Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive236

Time to rewrite the Essay
Remember when the "Gossip Free" Conservapedia had fun at the expense at a potential divorce? A group of alleged "Pro Family" people laughing that a family was dissolving. Andy even going so far as to suggest that the "Govanator" Marry a Conservative. One of the big reasons being "fidelity in marriage and accountability"...ORLY?. Maybe Maria should marry a liberal.--Thunderstruck (talk) 13:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * She's a woman - of course it's her fault. Probably dared to say "no" in the bedroom as well. It's also worth mentioning that only liberal divorces are mentioned, of course. Also, gloating is a liberal trait, unless conservatives do it. -- PsyGremlin  13:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Those nasty furriners
How dare they leak the identity of CIA agents? Don't they know that only American republican administration officials are allowed to do that. Oldusgitus (talk) 15:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Shorter Rob: "Obama sent troops to kill Osama, so it's his fault the CIASC's ID was leaked." -- PsyGremlin  15:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Andy is still a birther
So a few days ago Andy put up a birther story from the the laughably discredited World Net Daily by the laughably discredited Aaron Klein, and now Andy has posted another one written by a guy who is trying to sell a book about the birth certificate. Media Matters does a pretty easy job of debunking the latest in Reactionary fantasies with a post entitled X Marks the Stupid. What I like about Andy's birtherism is how symbolic it is of the fantasy world he and CP editors want to believe exists, and it's this fantasy world that forms the core of their worldview. --Leotardo (talk) 15:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not a smudged H, it's an X, meaning that he is Kenyan!  sPaRkY Godspeed! 15:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Since when in Andyland is a PhD from Harvard a good thing? Occasionaluse (talk) 16:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * They seem to want to believe so hard... I mean, there are comments on the article that indicate belief that this will prove to be Obama's downfall... I mean, seriously, these people are intentionally forcing themselves to believe... -- 16:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This is what I point to whenever someone asks what harm religion causes. I apologize for generalizations, but these people (the hardcore religious) are trained that believing so so hard is a virtue, and thinking critically is a vice. Carlaugust (talk) 17:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * When you think about these guys in 2011, it's very easy to see how the religious persecuted Galileo in the 1600s - they just couldn't let go of their myths and fantasies, no matter the contradictory evidence. --Leotardo (talk) 18:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * After Farah's trashing of the Bible project, I'm surprised Andy hasn't banned WND postings to MPR for "liberal bias." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Where else would he get his birther nonsense from? He's stuck with WND.  --Leotardo (talk) 19:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Pam Geller? American Thinker? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I was thinking about this today, and the funny thing is that there is far more evidence that Obama is the son of an American citizen than there is that Jesus is the son of God. ATP (talk) 19:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

It's been awhile since I looked at this page.....
.....and it is more stupid then ever. I am of course talking about Counterexamples to Evolution. What the fuck is Evolution cannot explain how beauty is in the eye of the beholder, if evolution said that beauty were useful then we would all expect to see the same things as beautiful. supposed to mean? And now we have Conservative adding fat jokes to it. Ace of Spades 23:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Technically it makes sense, since if beauty was useful, (and still as valued as we make it to be) there should be a hell of a lot more of it around, however the argument defeats itself in that the standard of beauty varies so much that we arent going to get one universal "beauty"--Mikalos209 (talk) 00:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm going to go ahead and out the entry as parody. Either the one prior or after declares beauty to be objective, and this entry declares it to be subjective... thus the two entries create a logical contradiction. And thus, the humor. :) -- 00:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Because that wouldn't happen with Andy, Ken, Karajou and the other idiots? On CP a logical error isn't evidence that the theory is wrong, but that logic has a liberal bias. --ǓḤṂ³ 00:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The parody survives precisely because it looks just like something Andy, Ken, Karajou or any other CPidiot would do. I have however, secret insider knowledge about it. -- 00:26, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (EC) It contradicts one of my favorite Andy insights, so I looked it up. JimPT (banned) posted it, Brendanw (banned) removed it, and DouglasA (at large) reinserted it. Fun. 00:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well if you know for a fact that it's parody then I just wasted 5 minutes of my lifespan. Kinda keeps happening. --ǓḤṂ³ 00:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I know for a fact that it is parody, it is the only parody I ever entered to CP. I once tried to remove it, I was given my walking papers for the attempt. --Opcn (talk) 01:33, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Since Opcn exposed himself, I'll validate that he told me that it was parody back when I was parodying under the name "CathyB". -- 01:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I kind of like that the kidney thing seems to counter the design idea. We were designed with a redundant kidney?  So mankind could wait to accomplish the means of transplanting the kidney into someone else whose two kidneys had failed? -Lardashe

