and do nothing to guarantee any real meaningful care. (I would love to see someone bluff their way into treatment at a chemotherapy ward, pull Ed's "fumble for your wallet" scheme, turn and say "same time next week?") It is also something which would largely be tossed by the wayside if the conservatives got their way and the industry were heavily deregulated. There's a reason why the RW idiocy award is named for this cretin. DickTurpis (talk) 16:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Dick, don't forget raising costs for the rest of us. Emergency rooms are forced to treat patients, but they don't do it out of the goodness of their hearts, they pass the charges onto the rest of us.  Ed is, essentially, advocating socialism, albeit a very selfish form of socialism.  He gets his free medical treatment and the rest of the country pays for it.  It's win/win.  By the way, if you took all of the steps Ed suggests, couldn't you be charged with intent to defraud?  16:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You guys also don't mention that emergency rooms aren't free. It's not like a poor person goes to the emergency room and never sees a bill.  This is exactly why poor people without insurance have their medical costs bankrupt them.  They still get the bill for everything - it ain't free, as any poor person who gets a $5K bill for their emergency room visit will tell you.  The only reason I can think of that anybody thinks this is because they have always had a charmed existence with insurance, didn't need major medical care when they were without it or they enjoy another country's health care. --Leotardo (talk) 16:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think Ed is advocating socialism there, just a very, very slimy form of extreme capitalism where you'd using some form of industrial espionage to offset costs to your competitors. Although a cynic might still say that's what socialism is. Though the repossessing the treatment part does remind me a little too much of Repo!. 16:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (EC) Exactly. And it's worse than that. People without insurance pay more. Much more. I had this experience last year: I fell and needed stitches on my chin. I was far from home, and unfortunately didn't have my insurance card with me. I ended up getting billed for something like $1500. Following a bunch of phone calls, I later was able to send the claim to my insurance company, and in the ensuing inquiries I discovered the company had settled the bill...for about $600. Of course, many poor people can use false names and avoid every receiving a bill, which seems to be what Ed advocates, but that's both deceitful and socialistic. Maybe Ed should be permabanned from CP for being a liberal? DickTurpis (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * But they really can't get away with fake names, because doctors and emergency rooms require identification. Sure, you can go in there with none, but a hospital will instantly look at you as a loss and give you de minimis or superficial care.  This is how it works:  Poor person w/no insurance has emergency and goes to hospital, gets treatment, gets massive bill they can't pay that bankrupts them.  Meanwhile, the rest of us have to also pay more to pay for that person's inability to pay.  Hospital loses, poor person is far worse off, and society is worse off.  Great system, ay?  These CP assholes have no solution except for the poor to slime their way around hoping for charity or watch the goddamn 50 year old Donna Reed show. --Leotardo (talk) 17:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no experience with trying to rip off ERs, but if you go in there with no ID and a legitimate medical issue, they do have to treat you ("stabilize" you might be the exact phrasing). Of course, there's a big difference between showing up with a fever and a gunshot wound; with the former you'll wait forever and probably be given minimal care, with the latter they'll treat you and at least try to save your life. But, yes, the costs trickle down to the rest of us. It's a very expensive way of doing things, and it yields poor results, but it's less "socialist" than single-payer, so the right goes along with it, perfectly prepared to cut off their nose to spite their face. DickTurpis (talk) 17:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, to scam the ER you have to think ahead - carry no ID, go alone and have nobody show up for you who would reveal who you are. A fever this more feasible; a gunshot to the chest, not so much.  We shouldn't be putting our fellow citizens in this kind of a position so that they can continue living.  --Leotardo (talk) 17:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think ultimately the issue is that they don't give a shit about their fellow citizens. 18:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm so freaking happy right now that I live in a country where I could just walk into hospital bleeding and would be treated right away, and treated accurately for that matter. Of course we (Germany) have our insurencies, but except if you are self-employed (because they wouldn't be able to pay stable rates per month) you are forced to have health care- and even liberals (in Germany those are the ones advocating free-economy) don't want it any other way, if they would they wouldn't get any voters. And what Ed is proposing here is a crime. I think if anybody would do that and it would make the news, Andy would go: "Oh look, the economy is so bad due to the liberals not doing as I say that people even have to steal health treatment." And if it would be a liberal doing it it would go to Liberal Deceit. What the fuck happend to "Thou shalt love thy neighbor"? Hypocrisy thy name is Conservapedia. --Ullhateme (talk) 18:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "I'm so freaking happy right now that I live in a country where I could just walk into hospital bleeding and would be treated right away, and treated accurately for that matter." QFT. Knowing that you will be treated for illness no matter what is a massive load off your mind. EddyP Great King! Disaster! 19:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not to rain on anyone's parade here, but there is no guarantee in any system that you will be treated accurately. DickTurpis (talk) 20:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * With accurately I meant "to their best knownledge" - ok, a wrong diagnosis is always possible, but that goes into the category "shit happens" not "bad system". --Ullhateme (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * A bit of both, really. But by "bad system" I don't mean the financial aspect so much as the way hospitals are run. I was just reading Superfreakonomics which has a chapter on inefficiency ad problems in ERs, which made me bring it up. DickTurpis (talk) 20:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Somehow, and perhaps it's because this argument is endlessly rehearsed by Americans and they're bored of it, you skipped right by the part where it turns out that "socialist" medicine is economically sound. Here's how that goes just in case, I will use myself as a convenient and true (if anonymous) example.

In 2003 I was very poor. I didn't have a job, the grant funding my education had just ended. My savings accounts were empty. And my lymph nodes had swelled up and wouldn't go down. But I live in a country where medical care is free at the point of use. From diagnosis (cancer) to surgery to chemotherapy to radiotherapy, everything was free. So I got treatment, got better, got a job, and I now contribute tens of thousands of dollars a year in taxes, which help to fund the afore-mentioned free health care.

Under the US system, I'd have waited. I needed to look for a job, and there was nothing "serious" wrong, just an unexplained lump. Once the lump grew big enough to interfere with breathing I could have reported it as an emergency and they'd have operated. Then they'd have realised I had cancer, and it was too far gone to do anything. For the next few months I'd be in and out of the ER with new symptoms, each to be "stablised" so that I could be kicked to the kerb. It would probably be heartbreaking for the doctors and nurses, but there's no authority to do otherwise, and I would be dying no matter what. These repeat ER visits would be hugely expensive, and I would of course be unable to work, and eventually the state would have to pay for my body to be incinerated and my worthless personal possessions returned to my nearest relative.