This is what having no editors gets you
I was browsing Human's contribution when I realised Brett Favre is still the starting quaterback for the New York Jets. Must be a result of the lockout. -  π    14:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Not to mention the fact the English Premier League FOOTBALL page is two years out of date. -- PsyGremlin  14:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In all seriousness, would YOU bother updating the thing when the only salient point is that they're dirty rotten socialists? Nutty Roux (talk) 14:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, at least ManU and Liverpool are owned by hard-working American capitalists. The latter case would make for an excellent story about how these daring entrepreneurs managed to turn a moribund club around and lead it to the loftiest heights of financial and sporting success. Röstigraben (talk) 15:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * They would do well to start deleting articles that they don't have the manpower to keep up. At some point they are going to have to face the fact that the site is deteriorating, and that they are more focused on essays, linkbait gimmicks and polemics than in building/maintaining a 'conservative' encyclopedia.  Joe Miller is still the Republican nominee in the Alaska senate race, and Carly Fiorina has just announced she is running in 2010 for the California senate seat.  They can't even maintain their core area of politics.  --Leotardo (talk) 15:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not just outdated info, I was browsing through CP today and found several parody articles. They seem to watch recent changes so closely that one wonders how this stuff gets in.  It's not as if they get a whole lot of edits. Infoseek (talk) 17:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's the same problem RW has with bunk content getting into articles, although not parody content, usually. If it falls off RC, no one particularly cares. If you manage to sneak it passed the radar for whatever reason then it stays there because people use RC to view everything (some use watch lists but you can't really watch everything) and when the content gets to a certain size random page stops helping too. ADK ...I'll vocalise your Etch-a-Sketch! 17:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd love to be a mainspace contributor and think I'd do well implementing RationalWiki:SPOV, but for the level of stalking & harassment I endure (after I put a fuck of a lot of research into insuring my contributions would fit WP:NOR, WP:RS, WP:V etc.), having them reverted instantly simply because I did it is bullshit. There simply are still too many TKesque type sysops here. nobsdon't bother me 20:02, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm confused... what the fuck does WP:NOR, WP:RS, and WP:V have to do with editing here? Are you complaining about editing on Wikipedia, or here? -- 03:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ya, I guess your right. I guess it just takes luck, which means it takes persistence.  One article was an inspiration to parodists though, it was pretty blasphemous. Infoseek (talk) 18:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If anyone was touch any of those British articles then they would immediately be under suspicion. Checking Conservaleaks shows that Andy regards that as one of the signs of being a parodist. The fact that one might want to edit topics related to your own country is always a dead give-away.  Lily Inspirate me. 18:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's because a lot of parodists used Andy's ignorance of UK matters to slip parody in. Remember Milton Keynes the economist? Totnesmartin (talk) 22:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

And - of course - that fabled scottish folk hero, Horserider. [WoD]
 * Brett Favre is still the quarterback of the Jets (and Santonia Holmes is still a Steeler) because User JY23 and myself aren't there to fix it. And it was a complete waste of time to even think of putting all those names in.   23:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You would think that for guys who pride themselves on being manly chivalrous men, they'd evidence some interest in athletics. The main sports articles are pitiful--cp:Baseball, cp:American Football, cp:Basketball, cp:Ice hockey--full of redlinks for articles nobody will create and rarely edited. I can't remember a sports-related topic popping up in Recent Changes.  When it comes to manly interests, CP editors are eunuchs. --Leotardo (talk) 01:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You mean they lack machismo? Say it ain't so! Totnesmartin (talk) 09:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Calling all fellow Blizzard fans!
Did you know that by playing Starcraft (and its sequel, Starcraft II), you are doing the following:

Mocking "Young Earth Creationism"

Violating the "sanctity" of the human form

and finally,

Supporting "Islamic" messages

http://conservapedia.com/Video_game_industry

You should be ashamed of yourself, spreading those darn liberal values with a quasi-MMO strategy game!--Lefty (talk) 22:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't played SCII for more than like 20 minutes. Does it actually mock YEC or did some parodist just insert that? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Technically, by saying that the races are X-ity years old and so forth yes. ТyUser_talk:Ty 23:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems that this was inserted by a nut job (some user named JonS). So, does World of Warcraft support that notoriously liberal value of Wiccanism?--Lefty (talk) 23:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * WoW is the epitome of capitalism. (cough, Chinese gold farmers, cough) Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, EVE is. ТyUser_talk:Ty 23:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I've never played a single game on that list.  sPaRkY Godspeed! 23:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * One more reason to love those South Koreans. Hilariously the most Christian country in Asia. --ǓḤṂ³ 23:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I like this better: "Having Christianity used as a means to control the people (Medieval: Total War and it's sequel, Medieval II: Total War)" or "Fornication (Sims 3)." Only liberals have sex! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Fornication" usually means sexual congress with someone to whom you are not married... and yes, Puritans and Christians never have sex outside of marriage. -- 01:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I do worse then any of that when I play, if any minors are in earshot I bet I would be in jail on obscenity charges. ~ Subsound ~ 01:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Umm, I may have added most of that stuff a while ago. JonS was an account I used for a while, until school took up too much of my time to dick around there. Glad he was called a nutjob though. Mr. Swift (talk) 03:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I wonder what they'd make of Second Life

This thread is useless without captures to prove what is there. -- 04:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What I found interesting is that they mention "fornication" in the Sims 3 but left out the fact you can have same-sex couples in the game (well at least in Sims 2, which I have). I am totally surprised they didn't jump on that one, given their general obsession with homosexuality.  As for "mocking" Young Earth Creationism (which seems more like a virtue than a detriment, but I digress), every Sci-Fi based game is going to be doing that implicitly.  After all they almost all have alien life of some kind, suggesting evolution, or at the very least, humans are not God's unique special snowflakes.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 11:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm surprised they didn't complain that Civilization IV (with expansions) portrays all religions as the same. (That's actually a criticism I have of the game, too, but that's because I think it could have made for a much more interesting game. CP would probably be outraged they don't portray Christianity as absolutely perfect and Islam as horrifically savage.) MDB (talk) 13:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't blame Fraxis for making all the religions in a practical sense, the same, it is a potential landmine after all. Still I have seen several mods actually make the religions different enough in gameplay to make them interesting. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 14:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Almost every point in that list is hilarious! Thanks for posting it, can't believe I've never seen this article before. The one that boggles my mind most is: Presenting sanitized versions of other religions, but open hostility to Christianity (God of War). I haven't played the latest instalment in this francise, but I'm pretty sure the entire story in God of War is Kratos getting fucked over by the Roman (or Greek?) gods, and him brutally killing them one by one.. I'm not sure if christianity is even mentioned in the series, but if it is I'm sure it's not treated any worse than the Roman/Greek religion where Kratos ripped the head off a god to use as a weapon GTac (talk) 16:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * "Over reliance on violence than story (Gears of War)" *sigh* How about "Over-reliance on story rather than violence (Metal Gear Solid)? =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 19:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

counterexamples of evolution
what does a picture of PZ Meyers and a caption of him being fat have to do with this? followed by picture being removed then it's Promptly put back in  and andy asking why they are trying to censor the "important fact atheism and poor health is related", ignoring the point that the picture is completely unrelated to the article itself.
 * By chance how do i make the capture links... smaller?--Mikalos209 (talk) 03:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * [urlhere.com Name of link here] Oh, and the "PZ Myers is fat" thing has been a recurring meme on the site. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Danke, and i know that--Mikalos209 (talk) 03:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My wikifoo is very low so I do to know how to edit the wiki so that we haz, in the edit box window, a gadget that would allow for the capture tags to be placed around s block of text (sort of the nowiki tags). 04:44, 14 May 2011 (UTC) C ® ackeЯ
 * Someone should point out that that "humor" and Andy's "atheism and poor health are linked!" philosophy have nothing to do with counter-examples to evolution, then point out that a young child can tell the difference. why? They'll take insult to the notion of being stupid and keep it in. [[Image:AndyToad.gif|20px]]Norseman  Cyser Melomel  14:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's a tip. When you enter a CP link (including square brackets) just highlight the entire link and brackets with your mouse and then click the markup tag that you find below the edit window 4 steps right of Wigo. Hey, presto!  Lily Inspirate me. 18:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I know that, i was asking for a way to make the resulting capture link smaller.--Mikalos209 (talk) 20:33, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Marilyn Manson.... is such a conservative
Will this survive? 03:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * given that its just a copy/paste from wikipedia by a new troll, why should it?
 * Don't worry - Ken reads recent changes . Oh, what "other reasons" Ken? Inserting gerbils into Andy?  Nothing like a vague block reason to fuel speculation. -- PsyGremlin  11:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Sup?
I was kind of busy this week and couldn't check RC very often. What's my old buddy Ken going on about these days? Is it still atheism and obesity? Is he back to atheism and lack of crunchy peanut butter or something? Quick update please. Mountain Blue (talk) 14:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The "PZ is a lardarse hee hee hee" meme is slowly working its way through more and more unrelated CP stuff. Oh and the main page reduces carl Sagan to a pot smoker. -- PsyGremlin  14:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh my. Good old Ken. *sentimental sigh* Good old Ken. Mountain Blue (talk) 14:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Not only is was Carl Sagan a potsmoker, but he evidently has something to do with the rise of the "pseudoscientific religion" of UFOlogy. Because everyone knows that Sagan talked about how extraterrestrials are visiting earth in UFOs all the damned time.  Phiwum (talk) 15:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Christianity is a fast growing anti-reality religion perpetuated by cranks, cultists and other promoters of supernatural quackery.[2] However, the ideologies of Christianity, supernatural creation, creation "science," including "flood geology" and creationist "cosmology" are ideas which are not supported by sound science. [3][4]

Creationist Ken Ham, a former public school science teacher suspected of being an avid smoker of something that enhances his ability to suspend disbelief indefinitely, is a prominent peddler of bunk creation "science," and other pseudoscientific nonsense.
 * Nutty Roux (talk) 15:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It is bizarre that CP attempt to link one of the greatest skeptics about alien UFOs visiting the Earth or alien abductions, Carl Sagan, to Ufology (which they type as the grammar incorrect UFOlogy). I suppose it is because he was a proponent of SETI and with it the idea if there are alien civilizations out there, we should try to communicate with them (Carl Sagan was always wise to point out that there is always the possibility no one is out there to hear us).  More likely it is because he was very skeptical towards religion and creation myths, and very popular with the American public, which goes contrary to the "unpopular because they are atheist" creed of CP so they try to ruin the reputation of the man with false and dubious associations.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 02:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * TerryH thinks that any aliens we find are just demons in disguise to fool the atheistic scientists. Senator Harrison (talk) 03:18, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Which puts him the same boat as all the other ufologists and alien abductee believers. Myself and most skeptics believe that credible evidence is sorely lacking for any visitation by aliens anytime in our history, let along the abduction of people.  Most rational folks think the chances of intelligent alien life elsewhere in the universe are good, but not absolute, but we would also acknowledge we have no evidence one way or anything, just a hypothesis based on the size and age of the universe, and the abundance of organic matter.  I personally like to believe there is plenty of alien species, but  will acknowledge this is just a hopeful belief and nothing more.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 05:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The Economist addresses Karajou's new Toon
Karajou put up a new toon. It's all about how the Democrats control the price of gasoline. Funny part about this (for me) was that I was just reading the Economist, where they called Paul Ryan a liar (literally! on April 6) for saying the same thing: The idea that holding up permits or adding to oil firms’ costs through other forms of regulation somehow led to the doubling of gas prices is just ridiculous. Those two things may have had a minuscule effect on the margins, but the main factors behind the oil price’s rise, as Mr Ryan well knows, are the improved performance of the world economy, which has led to increased demand, and growing instability in the Middle East, which has prompted fears about supply.