So that's the difference. "Socialist" health care makes you a net profit on me as a citizen. Not just me, there are plenty of people like me. The current US system isn't just inhumane (though that would be reason enough) it's penny wise and pound foolish. The US taxpayer is actively spending money to send poor people to an early grave. Obamacare is a step, just a step, towards fixing that. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 01:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That was such a good read - thank you for it. --Leotardo (talk) 05:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was very well put. 07:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Typical bloody socialist. It's all me, me, me with you lot.  Those poor hard working private health care possessing workers had to pay for you to be kept alive and that is a scandal which should not happen.  Allow that and the next thing it will be the hammer and sickle flying over the white house and al qaeda having hog roasts on the white house lawn.Oldusgitus (talk) 09:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * But more seriously good to hear you recovered and are well now.Oldusgitus (talk) 09:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Al Qaeda? Hog roasts? Tylersboy (talk) 13:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, if Breaking Bad has taught me anything, it's that if you want medical care in the US the best way to pay for it is drug dealing. 15:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The elephant in the room with that show is that, surely, as a unionized schoolteacher, our hero would have had comprehensive insurance and not need to cook meth to pay the bills. Although, I guess part of his motive was to leave his family some serious cash for after he croaked. Troutmaskreplica (talk) 07:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What tylers? You accept my comment about the hammer and sickle but question the one about the hog roasts?  Ok, maybe I wasn't being serious about the hog roasts. Oldusgitus (talk) 16:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC) or about the hammer and sickle either as it happens
 * And there I was, looking out my Budenny cap and pioneer neckerchief. . . . Tylersboy (talk) 23:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Obama's muslim agenda wigo
Ok, I can just about understand jpatt's shit about giving aid to muslims countries, it's bollocks but I can undertsand how a wingnut can think it's the sign of some secret muslim plot, but how the flying F does repatriating a former gitmo detainee against his will meet this insane thought pattern? Oldusgitus (talk) 16:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Obama feared that this guy would have converted to Christianity if he'd been allowed to remain in the United States? It hurts my brain to try to think like JPatt. I need to go outside for some air. Concernedresident  omg!!! ponies!!! 17:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think, somewhere in the CP talkpages for that 'article' when it was taken from the BHO 'article', they said that anything islam related to do with Obama counted - whether it be seen to be pro or anti-muslim.  It makes even less sense.   17:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a confusing article. The subject implies a hidden agenda, yet this collection of factoids doesn't really make the argument either way. If the title were changed to "Stuff Obama did that's related to muslim things" then it would be an unusually non-partisan article by CP standards. I found the Iranian sanctions entry to be particularly baffling. How would extending sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran be pro-Muslim? JPatt's comments on the talk page would suggest that the points in the article expose Obama's obvious love for the Religion of Peace(TM), yet the points he's included provide a kind of balanced, if slightly irreverent account. I need more air. Concernedresident  omg!!! ponies!!! 18:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, for the most part if you changed up the dates and substituted "Bush" for "Obama" it'd still all be mostly true. Probably because he was a secret Kenyan Muslim too. -- 18:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, that's not possible. Bush was white.  «-Bfa-»  18:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's what made it such a great secret. 95.148.146.33 (talk) 20:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, Bush being an Al-Qaeda sleeper agent actually makes a lot of his policies make sense. --Gulik (talk) 09:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What stumped me was the edit summary referring to Pokistan, which can't be a typo, given the distance between a and o on a keyboard - any thoughts? InternetGoomba (talk) 10:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep. In common with many extreme right wingers and xian fundamentalists jpatt is comparatively uneducated.  I would suspect that he thinks Pakistan is spelt that way and can't be arsd to actually check something ebfore typing it. Oldusgitus (talk) 10:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's more than that. At some point during campaigning (either for Dems or Pres) Obama was speaking about Pakistan and apparently (according to Andy) he used the correct "Muslim" pronunciation, which is "Pokistan". Thus, this was more proof that he's a closet Muslim. If only he'd said, Eye-rack and Ay-rabs. See Debate - Is Obama a Muslim -- Ψ Gremlin  10:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have a question here, while we're on that topic, for all 'ya Americans: Why does his religion even matter? I get why his ideology might matter, I get why they'd love to be him born outside the US, but this religion thing I don't get. What's the point of that? Xenophobia? No Knownledge of Islam? Or is Islam seen as something inherently bad by these people? Help a poor European understand America! --Ullhateme (talk) 12:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * IIRC the original stink from the religious right is not that he is a Muslim, but that he lied about not being a Muslim. (ha! yeah right, imagine if he was a Muslim - I guess Palin would be Pres now after McCain's "accident") -- Ψ Gremlin  13:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So they wan't to collect evidence that he lied, on the assertion that he lied - no wonder I didn't get that. Also another example of completely unbiased research from CP. --Ullhateme (talk) 15:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As a yrpean I have always assumed that for many Americans they simply can not envisage a non-xian president. It's this idiocy they have that morals come from their particular holy book and their (false) belief that the US was founded by xians on xian principles.  Witness Glen Becks, palins and faux news incessant lying about this.  Whilst many in the UK simply couldn't care less about religion, witness the huge non-event of Nick Clegg saying he was atheist and the election of an atheist to the leadership of the labour party, for some bizarre reason the Americans hold to this mantra.
 * Perhaps in a very uncertain world it gives them semblance of certainty. Even if it is only a semblance and most of the xian leaders they have are more relgious in their words than they ever will be in their deeds or their hearts - extra-marital affairs, starting wars on the basis of lies and hubris, theft and fraud by their friends like ken delay et al. Oldusgitus (talk) 14:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ullhateme, I'm European and personally would consider being a muslim (or Christian for that matter) to be a negative attribute in a leader. I wouldn't entirely disqualify them, since that'd depend on the extent of their beliefs and how they put them in to practice, but ultimately it's kind of worrying to have someone with irrational beliefs of any kind in power. Our beliefs guide our actions. I don't see an appreciate difference between believing that the resurrected demigod of a Jewish virgin is going to save us from hell when compared to David Icke's belief that alien lizards have infiltrated the corridors of power. The former is just more socially acceptable. Concernedresident  omg!!! ponies!!! 14:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Concernedresident, I wouldn't generally say it's bad to be a secular . But fundamentalists, I agree on that yeah, that wouldn't flow my boat very well. But after all, his actions don't indicate anything on that matter. Personally as someone who calls himself a "new atheist" any religious attitude is a negative thing for me, but as long as it doesn't massively flow into politics it's "ok". I found it astounding that the question even arose, partly because religion really isn't that big of a topic (it's seems to be tending towards taboo-ish) in German politics the other part because the argumentation that, you can only be moral when you are a Christian is so mindnumbing dumb that you would stand a chance in any exam in any kind of school in Germany (and I seriously hope in most of the world) defending it (I think I read it on RW for the first time ever). To get back on the tangent-topic I created, it seems to be that Islam is a way more logical religion then Christianity. I heard the following argumentation from a Muslim scientist: He believed that god created all in the universe, so exploring the universe in all it's beautifulness would be like a constant praising of god's greatness. Now that's fucking awesome: A religion that encourages science (and history shows that science until the renaissance was further developed in ismlamic countries)! On the other hand, he believed that most of the bad shit crazy stuff like burquas, jihad for cultural independence (against the "imperialism of the US") were mostly cultural phenomenon in which the forms of Islam seen today are unpure (culturally influenced philosophy so to speak). I have also heard that the ramadan only exist due to the "prophet" saying that everybody should once or twice a year feel how poor men live - hungry all day, so they'd give more to charity. That's kinda more logical to me then "If not you're go to hell" - of course there are also gun-using nutties out there that got the whole thing utterly wrong. A few weeks ago I asked myself (in my head of course) how I would decide if somebody put literally or metaphorically a gun to my head an asked me that I could choose between Cristianity, Judaism and Islam. After thinking about it, I would go for Islam - it seems to be the most rational out all three. Also following out of that I'd probably rather vote for a Muslim than for a Christian - no matter how secular both are (considering they would both be on the same level of secularism, if not I'd go for the more secular one if they were equal in every other political issue). --Ullhateme (talk) 15:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

More Ken
I know it's like mocking the disabled, but I see Ken's blanked recent changes again with more of his infantile "neeny-neeny-nah-nah atheists are tubbies" postings. I'll say one thing for the man, when he latches onto something, he's more fixated than a terrier. I see were Sumo wrestlers now. maybe one of us lardarses should go and sit on Ken. Hopefully PZ will treat KiddyKen's taunts with the contempt and silence they deserve. Which is what I probably should have done. Oops. -- Ψ Gremlin  10:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope. Egg him on Psy. Ken is unflaggingly actualising CP's full potential a world-class reference tool.--Brendiggg (talk) 10:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sumo Wrestlers are pretty 'ard. I'd pay good money to see Ken take one on. X Stickman (talk) 11:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * A couple of years back I'd say egg Ken on due to CP having some kind of relevance - albeit pretty small and centred around their ability to screw with the education of children. With that gone the only reason to give Ken shout-outs over here is so that he'll  be satisfied enough with that attention to avoid going out on the greater-Internet to bother normal people. Let's help keep Ken "I was never confused" DeMyer confined to his playpen.   Concernedresident  omg!!! ponies!!! 11:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The strangest thing about this episode in the continuing tragi-comedy that is life is that he seems to have inspired his good buddy Mariano (AKA true free thinker) to start a fitness blog. It's like him, Kendoll and shockofgoat constitute some kind of three musketeers of godbotting, egging each other on to even more dizzy heights of crazy. -- 11:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 10 HOURS WELL SPENT NOW THE INTERNET IS SAFE FROM FATTIES!1!!! TRLOLOL -- Newton talk
 * I suspect his family think it to be time well spent. They assume that while he's doing wiki stuff he's not thinking about the cock. That illusion would be shattered if they saw the focus of his edits. Concernedresident omg!!! ponies!!! 15:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