America’s oil production has actually grown since Mr Obama took office, although perhaps not as quickly as it might have had his administration slashed regulation and rubber-stamped all drilling permits. Oil firms do not find America a particularly difficult place to do business; they’d much rather develop assets here than in dodgy spots like Nigeria and Russia. And even if the Interior Department had massively streamlined its bureaucracy and opened new areas to drilling the moment Mr Obama took office, we would still be several years away from seeing the benefits, given the slow pace of exploration and production. Above all, with only 2% of the world’s proven oil reserves, as Mr Obama keeps repeating, extra drilling in America will only have a marginal effect on supply.

In other words, Mr Ryan is lying. The recent rise in gas prices is not, in any meaningful sense, the result of the president’s energy policies. Karajou is probably just stupid, because demagogy appeals to people who don't know better--or have trouble reasoning--who then listen to people who purposefully mislead them, because they are stupid. Let's put Rob in that category too. --Leotardo (talk) 20:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a load of crap and you call me stoopid. F*n clue is gop introduce drill legialation and boom- single biggest one day drop in price. Dohtards--208.54.38.152 (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Dear Economist - even though you are the most respected publication in the world, you are full of crap. Gas prices have nothing to do with the instability in the Middle East nor the improved world economy.  It's all the Democrats.  So fuck you, I'm right just because I believe it and screw your fancy numbers and metrics! - Karajou and Rob"
 * Gas prices are a perennial favorite for demagoguery. This happens to be a good time to do it because the GOP can shoehorn their "Drill, baby, drill!" stupidity into it. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * True; see Obama 2008: Blames Bush and Cheney for High Oil Prices. nobsdon't bother me 00:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Garrgghh that capture didn't work. I wanna see!!! Grumblejaws (talk) 21:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Pic inserted, thanks again to your local Lily.
 * Y'know, Karajou...if you hadn't inserted any text, it would've been a really funny comic. I think the text just slows down the image. 23:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * For comparison: Nancy Pelosi in 2007: Bush is making gas really expensive! Today: Cricket, cricket. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I, for one, loveitloveitloveit when free-market fundies bitch about high gas prices. Would you like the government to regulate those prices? No? Then shut the fuck up and pay the price that the market supports. Or take the bus. P-Foster (talk) 02:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, they are more arguing that government policy is restricting market supply, but it's still a bullshit argument. Nice point, regardless.  --Leotardo (talk) 16:23, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ahh, but it's not the free market unless the market is TOTALLY deregulated in the minds of the wingnuts. So that way oil companies can drill whereever they want and the price will fall.  Co-incidentally they will also pollute vast areas of the planet in doing so and in wingnut thinking they have to be held accountable for doing so whilst being allowed the unfettered right to do so.  So they will be hit with VAST fines for polluting, rather like BP will be for the cock-ups in the gulf, which the companies will promptly pass on by putting prices up.  What do you mean, logical contradiction?  Such a thought doesn't exist in wingnuttery.  In fact thought doesn't really exist in wingnuttery. Oldusgitus (talk) 08:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * But public transportation is socialism, fool! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:41, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's a simple truth: the resignation of Richard Nixon had more to do with public demagoguery of gas going from 29 cents per gal to 49 cent and unemployment rising after termination of the Vietnam War & conscription than any alleged corruption Nixon was never convicted of. I know. I lived threw it. I was there. nobsdon't bother me 01:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The Civil War wasn't about slavery, it was about STATES RIGHTS! (To slavery). -- 01:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Wrong, it was a Rothschild plot to destroy America. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Darn... SO CLOSE! -- 01:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

What is this meant to mean.
As a staunch liberal/leftie I think Diana died because her coke using boyfriend allowed a drunk bodyguard to drive a car far too fast. So wtf is this meant to mean. I mean, seriously, how is this meant to be a news story of any kind? Oldusgitus (talk) 17:57, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a very candid tu quoque admitting that their birther and deather nonsense is nothing more than a conspiracy theory? Nutty Roux (talk) 18:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What an utter retard. The American left doesn't give a shit about Diana's death, and AFAIK in Britain everyone gives an equal shit. You have to wonder if he believes all this diarrhoea that seeps from his anus. EddyP Great King! Disaster! 19:41, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Now it seems that the movie, by the rather 'eccentric' liberal actor Keith Allen incidentally, is banned in the UK despite the linked story not saying anything about the film being banned and the film not being banned in the UK. More stuff stright out of his anus I guess. Oldusgitus (talk) 06:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Presumably this is about Andy being butthurt that his pet conspiracies, like birtherism, are called out as bullshit, and this one doesn't. And like all things Andy doesn't like, it's the fault of liberals somehow. --Kels (talk) 06:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, from what I can tell, it is banned in the UK - because it shows things like graphic pictures, taken by paparazzi, of Princess Diana in the process of dying, very shortly after the crash. The film's own lawyers recommended 80-odd edits in order to avoid it being banned, but the director refused to make them. 86.162.90.42 (talk) 18:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually from what I can see it is not banned in the UK. What may have happened is that it MAY be refused a certificate for general release for public viewing but that is not it being banned.  Should it be refused a certificate it can still be shown at 'private' screenings and in private clubs.  There is almost no way that a film can be banned in the UK, even I Spit on Your Grave is not banned and never was, it was just very hard to see unless you knew where to go.  This film will be the same.  Oldusgitus (talk) 18:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Team Newt
Where to start. First, even Andy dosn't like Mike Huckabees chances, (needing mike to kamakazi his campaign to block mitt) and seams to solidly throw his support behind Newt Gingrich, making up a new word for the politicians, websites, and yes, "LAME"stream media (he actually freakin said that about stations that support neocons) outlets that support him. Come on andy, What ever happened to Donald Trump?--Thunderstruck (talk) 19:44, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If there's some logic behind this, I can't see it. Also, it seems like he's bashing Newt, though I can't really tell. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * He's written about it before - he's got this strange idea that this isn't a contest between individuals, but rather two opposing camps, never mind the fact that people from the same "team" are trying to get the nomination for themselves and at odds over a lot of issues. He's not even paying attention to real political alliances and personal friendships, just pulling things out of his ass as usual. Röstigraben (talk) 20:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Surely this is Andy outing himself as a deep cover liberal? He thinks Newt can't beat Mitt without help and wants the weaker candidate (Newt) to get the nomination giving Obama an easier time at the election. If TK was still here he'd ban Andy for obvious parody. -- 04:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

People naturally religious
Out of curiosity, does anyone know about the study on religiosity mentioned in the WIGO? I can't seem to find anything except really short news snippets on it. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe this i found after googling the name of the lady who did the study reported in the mail AMassiveGay (talk) 21:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And here. Ajkgordon (talk) 22:45, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It makes a whole lot of sense from an evolutionary point of view. Our species, being from a tribal ancestry and having an extended period of youth (thanks to our large brains) would naturally have a propensity to be deferential to authority so to increase our survival chances.  Children are more likely to listen to parents, members of the tribe are more likely to listen to the leaders, etc.  So no surprise that the instinct has developed in us to imagine an ultimate authority figure, perhaps as an extra mechanism to help allow us to survive.  It also explains the human tendency for authoritarianism. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 02:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's probably part of it, but I also think it goes deeper than that. Human beings seem to be predisposed to teleogical thinking and seeing intentionality everywhere. Very useful in a world shared by fellow human beings and animals. However, it can sometimes go wrong. That's why you get volcanos that are gods, gods controlling the weather, etc. There's little to no cost these mistakes, so the tendency survives. When I was younger and learning science I had to remind myself to avoid this type of thinking. "The electron wants to...." shouldn't be read literally. Species evolve because fitter genes are more likely to get passed, not because they or anyone else is guiding them (except for artificial selection). I think there are a lot of people out there who never get beyond that sort of thinking. --Night Jaguar (talk) 03:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Your analysis is most likely much more spot on than mine, as I admit I am not a student of biological evolution or human nature; but yeah, in short it is a natural outcome of our species evolutionary survival traits. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 05:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Night Jaguar's explanation is a good summary of the underlying mechanisms. I like Michael Shermer's terms for this: agenticity and patternicity. All of the experiments showing subjects attributing "agenticity" to random motions of objects on a computer screen are a particularly good example. What's behind this in terms of evolutionary psychology is called error management theory. In short, god is a giant type I error. As Shermer mentions, conspiracy theories are a sort of modern manifestation of this thinking that led to polytheistic religions in ancient times. Instead of gods and goddesses, HAARP controls the weather, the Rothschild family controls the economy, etc. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 07:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh, Andy just wrote this : "Liberals try to censor embarrassing conspiracy theories in the United States too, but the First Amendment stands in their way".
 * I'm actually picturing Andy demanding to see Julius Caesar's body in ancient times. Has anyone done a 'if CP existed throughout history'? --Night Jaguar (talk) 07:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Andy doesn't actually care about Princess Di, he just has his bizarre hatred of Britain, and anything he thinks that would cause Britain embarrassment is in his eyes, a good thing.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 09:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Even by Andy's standards this is a pathetic non-story. The source of the quote is the director himself, stating his own conspiracy theory, repeated at greater self-serving length here. Cantabrigian (talk) 12:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "god is a giant type I error" - that is a definition to savour. Is it yours, Nebu? RagTop Gone sailing 11:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not quoting anyone, but it's more or less what Shermer is saying in the article I posted. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Addiction is also a natural human characteristic. Just saying. Jaxe (talk) 16:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