JaneX commits wikicide over Giffords
Okay, so CP hasn't exactly reveled in the assassination attempt on a Democratic Congressperson, but they're not exactly taking the high road either. So far they've posted Palin's condolences on the main page, but none of their own. They've used one statement from one person who claims to have known the alleged attacker years ago to say he is undeniably left wing. Now Andy's saying (based on nothing) that he was probably on drugs at the time. Way to go, guys. Keep being trusworthy. DickTurpis (talk) 19:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's more typical CP on the talk page, they are convinced the shooter is a leftist and the "liberal media" is playing cover up. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Good old Conservapedia. Some things never change. DickTurpis (talk) 19:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Their user JaneX made a comment about that yesterday and was warned on her talkpage about talk talk talk, etc. The ensuing discussion, if you can call it that, was precious. Schlafly accused her of repetitive ranting and illogical this and that. She responded that she wouldn't have to repeat herself if people were actually responding to her comments on the merits instead of indulging their own biases. She then said she wanted nothing to do with Conservapedia if Schlafly wouldn't acknowledge that he was jumping to conclusions and censoring legit discussion. Having been thoroughly run through the ringer one of Schlafly's goons deleted her talkpage and perma blocked her. Stay classy. 20:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * JaneX is now blocked. She stood up as a wikimartyr for decency on one of the least decent places in conservative politics. Godspeed, JaneX, godspeed.  --Leotardo (talk) 20:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Now Andy has two almost identical ramblings clogging up MPR about how Loughtner was almost certainly high on pot when he went on his shooting spree. Sorry, Andy, as someone pretty well acquainted with the effects of marijuana, I can attest that there is probably nothing less likely to send him into a violent rampage. In such a state he would be unlikely to leave his apartment for anything except to pick up some more Chee-tos. Perhaps he was drunk, but that is unlikely, as people who drink beer are always obese, and there is no indication so far that he is. DickTurpis (talk) 00:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "...people who drink beer are always obese..." So, by proxy, people who drink beer are atheists?   02:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd say that's pretty accurate. --Kels (talk) 03:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Poor Jane. At least she sees the tragedy here and not the chance to profit from an alleged political affiliation.  Anybody else notice this? ASchlafly removes CBG's anti-weed rantings.  Maybe he does have a heart. ScientificRigor (talk) 02:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that revert almost has more to do with CBG looking like a parodist there... at least, if I were a parodist that's the sort of thing I would be saying... -- 02:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

AmandaBunting is my new favorite parodist
Ever since the demise of TeacherEd, there hasn't been a parodist on CP that personally found to be interesting, that is until I found AmandaBunting. Fellow travelers here may remember her for such gems as the writing about the obvious truth of the existence of Dragons, Sasquatch , Unicorns , and Fairies. What really caught my eye though was her recent " revision " to the science of cosmology as shown by this little gem:


 * Much of modern cosmology is atheistic, liberal pseudo or junk science which rejects God as explanations for the existence of the universe, instead relying on debunked theories such as relativity and the Big Bang theory based on the recession of galaxies shown by Red Shift all occuring[sic] in a time frame which predates creation. Some secular scientists also advocate the Steady state theory.

As an amateur astronomer, I am loving that; to me this is exactly the type of parody that falls under the radar of the CP administration because it so correctly mimics some forms of extreme fundamentalist Christianity, as well as Andy's own really warped views of the cosmos and physics. To anyone else (including just about every conservative on the planet) who happens to stumble upon articles like this, it is a reason to automatically dismiss Conservapedia as anything other then a bad Internet joke, let alone as any sort of scholarly work. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * She has also taken Andy to task for his praise of a 'teenager' discovering a supernova. Its all liberal deceit. Auld Nick (talk) 19:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Especially since Andy doesn't believe in distances in light years from Earth of over 6,000 light years. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh man, that was good stuff. Anyone else notice how many buzz words she cramed into that responce? Proffesor Values, Liberal Bias, Liberal Deceit, Liberal Arrogance. Did I miss any?--ThunderstruckYou've Been...
 * She's one of my favorites too, and she has a lasting place in my heart for the unicorns and the fairies and the "possibility" that she could be a member of the Red Raiders softball team. I think she lays it on too thick sometimes, though.  --Leotardo (talk) 06:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC) I know discussing parodists is frowned upon, but I need a break from discussing the Fab Five.
 * Yeah, chatting about parodists is touchy here, but let's face it, other then Ken's overt craziness with his "essays" there isn't anything happening there. I find it fascinating that she is systematically destroying CP's shreds of creditability, article by article without any notice.&mdash; Unsigned, by: BMcP / talk / contribs
 * If a sysop has either validated the parodist's edits or praised them for their efforts, it should be safe to discuss. I believe this one was endorsed by Ken after her work on the mythological creatures. BTW, what was the final outcome of Ken's and Douglas' blocking struggle over TeacherEd? Is he gone for good now? Röstigraben (talk) 07:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * But don't they validate it by just letting it stand since they are so quick to remove? It must be like the mirror side of Poe's Law for them.  Ken and Karajou--both of whom would be serial killers of tranny prostitutes if they weren't tethered like dogs to the Bible, thank god--must suspect she's a parodist and really really want to block her.  Except in their eyes she's only tremendously improving the site.  It would be like Andy socking over here to write as a big goof on us, "Both the Old Testament and the New have numerous internal contradictions that render any attempt to deem words of the Bible literally true impossible".  --Leotardo (talk) 18:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Andy hasn’t responded to her questioning his praise for a teenager discovering a supernova. Perhaps he has realised that he will only be arguing with himself. Amanda seems to be only adding to/editing articles with material that is already available on CP. The links show that. She has also avoided sysops’ pet articles like Conservadiv’s homosexuality and evolution gibberish. Though Kowardjerk did immediately revert her edit to his sasquatch article. Apart from trashing the science articles or claiming that things mentioned in the Bible are real, what other nonsense is there to move around CP without standing on the sysop’s toes? Where will Amana strike next? Any guesses? Auld Nick (talk) 11:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * How about articles on non-Christian gods, clarifying their lack of existence due to God being the only one? EddyP Great King! Disaster! 12:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The reasonableness of the Spanish Inquisition. Smells that god likes.  Crapflooding the Greatest Teenage Achievement list with endless Biblical teenage accomplishments.  A series of articles and additions that revolve around the concept, "Everything I needed to know about medical care I learned in the Old Testament." --Leotardo (talk) 14:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Amanda's timing and tactics are perfect. Firstly, TK isn't around, so she's escaped his block everything in site policy, plus, she's relating everything back to the Bibbel, so reverting her implies the Bibbel is wrong, and TerryH's head might explode. Still, I guarantee it won't be long until she steps on one sysop's crazy toes - there are just too many to avoid. I'm surprised Ed hasn't been sniffing around her yet. Maybe she's too old for him. -- Ψ Gremlin  15:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Amanda has been around since 6 May 2010 so TeamKlown's absence and her editing is likely just a coincidence. Auld Nick (talk) 17:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * She's also smart. A friend of mine wrote a play that he called 'a new play by William Shakespeare' because he wrote it using only words found in six Shakespeare works.  Amanda is doing the same thing here.  Virtually nothing she says isn't a rehash of something one of the fabfive said in the past.  Whoever blocks her we know is the most self-loathing CPer (or its biggest bootlick).  Nobody can argue when she sources the Bible, and there's lots and lots of swell material in there. cp:Mystery:Why does God want me to kill my sister who was telling me about Buddhism yesterday? (Deuteronomy 13:6-10) --Leotardo (talk) 17:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

What's Amanda like?
I've formed quite a few mental images of CPers. My image of Amanda is of a whip-smart mid-to-late teen, who plays for the Red Raiders softball team. She's was born in Herndon, Virginia but her family recently moved out of state and she kind of misses it. Sure, she makes due with the softball team she joined, which allows her to visit home during the playoffs; and she has made some new friends over the last year. Besides, she is starting to look at colleges. Her parents are real fundamentalist wingnuts, like if Ken was attractive and had opportunity or desire to procreate wingnuts. Amanda is questioning but conflicted. On one hand the Bible was drummed into her so harshly and for so long, it's fused with her DNA. On the other, she's starting to suspect that what her parents believe is not real. At least the religion part.

CP for Amanda is an elaborate spiritual discussion that she is having with herself. She could care less what we all have to say because she's not doing it for us or for them, but for her. We just are allowed to witness one side of her search. --Leotardo (talk) 18:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * JaneX is her older sister.--Brendiggg (talk) 15:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As a parodist, Amanda is undoubtedly a mid-to-late teenage male, probably overweight, lives in a basement and has an above average knowledge of animated japanese pornography. 15:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Concur. There are no girls on the internet and certainly none on CP. I'd put the age a bit older - early mid-20s and it's somebody with experience of CP. This isn't their first CP sock and they've spent time studying Andy's edits. As for the Japanese porn, you've just reminded me I have torrents running... -- Ψ Gremlin  16:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sexist assholes. :P -- 16:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Shurrup woman. Where's my tea? ;p -- Ψ Gremlin  16:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer my fake Amanda over you all pointing out reality! Mine's more interesting. --Leotardo (talk) 16:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps she is a witch. Auld Nick (talk) 21:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Reality has a well known sexist-internet-meme bias. Also, Argumentum ad cellarium. 14:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