OMGoat
I wait with baited breath for 🇰🇪's next wondefuly essay. Oldusgitus (talk) 08:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I better not get too close; what did you bait your breath with, smelly cheese? Or were you holding it back (bating it)?  .  Lily Inspirate me. 11:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Only Ken would post a picture of chefs and then use a wine analogy. -- PsyGremlin  11:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * He needs a hobby. A new one. Maybe he can take up making model cars.--Thunderstruck (talk) 13:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And they're all snap-together these days, no need to join the Ramones! 03:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If he's going to accentuate his flambé then he should do the same with his fricassée; either use the US spellings or the French, but don't mix them.  Lily Inspirate me. 13:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Does he expect us to be impressed by his nonsensical extremely profound metaphor? Or maybe it was literal? This just in: all french chefs are atheists; lead to breast cancer. - Jpop (talk) 13:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

teryy chuckarse linkspamming
So terry once again linkspams his new blog site on cp but come on chuckie, at least try to make your linkspam make sense. 'Whatever the Obama Administration says will happen, will actually happen if Congress does raise the debt ceiling'. Are you now saying the Obama administration is to be trusted on the economy? Oldusgitus (talk) 11:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Next to the Ed Poor stubs, this must be the most pathetic thing on CP I've seen.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 11:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You've not been paying attention, have you?  Lily Inspirate me. 12:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's funny how Andy's trusted sysops are basically crapping all over his blog - Terry using it to linkspam his own stuff, whilst not contributing to CP; Ken shitting his "essays" all over the place; Karajou blocking anything that moves; Jpatt posting unintelligible news stories; Ed's stubs and Moonie-fication. Whatever their obsession with us, no amount of liberal vandals could do more damage to CP, than CP's own rulers are causing it. And yet Andy still thinks CP is responsible for the US's swing to the right. -- PsyGremlin  11:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps they actually do contribute to the swing. They do help widen the Overton window after all. Think about it: first George "Bring 'Em On" Bush makes Bill "Let's Nuke Belgrade from Orbit" Clinton look like a hippie pacifist, then John "Bomb Iran" McCain makes Bush look like a reasonable adult, then Glenn Beck makes McCain look like a social moderate, and so on, and so on. Now we've reached the point where even Joseph Farah gets to be the voice of reason, thanks to Andy and his CBP. Mountain Blue (talk) 12:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I love all the gold and silver ads. Chuckarse's site is becoming a mini Mises Institute. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Taking Conservapedia to task
I just took Conservapedia to task for their constant self contradiction. Check out the main talk page. Infoseek (talk) 15:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Um... that will accomplish nothing. And may just get you blocked, and your change deleted and oversighted. -- 15:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * {e-fucking-c}before I look, let me predict that they will

---brxbrx 15:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Block you
 * 2) Weasel out of it all with logical fallacies
 * 3) Ignore you
 * (ec x 2, bitches! I'll cut you!) And by running here and telling us, you've just given them carte blanche to ignore your comments, delete them, over-sight them and ban your ass. Still, at least we can toast marshmallows while your sock burns. -- PsyGremlin  15:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Still there. Damn this place isn't as quick without TK. ADK ...I'll deconstruct your sacrifice! 15:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep. It's a new era. nobsdon't bother me 16:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Give it up, Infoseek! You're clueless. Judging from your liberal claptrap, I can say with 95% certainty that you oppose prayer in public schools. Deny this and lose all credibility! Open your mind and take our quiz Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness, for your own sake. Or spend more time translating the Bible, the most logical book of all. Godspeed. --Night Jaguar (talk) 17:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Perma-banned for liberal wandalism in 3...2... Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Someone wants a word with you Infoseek. Although I suppose they'll still be banned for 'reading a vandal site'. Jammy (talk) 19:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That could just be an effort on my part to divert suspicion. ;) Infoseek (talk) 20:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well then we'll have to see you prove it. It doesn't exactly divert suspicion by drawing attention to it when otherwise they may not have noticed. The obvious solution is for you to tell us the exact nature of your next edit at CP. Jammy (talk) 21:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Why would I confirm I was WilliamB1 as Infoseek? When I'm trying as WilliamB1 to divert suspicion from the idea that I'm Infoseek. Infoseek (talk) 21:18, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If I thought revealing myself as a sock on this page would raise suspicion, using this page to talk about how I'm trying to divert suspicion away from them isn't the next thing I would do.  «-Bfa-»  22:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking at WilliamB1's painfully reasonable edits, I can't see why he would suddenly decide to reveal himself as a sock on here. Jammy (talk) 22:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I'm creating obvious false positives in order to distract attention from future parodists posting on Rationalwiki. Or maybe I'm manufacturing a false liberal attack in order to generate credibility.  Or Possible I'm just trying to spread confusion and FUD.  Or maybe I simply find posting the truth about my identity on Rationalwiki, than getting away with it, amusing.  Continuing the discussion in this forum could potentially aid any one of those objectives. Infoseek (talk) 23:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it aids none of them. The idea of falsely claiming to be a CP editor in order to get them banned or create confusion is not exactly new, nor is it particularly effective. Jammy (talk) 23:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah well, no point continuing the charade. I'm new here, had never the tactic before, and thought I'd give it a try. Unfortunately I picked someone who is a Rationalwiki user.  Sorry WilliamB1, know that I picked you because I thought you were reasonable and made a positive contribution to Conservapedia. Infoseek (talk) 00:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

NO! YOU SHOULD HAVE WALKED AWAY! WHY WOULD YOU WRITE THIS!? Senator Harrison (talk) 01:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps to throw people off. There are wheels within wheels in any plan that moves well. Infoseek (talk) 02:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Newt is a RINO!
So sez Terry "Link Whore" Chuckarse I have the feeling CP is going to run out of suitable candidates; they're already against Huckabee, Romney has passed Romneycare... -- PsyGremlin  02:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You don't remember them dismissing McCain for being a RINO? Then once he won the nomination there was a white wash of his article. -- 02:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * They'll always have Palin and Bachman.Infoseek (talk) 02:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * But they're women. You know very well they can't run a country pregnant in the kitchen.--Thunderstruck (talk) 02:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Which is odd considering the argument that women cannot run restaurants (by Aschlafly, naturally) which I cannot link to since User:C deleted and recreated Talk:Main several days ago. C ® ackeЯ


 * I'm waiting for Run, Louie, Run! posts to MPR. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Terry isn't even literate. 03:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * First thing at CP that's made me laugh in a while. The wording is hilarious - it reads as if American Republicanism is a religion and Newt's renounced it. 14:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It pretty much is. This is a violation of Grover Norquist's tax cut blood oath. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Something like normality


Though many of us a permanently (or temporarily) 403ed, at least the idiotic asynchrony of account creation allowed and editing allowed is gone, and the night editing mode is back to some regularity...

11:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And TK is no more. Coincidence? -- PsyGremlin  11:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The State of CP's Half-Arsed Presidential Rankings
As a long time admirer of CP's slipshod, half-assed " likely Presidential nomination winners Every Republican Politician We Can Think of Ranked By How Much We Like Them", I give an update. Donald Trump is not running, but he's still ranked third most likely to win. After Mike Huckabee announced he is not running, Andy still gives him a better shot of winning than Rick Santorum and Jon Huntsman, both of whom are running. Rob's job with the Democrats is even better. On May 1st he had the stunning conservative insight that conservative pro-life founder of Operation Rescue Randall Terry (haha - Rob called him an "abortion rights activist" see diff), is the second most likely to win the Democratic nomination, besting Hillary Clinton. This is why so many people turn to CP as a trove of valuable insights from conservative Cassandras - after all, nobody else is bold enough to say if it's not Obama, it's going to be Terry, out of fear that such an insight would be cause for ridicule. --Leotardo (talk) 17:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I like how ACORN got changed to Libya. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * They just realized that Libya is ACORN in Africa. --Opcn (talk) 18:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Right; they got the community organizers out there organizing al Qaeda in North Africa right now. nobsdon't bother me 19:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like Ken took care of that for you. I also note you're still ranking Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio quite highly for people who've declared that they're not going to seek the nomination. Röstigraben (talk) 19:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's CP so expecting them to adhere to the logic of the subheading "Ranking of Potential Republican Candidates by Likelihood of Winning Nomination" is pointless, and pretty awesome because the only people it makes sense to are CP sysops. Poor Rob - you know it's the epitome of sad when Ken of all people has to fix your idiocy.  --Leotardo (talk) 19:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow. I got reverted by Ken Demyer. I'm feeling more at home Rationalwiki more and more everyday. nobsdon't bother me 01:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's what you get for inserting parody. --Leotardo (talk) 02:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Have to love Andy Fuck Huckabee, I'LL say whether he's running or not. Wasn't Andy a Huckabee man last election? -- PsyGremlin  20:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * FFS andy you thick fuck he only drops to 15 after saying he's not running. In your deluded world he'd need to die to get off the list. Oldusgitus (talk) 20:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Those last two diffs show why that website is so fucked. They take a good concept like analyzing and ranking the Republican candidates, and it quickly spirals out of control as tea bagger "dream candidates" like Rand Paul and Allen West (laughable!) have to be included for good measure. Dick Cheney is on there along with other people who have no interest in running in 2012, like Jeb Bush, Jan Brewer and Fred Thompson.  Brewer only made the list because she suddenly became a birther hero, which also propelled Trump to #3 even though nobody with credibility took him serious.  What you end up with is a big mess, with no discernible criteria for the rankings of "most likely to win", and people who have explicitly stated they will not run ranked higher than actual candidates.  The "Team Newt" and "Team Mitt" stuff is Andy going waaaaaay overboard on his Stalking Horse theory; Andy now believes that everyone is disingenuously working on someone else's behalf. It's pretty insulting to primary voters, not to mention the candidates, when you consider it.  --Leotardo (talk) 20:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * They might find this handy. P-Foster (talk) 21:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Intriguing that both of the Mormons are tagged as RINO's. Shows how far right the Republican party has gone when it's most prominent Mormons don't meet the ideological purity standards. MDB (talk) 11:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that chart is pretty definitive. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "It's pretty insulting to primary voters, not to mention the candidates, when you consider it." You're right, fortunately other than ourselves (for the lutz), the CP admin, possibly /b/ (again for the lutz), and the dozen or so actual loyal CP readers and acolytes of Andyism; no voter is ever going to see that listing.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 21:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I like how one of the 'pros' for Obama is "he's not Hillary Clinton". --Night Jaguar (talk) 01:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Sarah Palin creamed by 'King'
Sarah Palin has dropped in Andy's estimation. Check out that quote at the top of her "cons" he amended. This is Andy crapping on the Wiki. Imagine that you know nothing about all the weirdo notions the form the core of Conservapedia, and you happened upon that ranking and gave it serious consideration. Palin's first negative is, "It's difficult to take someone who relies so heavily on Facebook seriously; even liberal Hollywood voted preferred [sic] The King's Speech at the Oscars." It's so esoteric everyone will realize something's off with a 'ranking' when they can't figure out what liberal Hollywood, The King's Speech and Facebook updates have in common as negatives about Sarah Palin. --Leotardo (talk) 23:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I would love to cream over Sarah Palin's face. Whilst she's wearing her glasses. 23:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