More Reliable Sources...
Well, we all know MPR doesn't require any sources, let alone reliable ones. Even as a non-American I was fairly well aware that TARP was executed during the Bush Administration (and with some fact checking) under the 110th Congress. With their knowledge of recent history would I trust anything else in The top 10 violations of the Constitution by Obama and the 111th Congress? Are they trying to weasel this in by claiming the 111th Congress divvied up the funds? &mdash; Unsigned, by: Aslate / talk / contribs
 * Illegal Imigration is hilarious: 400.000 imigrants wanting jobs and to spend the money they'd earn are considered an invasion - yeah sure and if somebody throws food at you it's attempted murder... Health Care Reform: "It required all Americans to have health insurance whether they wanted it or not." - Has anybody ever met somebody that didn't want health care? Also, if somebody like that actually existed (highly unlikely) wouldn't it be the best move to just put a bullet through his head? Because seriously that guy would be such a moron he wouldn't be able to help anyway… --Ullhateme (talk) 14:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think there really are Americans who don't want health insurance. But rather than not wanting health care, they believe that they don't need it. They are optimistically delusional. This might seem extraordinary, but keep in mind that the US has a major religious sect (the Christian Science movement) who believe, despite the strong evidence to the contrary, that prayer literally prevents and cures diseases, so they don't need medical care. Imagine for a moment that you think this way. Spending on healthcare is outrageous. You haven't had so much as a cough in years. The people who get sick must not take proper care of themselves, and it's a shame if the Federal government should lift a finger to make up for their laziness.
 * Now, for every person who actually thinks this way, there are more who know the truth but prefer not to face it. The former create a convenient cover for the latter, and the only way to fix that is to change public opinion, which (see the Civil Rights Era) can take decades. I guess what I'm saying is, you can't expect to have a grown-up debate about healthcare in a country where Christian Scientists are taken seriously. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 15:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have seriously never met anyone who didn't want health insurance, but then again I'm living in Germany - a country were Obama would have gotten 90% of the vote if solely against McCain - and have never been to the US in my live. I think there are also many people in Germany that believe that prayer - if they are Christians, Jews or Muslims (which is 47%) - works, but most of them don't see the problem paying between 30€ and 100€ a month for insurance that may be helpfull. I guess they believe that two things work better than one alone. Maybe the Americans right wing reality deniers have more balls then Europeans? And to close it up: If you don't think you need health insurance, break a leg! --Ullhateme (talk) 16:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the problem is that health insurance in the US is so expensive compared to elsewhere. There was a report last year in NatGeo(?) comparing health expenditure versus life expectancy and the US fared quite poorly. 22:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's expensive, but more importantly, most younger people gain nothing by it - their health is good, so they can cheerfully "opt out" if they want. Hence there is a large group of people who aren't contributing to the "system". Troutmaskreplica (talk) 07:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

To answer the original question, the TARP Act was passed in mid to late August 2008, about 5 weeks before FY 2008 ended. FY 2009 began October 1, 2008. The 111th Congress was sworn in the first week of January, 2009. The 111th Congress inherited 9 more months of spending appropriated by the 110th. The bulk of TARP funds was spent in FY 2009 by both the 110th & 111th Congresses, with 3/4 of it spentby the 111th Congress. And both the 110th & 111th Congress are known as the Pelosi/Reid Congresses. nobsdon't bother me 19:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The congress didn't spend any of the money, it was the beauracracy (executive branch) that spent the money. Congress gave consent to spend the money, and the executive branch then took the money and ran with it.  Half of the funds were held initially, but were later released by congress when the then in-charge beauracrat assured them that the money would not fall into a deep dark blackhole like his predecessor had it do.  So, although the Pelosi/Ried congress produced the money, they're not the ones who spent the money.  Also, they were told that if they didn't produce the money that the entire economy and everything would collapse into a financial blackhole.  Duress is a valid defense for an action (except murder).  -- 19:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow. Thanks. I'll remember that. So if the Boehner House raises the debt ceiling & fails to balance the budget, the GOP didn't spend a damn dime. The Obama administration did. Thanks for the clarification. nobsdon't bother me 00:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's try it again, this time reading for comprehension. The Pelosi/Reid congress made the funds available, but the executive branch spent it.  No less, the Pelosi/Reid congress were led to believe that if these funds weren't made available immediately, that the entire financial system would collapse.  Sen. John McCain even took time out of his campaigning calling this a catastrophe that required his full attention.  The politicians from the Right pushed the agenda that this had to be done.  Now, if I am a poor college student, and I go to my parents and tell them, "Mom, Dad, I'm having horrible money problems and I need $300 to buy my school books, otherwise I won't be able to do my homework, and then I won't pass any classes, and then I'll get thrown out of college."  If my parents then make the funds available, and I divert that money and buy a netbook... then no one would claim that my parents spent money on buying me a netbook.  In fact, my parents would not even have been acting irresponsibly.  I would have been the one acting irresponsibly, and no less so by convincing my parents of the necessity of the action, and then diverting the funds to something else.  You cannot rationally refute that the Bush administration lobbied the congress to get the TARP funds with claims that it would tear down the whole economy if they didn't.  Because that is what historically happened.  -- 02:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Additional aside, to be treated separately, please. If the Boehner House raises the debt ceiling and fails to balance the budget, then there are a few different possibilities.  Obama may have simply rejected their budget, in which case, it would be Obama's issue for rejecting it (although, he may entirely be rightful to reject such budget.)  I hold the Pelosi/Reid congeress responsible for making the TARP funds available without any strings or accountability, but that's about all I ca do, because they're not the ones who actually diverted the funds away from the area that they said needed critical attention or the economy would fail.  However, the Pelosi/Reid congress did actually suspect something and rejected the first TARP attempt.  Which just caused the Bush Administration to ramp up the political rhetoric about how they're destroying the economy.  (And had they failed to pass the TARP and the economy crumbled like the Bush Admin was saying, then I would be upset at the Pelosi/Reid congress for failing to make the funds available.) -- 02:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I can see we have our work cut out, explaining the budget & ther budget process. For staters, "if Obama rejects Congresses budget", that ould mean a government shut down. Do you think Obama really wants to go there? nobsdon't bother me 21:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Seeing CP for the first time
We're used to CP by now, so looking at the mainpage and seeing, 22-year-old young mass murderer who is "left wing, quite liberal," ... leftist goes on a murdering rampage ... 'Left-Wing Pothead,'  doesn't surprise us, or me anyway. So instead I'm trying to imagine what it's like for a first time visitor seeing the CP mainpage as it is now, when it's got all this shit covering it - liberal mass murderers, "Professor PZ Myers fails his applied biology course - satire", Atheism and obesity, and a fucking "conservatism" template at the bottom of the page. Yeah, it's there. Look for it. It's all the way down at the bottom of the page, past those crappy Microsoft Excel graphs titled "Obama Deficits," and "Stimulus Failed." Any person capable of rational human thought would take one look and think how fucking distasteful this is. If I was seeing the mainpage for the first time as it is now would make me think that CP is nothing more than a hate site which uses whatever it can get it's hands on to manipulate to political ends. Of course, I've known this before, but I've never properly noticed it til now. This is quite a realisation. No cow is sacred to them. Apparently it's OK to use every tragedy that's ever fucked someone over like this for political ends, as long as you're not gay, an atheist, liberal, evolutionist, and fuck knows what else. 20:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, as somebody who has discovered RW and CP only a few months back I can answer that (Yippie, I'm usefull!). I discovered CP indirectly though RW (I think I was googling an internet law), so I directly find the ridicule before the fact. So, I read a few articles and went in to CP - I thaught you guys were - well - overdoing it a little bit before, I was astonished that these people actually believed that shit I wasn't even able (happily not able btw) to think. So I got my barometer (I know it's wrong but I didn't had a bullshitmeter at the time) and went it for the sick stuff: Atheism, Nazism, Socialism (at that time with a picture of Hitler), Communism, Evolution - and when I skimmed over all these simply by reading the headings I knew this people didn't really had anything else to say then ad hominem arguments (which is still about 75% of the main stuff). So I thaught whatever some sickos trying make a point. But somehow I kept returning, laughing out loud at the screen. Conservapedia is like a car accident, at first you need to do something, but then you realize you can't do anything - but you just can't stop watching and at the end you are traumatized for life.
 * Conservapedia has taught me one thing, that even in a free society people can have sick ideas, they don't need a dictator for that. A messed up mind suffices. --Ullhateme (talk) 23:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you tell 'em Josh. Ace McfuckingAwesome 20:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I used to think Andy teaching kids was something real out there, how far I've come since then. Hell, see Andy claim something on CP, watch the Tea Party say the same thing a few months later. The age of ignorance is upon us. I would also like to take a moment to give Andy "The Upper-class twit of the year" award.--Thanatos (talk) 20:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Has anyone ever tried reporting Conservapedia to SiteGround (the company which provides hosting for the project) as a hate site, which their terms of acceptable use quite clearly prohibit? Thomas Larsen (talk) 23:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't see any great use in making a martyr of Andy's blog. I haven't heard of anyone reporting CP. Might be worth considering if Andy finally begins urging pogroms and extermination of the jews liberals, but for now it's just a fine source of comedy. Concernedresident  omg!!! ponies!!! 23:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with evwerything Josh says. No cow is too sacred. Reminds me how Ronald Reagan booted the mentally handicapped out in the street in order to cut the budget, then forced them to eat ketschup, and funneled the money saved to the Pentagon to invent AIDS in the laboratory so as to exterminate gays and Africans. nobsdon't bother me 00:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's right, nobbykins. Except for the cutting the budget bit. He didn't actually do any of that. -- 00:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * While I don't comment on CP very much (sometimes it can be hard to keep track of what's ok to talk about and what's "off-limits" around here), I have to say that their mainpage as it looks at the moment is about as retarded as I've ever seen it. The top screen is almost 100% "Librulls are covering up the fact that the shooter was a pothead to further pro-marijuana legislation!" and "Atheists are big fat stupid poopy-heads! And they're fat!" All with NO facts to back it up. Congratulations, CP. Very convincing. I totally wanna be a conservative Christian now. 01:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Jeeves: except that during the Reagan administration Asylums were closed down and the mentally handicap were largely left to become homeless. "To cut the budget"?  I don't know how much that would have played, as I think the argument was more for the humanity of not essentially imprisoning them indefinitely.  I for one however don't like that they were simply dropped into the streets.  Institutionalization, while cruel and often times devoid of humane treatement, is perhaps better for some than homelessness. -- 02:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess most of us (well, those masochists who still peruse CP) enter via recent changes, so we rarely see the MP in all its glory. However, at present, MP is particularly bad. From "it snowed in winter, thus global warming is false" to "pothead" to Ken's jerking off over PZ Myers, to the amazing list of a whole 8 overweight atheists. Extra bonus for the "Request an account" section being 11 pg dns down main page. No wonder nobody signs up anymore. True, any sane person would look at that and go away again. However, Andy is supposedly speaking the language of the Tea Party, and yet they also ignore him. -- Ψ Gremlin  10:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I got the bottom of the sixth page. -  π    11:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Look... just because your page down is bigger than my page down... then again, I'm on a working teeny laptop. But she doesn't mind. -- Ψ Gremlin  11:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Or you could say that it is 1 page up from the bottom. Who put it there again? ~Super Hamster  Talk 12:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It turns out I can still access CP from my workplace (which is probably not a good thing), so I've just seen the main page for the first time in about two weeks. Even so, it's pretty striking to be confronted with all the new nonsense at once instead of seeing it pile up incrementally. Ken has filled MPL with his "fat atheist" and PZ crap, and the news section is totally consumed by rants about the left-wing pothead assassin - and why are they calling him an "alleged" gunman, anyway? Moving on to recent changes, it's filled by atheism and obesity for as far as the eye can see. It's easy to get used to CP's insanity through regular exposure, but coming back after even just a short break is a real eye-opener. Röstigraben (talk) 13:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * * at present, MP is particularly bad
 * I would acredit this to TK being gone. There's no imgs, etc. TK kept it looking spiffing; now MPR looks like reading the classifieds. nobsdon't bother me
 * Yes, that's right. Even though TK did not edit MP except every once in awhile, MP looking ridiculous has nothing to do with taking a robocall survey of people, having marginally different results between two groups, and then calling that poll a "study" and spamming it all over the site that would turn-off most conservatives.  Yes, Rob, it's because TK is gone and nothing else (except that you also have so few people at CP now that when you lose one person it's suddenly the cause of why your most prominent page looks bad). --Leotardo (talk) 21:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Reefer madness
Andy's really stuck on this "Loughner was hopped up on Mary Jane" kick. Because that's exactly what pot does to you, sends you in to a homicidal rage. The police haven't even officially named the guy yet, but Andy think there's a conspiracy of silence because we have no idea if a drug test was performed. The guy is certifiable. -- 00:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Which guy is certifiable? Loughner, with his writings that call up time cube? Or Andy, with his agressively poor judgement of arguments? --Opcn (talk) 00:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, both probably. But in the immediate case, Andy. -- 00:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * To be perfectly frank that one toke over the line can push people into madness. Though usually it is precipitated by long term cannabis abuse and an already jilted mind. Ace McfuckingAwesome 00:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You know, I feel like if you're an individual with homicidal tendencies, I think weed might help. I can't imagine getting high, and thinking to myself "You know what I should do? Plan an elaborate assassination attempt." I think this Loughner idiot was probably a crazy person who used weed (which, of course is speculation) rather than a weed user that went crazy.
 * Also, I can't quit put into words the irony of CP's comments on this...but does anyone else think it's weird that they're ranting about a mentally unstable person having weed, but the fact that a mentally unstable person was able to get a semi-automatic weapon with a 31 round mag is 100% acceptable. Carlaugust (talk) 01:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Andy does seem to have an opinion of marajuana that comes from a lifetime of church sermons and viewings of a certain anti-mj film. 02:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Did Andrew Schlafly smoke pot at university? Why is the liberal media hiding the fact that Andrew Schlafly most probably was high when serving on the Harvard law review??? -- 12:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, now I'm trying to picture Andy stoned. "Did you ever #pfffft# really think about Ronald Reagan?" MDB (talk) 12:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I just read that in Andy's Nasally voice and started laughing my ass off: "Dude, dude, dude, #pfffft# Why would George Washington write that letter to his nephew if he didn't want us to recall Senators?  12:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Nah, to be as delusional and dissociated from reality as Andy is, one would have to indulge in long-term and heavy use of ketamine. Er... so I heard... -- Ψ Gremlin  12:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought cocaine was the drug of choice for rich Republicans. Or oxycontin. MDB (talk) 13:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Suddenly, I see this in a whole new context. Do we have any evidence on Andy getting the munchies as well? Röstigraben (talk) 13:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Someone should make a batch of Alice B. Toklas brownies and serve them to Andy. (We know we could never get him to take a bong hit or such, but we might be able to fool him.) Who knows, he might become more sane. MDB (talk) 19:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Supposedly a friend of Jared Loughner's: "Loughner smoked pot as a teenager, but Tierney says he had quit by the fall of 2008. After he got clean, “his theories got worse.” He became increasingly angry with the government, although Tierney notes that Loughner did not ascribe to a particular political movement or party." This is the same source Andy used for this MPR update . --Leotardo (talk) 22:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Taking this back serious
Has there ever been a documented case of violence committed by someone who was under the influence of only marijuana? (I know there have been accidents, like the 1987 Amtrak/Conrail collision where the Conrail engineers were stoned, but I'm talking about things like starting fights, etc.) MDB (talk) 13:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The article that comes up from Google states that half of those arrested in the UK have, at some point, used Marijuana. Shock Horror! Then with massive disregard for causation and correlation the article goes on to say that this proves marijuana causes violence. I'd fight that statement but I'm too stoned to do anything right now. Jack Hughes (talk) 13:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This article is quite interesting. In the end it's the same old correlation/causation issue. Yeah, the sort of inner city kids who get arrested for violent crimes also tend to be those who are steeped in the drug culture. Jack Hughes (talk) 13:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sure there probably are. Remember, grass is essentially an hallucinogen, and those can affect people in wildly different ways. If this guy was already a few sandwiches short of a picnic, and possibly took something other than grass, then the results could be very different to what we'd expect. However, if it was only grass, then I'd suggest the most he would have done is giggle at the Congresswoman and then gone for pizza.
 * That said, from the comments above, criminals might be steeped in drug culture, but I'm willing to bet commit crimes, especially violent crimes, when smoked up. -- Ψ Gremlin  14:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Grass is not 'essentially an hallucinogen'; THC has some hallucinogenic properties that would only put it in the same category as nutmeg. The vast majority of people on weed don't have hallucinations. --Leotardo (talk) 16:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * From my own experience, I imagine people might be tempted to punch me to stop me going on about the pretty pictures I was seeing, but I was always too involved in describing them to do anything violent. I've never heard of anybody having quite such wild hallucinations as me when on grass. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 14:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I must confess, grass is one thing that does not agree with me. Have had "green fever" waaayy too often. So, while everybody else is chilled and seeing pretty pictures, I'm face-down in the flower bed. -- Ψ Gremlin  14:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Although I'm not sure where to begin in looking for the story, there was one in the UK a few years ago involving quite a violent fight. The papers happily made a big song and dance about the 2-3 spliffs one guy had smoked before it, but very few mentioned the obscene amount of alcohol also consumed. When you've had the best part of a crate of beer, I doubt cannabis is going to have that much of an effect on you that isn't drowned out by raging drunkenness. 14:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Fat People
I was on holiday when Ken had his fat-atheist mania kick in so forgive my repetition of this point but I am completely amazed that, currently, Conservapedia's mainpage makes fun of fat people which is endorsed by the dear leader. Stay classy CP. Ace McfuckingAwesome 00:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In Ken's world, liberal elitists tell black people they must believe in god. Also, 8% of the atheist community in the US is black, 12% of the general population is black. Doesn't seem hugely under represented to me. I think hispanics might actually be over represented, but I'd have to check. -- 01:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, Frobes Magazine has 74.1% overweight or obese in the US while only 1.6% identified as atheist. Just saying...Ace McfuckingAwesome 01:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What if more fat people were atheists? Would being an atheist turn you fat, or would being fat make you think there was no god to do that to you? Pegasus (talk) 01:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * To quote Stephen Colbert: "Reality has a well known liberal bias".--Thunderstruck (talk) 02:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Jeeves, I think that since Hispanics are overrepresented as Catholics, that it is unlikely that they are overrepresented as atheists. It is mathematically possible though.  (This post provided by a Hispanic Atheist Female.  I buck the trends, why not you?) -- 02:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

THIS IS AN OUTRAGE! I don't have any food because fat people are eating it all. ~ Lumenos (talk) 03:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Fat has a liberal bias. The discrepency in numbers is all the atheists pretending to be theists, the same way (as Andy has taught us) Liberals often pretend to be Conservatives. --Kels (talk) 03:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Making fun of overweight people isn't something I put below Conservapedia, so I am not surprised by this. I am more concerned over  creepy obsession with PZ Myers, it borders on a stalker sexually obsessed with someone.  Also why are we giving his "essays" more attention; this latest one is clearly written for the sole benefit of Rationalwiki and PZ Myer's blog, who else reads CP? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 04:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What's funny is seeing Ken scrounge around for fat atheists. So far we have Mao Zedong, Kim Jong-il, Leonid Brezhnev, Mikhail Gorbachev. I'm sure he must be furious that Hitler wasn't a lard-arse. Still, there's always Hermann Goering... -- Ψ Gremlin  11:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hitler was a vegetarian, which probably accounts for the fact he was in decent shape. And to CP, it's also evidence of his godless atheism and liberalism, because real conservatives eat meat. Preferably beef and pork; poultry is acceptable as turkey on Thanksgiving, and fish is good if you caught it yourself. MDB (talk) 16:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Most people would not have classified Gorbachev as obese; when you look at him next to Reagan they both have the same body. --Leotardo (talk) 16:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

'Name 10 famous atheists': how many of them are overweight. Take 10 notable overweight people: how many of them are religiously inclined? If there is no statistical correlation, the thesis is bunk. (Repeat with phobias, being a golf player and 'any other peculiarity or particular to taste'). 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Hurlbut schizophrenic?
He creates an article, adds more to the article and then protects it due to edit warring. So either he's edit warring with himself, or just lying. Any guesses?

Far be it for me to allege bias, but take a look at the 'references' section. Odd how he gets paid for page views isn't it? -- 05:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * He protects it to protect the links, which all go to his blog where he is paid based on the amount of hits it receives. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 05:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I wonder which is worse - TK fucking over Andy for his own sexual gratification, or Terry fucking over CP so he can earn a few bucks. I'm not sure what word to use - maybe - chutzpah - to describe somebody who writes an article elsewhere, and then cites himself as a "reliable source." All par for the course for CP. Still, it's funny to see one of the Fab Five, doing more than pimping his CP interests, but using CP to pimp his outside interests. I wonder if he does the same to CreationWiki? -- Ψ Gremlin  08:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * For the record I think edit warring as a lock reason has been more of a formality for the last two years. Anyone who is foolish enough to war with someone who can lock the article will get blocked faster than the article can be locked. --Opcn (talk) 11:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * He's doing it wrong though. He should make it article of the millennium on the top of the front page. -- 11:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * EC @ Psy's question: Since I was curious...he hasn't done it nearly as much, but he's cited in two articles and at least seven times in their news template. The first link was actually added by someone else, though. 11:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh, some of that creationwiki news is so weird. Why would they link to scientists discovering potentially life-filled exoplanets, or writings discovered from before they think the world was even created? -- 12:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, 27 links to his own screeds and not one other editor has touched the article. Of course it is funny that he needs to lock the article as about the only other active editors at CP now are unaffected by page locking. It's like them always protecting images, who do they think is going top do something to an image when virtually nobody other than the sysops has upload rights? 13:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (e/c)27 different references - all to his own articles. Conservative deceit at its finest. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 13:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Given the lengths he goes to, I wonder if he click-bots his own articles? ONE / TALK 15:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Probably. Although I think he'd blame it on demons or something and would pretend not to notice doing it. Pegasus (talk) 15:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I doubt very much whether Examiner.com would stand for clickbotting if they are paying. Of course if someone else clickbotted his page... 19:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * His spamming his opinion columns as facts hasn't been very rewarding. Click on virtually any Hurlbutt article and the most I have seen are two comments, usually none or one.  His lil' Examiner career is not lucrative enough to make a difference in Hurlbutt's rent:
 * ''Here are the "examiners" that we could actually estimate per-article rates for:


 * Penny $ 2.09 per article
 * Barbie $ 2.30 per article
 * Mario $ 0.07 per article
 * Katrina $ 1.96 per article
 * Tim $ 0.88 per article
 * Clark $ 1.60 per article
 * Franny $ 0.37 per article
 * Kathryn $ 1.96 per article
 * Courtney $ 1.88 per article


 * Average: $1.46 per article


 * While I'm sure there are Examiners that have earned more, I'm also sure there are Examiners who have earned less. You, readers, can use this information to decide if you think the pay is worth the time and "exposure" offered by Examiner.com. ''
 * Hurlbutt's going to be saving up a loooooooong time for that trip to see the dinosaurs on Noah's Ark. --Leotardo (talk) 17:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

JPratt: The republicans' dream voter
You can recognise JPratt's broken news contributions from a mile away. They're full of outrage, and always over something totally stupid ("crimes" of the Obama administration, Obama "violating" the constitution, etc.) The guy is just so incredibly stupid, you can write more or less anything that suggests he ought to be outraged at democrats and he'll instantly comply. He's the dream angry white republican voter.

And, oh look! Here's another one. Democrat group sends out email about Giffords shooting, email has link to their website, website has sidebar asking for donations (the same sidebar that appears on every page of the site). SCANDAL! Hey, JPratt. Why don't you go check out the Sarah PAC website. See how her statement appears above a honking great DONATE! button? Get angry, JPratt, get angry. You idiot. -- 11:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * JPratt is about the only one that can compete for Ed in terms of stupid. He has no original thoughts, he merely repeats Fox News talking points. -  π    11:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If only this made him unusual. Jack Hughes (talk) 12:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ed is originally and creatively stupid, Jpratt is just thick with a barely concealed threat of violence. If anyone at CP was to go out and commit a public outrage I think it would be him. 13:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Jpatt, Ed and Ken form a trinity of idiocy whose stupidity is almost incomprehensible. If you didn't see it for yourself you'd have difficulty believing that people as moronic as this exist. I still sometimes have to question whether it's an act. DickTurpis (talk) 14:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Karajou isn't exactly the sharpest tool in a shed either, and Rob is a drooling moron. TK has a kind of low cunning, and Andy... well, he ought to be bright enough, but to borrow a phrase from timecube, he's been educated stupid. It isn't exactly a meeting of MENSA over there. Except perhaps in that they're all unpleasant middle aged men. -- 18:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Obviously they're all very stupid. Karajou is right up with them, with Rob it's hard to tell where his stupidity ends and his trolling begins, while TK has to be somewhat clever to do what he does so successfully. Andy is somewhat nuts as well as stupid. DickTurpis (talk) 18:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If anyone at CP was to go out and commit a public outrage I think it would be Ed, and it would involve him being caught with his literal pants down. Hateboy (talk) 22:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * CP is a public outrage. DickTurpis (talk) 01:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Joaquín Martínez gives a shout-out for Latinos, but not for gays
With absolutely no relevance to the story, Joaquín Martínez points out an obvious fact that one can deduce from his name, that "Latino Daniel Hernandez: Gabrielle Giffords' Intern May Have Saved Her."  Does Joaquín know that pointing this out "emphasizes racial differences over common national identity" "  He's an American, Joaquin, not a Latino! I am guessing Joaquín felt the need to point out that not all Latinos are illegal Mexicans who traffic drugs and kill Arizona ranchers.  --Leotardo (talk) 17:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And he's 20, so it almost qualifies for "great achievements by teenagers". Cantabrigian (talk) 17:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm amused by the "puts America second" thing. Are all yanks this insecure about national identity? 17:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes we are! Yes!! YES!!!! USA! USA! USA!!! Carlaugust (talk) 18:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You damn well better not talk about America!!!1! I love this damn country, and I love everything it stands for, if I could only figure out what those things are since it's difficult to tell based upon what its citizens say and what the country actually does in my name )1!!!11!1 --Leotardo (talk) 18:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Joaquin left out that "Latino Daniel Hernandez" is actually "Gay Latino Daniel Hernandez" --Leotardo (talk) 19:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well CP need to give the impression once in a while that perhaps they are not all bitter, single, old white men by giving out a "good boy!" shoutout to the token minority of the month. Of course they will not mention the gay part, because gays are not worthy of basic human decency. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I like Sara Benincasa's extrapolation at Wonkette:
 * "You can imagine a kid like this in high school — smart, gay (though maybe closeted at the time), interested in politics, maybe a bit of a nerd. You think nobody ever called him a fag behind his back? You think nobody ever called him a fag to his face? You think that as popular and likable as he may have been, he didn’t know in the core of his being that someone, somewhere was always quietly judging him and boys like him as perverted, evil, an abomination? On Saturday, this “fag” did something bigger and better than any of the cowards who hate him and people like him have ever done or will ever do."
 * What I like best about this story, though, is that no matter our skin colors, our sexualities, our religions, our origins...when the bullets are flying we all are just human and concentrate on what matters (except Ken, who is still singularly focused on obese atheists ) --Leotardo (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It could be that Ken is just into bears, and this is his way of expressing that without being too obvious. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 21:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Observation
Has Andy ever accused or labelled someone on CP as a parodist? When he reverts parody he is silent in the edit summary (unlike any other edit he ever makes) and I've never seen him block someone with parody as the reason. Perhaps he's not comfortable calling something out as parody in case he one day adopts it as a central tenet of AndyTruthTM? ONE / TALK 15:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Firstly, there is no parody on CP. Anything silly written by the sysops is Gospel Truth© and anything silly written by anybody else is "lies or insertion of false information." That was courtesy of DeanS (I keep getting friend recommendations for him on FaceBook... weird) during one of his angry moments. Secondly, Andy wouldn't spot parody if it jumped and down in front of him, wearing a neon green suit and with a large flashing light saying "I'm a parodist." Just look at all those he's drawn close to him, despite their obvious parody. And most of their creations still exist on CP. -- Ψ Gremlin  15:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Psy sums it up pretty well. To Andy, CP is just a better version of Wikipedia (with a few less pageviews, but that's only temporary). WP doesn't have "parody" issues, just vandalism ones, and CP is no different. DickTurpis (talk) 15:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This is semantics, I admit, but if you're running a legitimate encyclopedia (or are convinced you are running one), isn't parody just a subset of vandalism? MDB (talk) 15:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Kind of, but not really. Vandalism is all about the edits, while parody is about the intent of the user. Ken and a parodist can write exactly the same thing (they practically have); one will be parody, but without the edit history it will be impossible to tell which. In that sense they are both welcome edits (if not welcome editors) and therefore not vandalism, which can generally be defined as unwelcome edits. That's how I see it, anyway. This is why Wikipedia generally doesn't have parody. Ridiculous edits are unwelcome regardless of who makes them. DickTurpis (talk) 15:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is amplified on CP where you have edits by people like Smeg Ed and Ken, which would be parody anywhere else (including ED and Wookiepedia) but are untouchable on CP. Given that kind of baseline, it becomes very hard to discern between genuine articles and parody. Take Amanda's edits, for example. She's taking the piss out of CP, but by doing it within the "boundaries" of CP, they're seen as genuine edits. -- Ψ Gremlin  16:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I dunno, I think Andy does have some limited capacity for spotting parody. Take this edit for example. There are lots of things in that edit that are ridiculous, but Andy himself has spouted most of them (albeit in a slightly more adult 'tone of voice'). My guess is the "Satan" comment is what tipped him off. I can't see any other reason Andy would have reverted that (especially as it praised him). ONE / TALK 16:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There was the incident where he gave some very sarcastic replies to the answers to one of his stupid tests by someone who was either a parodist or a girl giving exactly the sort of answers he was obviously expecting. Also, why the hell do I still get "403 Forbidden" at CP? They don't want anyone in the UK even to read their crap? But letting capturebot in is absolutely fine! Cantabrigian (talk) 17:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I suspect he can tell parody from the real deal, but he's hampered by the fact he doesn't really go looking for it. He really doesn't seem to like wielding the big stick to keep his blog in any kind of decent order, whether it's parodists destroying it or his own appointed sysops. The only time he seems to ban people is when not doing it would be more effort than doing it, e.g. if he spots an active wandal attack, or he'd have to reply to a decent argument made against him. Other than that, he seems content to let people do their own thing, which is why CP looks as it does today. -- 18:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Andy is innately gullible. You only have to see the way that TK and Ken have him completely fooled. Back in the early days when TK was trying to recruit RWians to undermine CP he told me that he didn't fear being kicked out as he could get back in anytime but saying the right thing to Andy. So what happened? TK got demoted for swearing at Andy, he opened the SDG for everyone to peruse, he committed blatant plagiarism, then he came back after a 6 month sabbatical and sucked right up to Andy (Oh, I was a silly old man fooled by all these devious liberals) and was reinstated without a second thought by Andy despite his loyal sysops all saying no. With the Lenski affair Andy was led up the garden path like a cow with a ring through his nose. He tolerates Ken because he thinks that all Ken's SEO stuff is helping Conservapedia. Andy will fall for anything that confirms his own POV and that's why the likes of Bugler managed to do so well.  19:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, most definitely agreed. I can think of a couple of fairly obvious parodists who have been on CP for years now, and they have one thing in common: they never disagree with Andy.  If he says something, they say, "Great point."  If he disagrees with something they say, they agree that he's right and thank him for showing them their error.  It's a bit like verbal Bonsai--they praise him and kowtow to him, all the while carefully steering his line of thought in the direction they want it to take.  Thus, what might be a passing thought on Andy's part is nurtured and groomed into a full-blown trainwreck (Lenski, CBP, BotP, Best New Conservative Words...the list goes on and on.)  --Phentari (talk) 21:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The numbers
I looked for the pattern /parod/ in the block comments. Yes, Andy blocked a few editors for being parodists. Here is the list:

So, he didn't spot any parody for the last two years :-) And in the group of those who blocked for more than 500 times, he is the most reluctant to use this label:

Now carry on! 12:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Trust you to dig up the data ;) Thanks! ONE / TALK 13:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting how the parodist on the list has by far the highest proportion of blocks for parody. Takes one to know one, I guess. DickTurpis (talk) 13:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

What is freedom's greatest threat according to Il Duce of Conservapedialand Andy?
According to Dear Leader that would be the horrible scourge known as Atheism! Look as he lists the great crimes in America by this great threat ! A billboard in New Jersey is vandalized by atheists (presumably); the Mohave Cross is stolen by atheists (well maybe, that is pure speculation), and destroyed (presumably); and there is real and horrible crimes of Jared Loughner... who's religious beliefs are not really known, but surely he is an atheist (even if CP's own article states he was into the occult)! After all, no Christian person would murder other people in America? or in history right? Right?! --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 05:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And sadly typical, too, that he had to look back as far as May of last year for one (the Mojave Cross) of his unholy trinity of examples. Tylersboy (talk) 11:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't wait for Andy to improve his latest stub article which happens to omit any mention of the "God is" billboard which is why he created the article in the first place. I wonder how far Andy actually read through his source (or even comprehended it) for the billboard vandalism, because it is written by an atheist who condemns the action.  11:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Terrorists. -- 12:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice one. Of course billboard graffiti ranks fairly low in the list of crimes. While it is damage to private property it is largely superficial damage to a deliberately replaceable item, unlike say, spraypainting the Capitol building or the Houses of Parliament. The problem is that people become obsessed about symbols. And words - am I alone in laughing at the irony of the pope complaining about Pakistan's blasphemy law? 13:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Why, has he called for the reintroduction of the death penalty for blasphemy throughout Christendom and I've missed it? I'm no great fan of Benedict's, but I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisistion. Tylersboy (talk) 13:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION! -- 14:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I am not understanding the irony of this either as I am not aware of any Catholic nation where blasphemy is a capital offense, including the Vatican; nor am I aware of any real attempt to introduce such a law. I for one am glad he is condemning Pakistan's blasphemy law, it should be condemned by everyone. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 14:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh, I like how the Assfly states it wasn't "atheist vandals", but "atheistic vandalism broke the law." Vandalism is an active entity unto itself now?  Wow, and this guy's a lawyer, someone who relies on the accuracy of his words.  Maybe  was telling the truth about Andy being an alcy, as he does tend to even slur even his wiki-words late at night.   14:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Once again demonstrating the problem with CP is ultimately Andy. If he is going to make a statement like "biggest threat of all to a free society" he has to use more than a desert cross theft and billboard vandalism for support.  Doesn't he realize that sounds idiotic to pretty much every one? --Leotardo (talk) 15:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a slippery slope, mon ami. First they come for the billboards, but I did not speak up because I was not a billboaard... -- 16:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * BLF - ah huhu, ah huh-ahuh! Take me to the church of the BLF!  16:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Before the billboard was in the hands of Christians the American Atheists had it with the message: You KNOW it's a Myth. This Season Celebrate REASON. The organization condemned the vandalism and the American Humanist Association have offered to pay for the replacement (Source). --Night Jaguar (talk) 01:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Biological Evolution, what Biological Evolution?
Par for the course over in CP-land now all contributors of good faith have been purged; now is the time to remove any and all information that does not absolutely fall in line with the approved religious dogma and its insistence of a 6,000 year old Earth poofed into existence by magic, science be damned. They are not even pretending anymore or bothering to give lip service to mainstream theories of science; after all it is just the fab five, Andy's few acolytes, and the parodists now. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 14:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well it is Ken, 'nuff said. All those pesky facts just get in the way of his magnificent essays. -- Ψ Gremlin  14:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Why the fuck do they even have a biological evolution rticle that's separate from their evolution monstrosity? DickTurpis (talk) 15:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I was going to say because some good faith editor created it, but then I see it was first created by Bad Touch, so I am at a loss why. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I should have checked the history. Of course it started out as only an out of context quote made to pass itself off as an article by Ed "I'm a complete fucking retard who doesn't know what the hell an encyclopedia is" Poor. That explains it entirely. DickTurpis (talk) 16:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thou Shalt Not Suffer a Witch to Live
One of those articles on CP that has flown under the radar, but reads as if it is right out of the 15th century Malleus Maleficarum as demonstrated by the opening paragraph :


 * A witch is a female practitioner of witchcraft; a male practitioner is a wizard. Witches, in league with Satan practice the black arts through supernatural powers and magic. The Bible gives us clear instructions on how to deal with witches: “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.” (Exodus 22:18). Traditionally the easiest method of determining if someone is a witch is to tie their right thumb to their left toe and attach a rope to the waist then thrown them into a river or deep pond. If the suspect floats they are clearly in league with the Satan, shown by their rejection of the baptismal water. If the suspect drowns they clearly possess no supernatural powers and are innocent. The most secure method of destroying witches is to burn them, preferably at the stake. Since the liberal enlightenment and the rise of atheistic junk science the Biblical truth has been rejected and in many countries freedom of religion has been restricted by outlawing witch-hunting. However, the practice is still allowed in Saudi Arabia and Cameroon, and witch-hunts regularly occur in Sub-Saharan Africa, India and Papua New Guinea.

Grade A poe right there, but it makes you wonder, how much do the fab five really believe any of this. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * PJR certainly did and probably still does believe witches and witchcraft are real. It's in the Bible after all. Since he was the most devout of the god wallopers formerly at CP, who knows if the other lot do or not. Not sure about whether they'd endorse the witchfinder general's trusty toolkit of witch tests either, though given how much other ye olde scriptural bullshit they endorse, I wouldn't be surprised. -- 19:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Anti-Flag
SO CP and WND are blaming punk rock band Anti-Flag for the Arizona shootings. I just realized I saw those guys sometime about a decade ago, so you know what this means: I need to go shoot a Congressman now. Damn. This is going to be a pain. Oh well. DickTurpis (talk) 22:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! That's the funniest thing I've ever heard! Anti-Flag? What, did Justin Sane tell this guy to go peacefully protest Giffords to death or something? 22:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, blame it on a Pittsburgh band. Of course, "Die For The Government" in title alone could be iffy.   03:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And furthermore, two of the three cited songs in the article were written during the Clinton Administration.  03:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Jared Loughner as Liberal Nihilist or Right-Wing Racist
"A lot of liberals don't accept federalist laws; a lot of liberals got to have that joint before breakfast; a lot of liberals fail to understand that their liberalism has its roots in Fascism and National Socialism; and I'm sure there's some liberals who want the return to the gold standard simply to get their hands on the taxes that go with it. And there are some liberals - even those who come here - who are attempting to play down Loughner's liberalism to the point where he should be treated as just another victim of society. The blame Bush/Palin game is going on right now, courtesy of the liberal left. - Karajou @CP" We all know Karajou is an Anger Bear, likely pissed at the world that he is old, alone and that his body that was never desired by anyone is now falling apart. But like a lot of people I've found it beyond the pale the attempts to immediately classify Loughner as a liberal or conservative. I understood why people jumped to that conclusion on the left, since he shot a Democratic congresswoman and a federal judge, although they should have held their tongues. The right-wing doing this, though, is a knee-jerk reaction to try to say the ugly rhetoric they use--Socialism, uprising, 'Reload', cross-hairs, revolution, 'water the tree of liberty' and 'if ballots don't work, then bullets'--is not to blame. My favorite current-affairs writer is Alex Pareene, and I thought he framed things well (it's a long quote, but the whole is worth reading): "Whether Jared Loughner is a far-left nihilist or a right-wing racist or -- as he most likely is -- some weird politically incoherent amalgamation of extremist beliefs tinged with paranoia, he wasn't driven to murder by angry campaign slogans. Steve Kornacki's right -- Loughner was not a Gadsden Flag-wielding Tea Partyer incited to violence by the Twitter messages of Sarah Palin. But he is a product of the culture, and there's a reason he chose to attack a Democratic congresswoman. There's a reason why his paranoia was directed at an elected official, the closest representative of what he saw as in illegitimate government. The attempted assassination of a member of Congress seems depressingly like the inevitable conclusion of two years of hysterical revolutionary language suffusing every single domestic political debate. The Tea Parties are based around the rhetoric of the American Revolution, which was a violent insurrection. It makes a sad sort of sense that a bunch of comfortable white reactionaries would dress up their childish tantrums with such grandiose language, because 'desperately protecting your privilege in the face of what appears to be the demise of the empire' sounds much less inspiring than 'defeating tyranny.' As the Republican Party has become more homogeneous, more regional and more reactionary, it has tended to make up for its growing demographic shortcomings by making sure its supporters are more motivated and energized -- and the most effective way to energize them has been to make sure they're constantly enraged." Or as the sheriff in Tucson said, the violent rhetoric of the right might be free speech, but it's not without its consequences.  Clean up your act, Conservapedia!  You're one of the worst offenders.  --Leotardo (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Karajou's the most fun when he's on his righteous indignation rants, because while he froths at the mouth, all his petty bigotry and ignorance is on display. I would say more, but it seems I have to choose between a cup of coffee, or a joint. -- Ψ Gremlin  10:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's more of a fever dream than a rant. Stoned Nazis in the morning!  Gold standard tax windfall!  Liberals don't like federalism!  Ahomosayswhat!  --Leotardo (talk) 15:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Andy quoting Loughner for Nihilism article
Quiz: What does CP have that Wikipedia does not? Answer: An example of one of the foremost philosophical minds in our country, Jared Loughner, and the question he posed to Gaby Giffords right before he shot her in the head as an example of a nihilist talkin' 'bout nihilism. Immediately after that quote is Leo Strauss talking about how nihilism is liberalism. Good one, Andy. --Leotardo (talk) 21:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And so sober, so carefully weighed, so encyclopedic a model for all the little homeschoolers: "An example of A would be what B reportedly said before he allegedly did C." Tylersboy (talk) 23:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Every piece of commentary on this shooting has been a race to the bottom, and we still don't seem to have reached it yet. Olbermann made, what I thought, was quite a good call for a restoration of sanity and he was immediately attacked for a perceived attack and was criticised on WeirdNutDaily for not attacking the guys reading material. Whilst CP goes pretty low, but I am sure someone is going to go lower. -  π    00:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * They're almost, almost to the point where it's Obama's fault on WND. They're up to Bill Ayers so far. That's your rock bottom right there. -- 00:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Rock Bottom, eh? Rest assured those idiots will find a shovel.--Thunderstruck (talk) 02:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

What I like most of all on that Nihilism page is the logical vacuum of "What Nietzsche truly meant by this is much debated even today, and Nietzsche himself would be disgusted with moral relativists." Meaning Andykin's blog can't settle the supposed debate, but they can unequivocally speak on the man's feelings. -- 08:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So Nietzsche has now joined George Orwell and JFK in the conservative pantheon? Röstigraben (talk) 08:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Will someone just please make Andy sit down and watch Jon Stewart doing what he so often does, explaining things far better than any supposed news reporter: 2:28 onwards Jammy (talk) 11:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Apparently he did, and not surprisingly, totally missed the point . Junggai (talk) 09:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)