So let's see... Man, you can't take any of these yokels seriously! --Kels (talk) 23:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Mitt Romney
 * Newt Gingrich
 * Donald Trump
 * Michele Bachmann
 * Jeb Bush
 * Marco Rubio
 * Rand Paul
 * Tim Pawlenty
 * etc.


 * So, why did Andy sour on Palin? He used to luuuv her back in 2008.  Why does he like Romney so much, when even I understand why other people think he's a RINO?  Godspeed (talk) 23:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Jealousy over Facebook and nothing more. Facebook is what Andy can only vainly dream Conservapedia would be: Extremely popular, influential, and most importantly, taken seriously by politicians.  In his mind its "Why that liberal site and not miiiiiiiine! *pout*"--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 00:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I still have a pet theory that Andy is jealous of anything that came out of Harvard and did better than him. Look at his obsessive hatred of both Obama (who beat Andy for Harvard Law Review editor) and Facebook (developed by Harvard students.) He was probably convinced that being Harvard man was a ticket to a lifetime of success, and he's... a nothing. So, in his twisted mind, something from Harvard that's doing better than him must be somehow bad or wrong or tainted -- his Harvard Law degree hasn't made him a leading politician or a successful attorney or the head of a major web site, so something is wrong with the successes that came out of Harvard. MDB (talk) 11:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * We know the failure doesn't have much paid work, so how does he while his days away? Elaborate train sets? --Leotardo (talk) 13:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Romney is not a RINO, he's just unprincipled, a man who can't be counted on by anybody to believe tomorrow what he says he believes today. Gingrich the same thing.  --Leotardo (talk) 01:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Chuckarse cheers on war in the Middle East
First, the econo-geddon, now another Arab-Israeli conflict. Read the whole thing, as they say. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, so that's what Israel is for. I always thought it was about giving Jews a secure state to live in without being threatend to be killed by Christians Muslims. Hey Israel we were there too! Hang in there! --ǓḤṂ³ 19:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) You have to remember, the fundies want a war in the Middle East. Not just a little border skirmish either, total, full-on war, with A-bombs falling on Meggido. It'll be just another sign that Jebus is coming to take them away on the mother ship. -- PsyGremlin  19:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course they want a full on war. That's what happens when America runs out of enemies and you have people basically lost in the real world. On the other hand they could never say: "Let's get rid of all the Muslims. Let's get rid of this billion people because they killed about 10.000 of ours." For something like that the media has way too much of pacifistic bias (of course induced by these genocidal liberals, who despite their name, want to censor the good Christians that only want to defend that superior traditional culture.) It has to be so hard to not like war, you'll get honor and grow into real man. --ǓḤṂ³ 19:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well to be fair, America does have actual enemies. I see your point though, I often think reading some of the CP headlines that they can't wait for American to fall and war to consume the Mideast just so they can get their reward, and even more importantly, all their real and imagined enemies are punished with righteous retribution. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 22:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Where have Muslims killed 10,000 Americans? You can't count in Afghanistan or Iraq--self defense against an invading army is totally legitimate. P-Foster (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And I don't think so, but a Christian warmonger would say that all Christians and all Muslims are at war - no matter if self-defense or not. Also one of these people could reason that the invasion of Afghanistan actually was in self-defence as they would say the war either started with 9/11 or even earlier with other attacks - on the other hand Muslim warmongers would say the same thing with equally much justification about America involving itself in the region since the cold war. I don't agree with either of them, I think both sides are desperate to blame things on other peoples/religions/other peoples religion which has different or all encompasing reasons. But what I find the worst about it is people use Isreal as square on a chessboard that needs to be held or conquered. Haven't they suffered enough yet? Now they use them as human shields in a war people on neither of the three sides want (taking majority here). My actual point was: They don't use genocidal speach because they can't - and I'm waiting for them to blame it on somebody. --ǓḤṂ³ 23:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (EC)It's all part of Christian Zionism, though I don't know how much Andy, Chuckarse, and co. accept its tenets, but elements of it are pretty much ubiquitous on the religious right. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * CP has never been much for end-times prophecy, which is their one key divergence from much of American Christian conservatism. MDB (talk) 13:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This is what makes Andy's Paulism strange. Anathema to Paulism are all these wars we're involved in, endlessly trying to stake some claim to having "won".  But he calls Rand Paul 'possibly the next Ronald Reagan'.  --Leotardo (talk) 23:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Only strange if you're expecting logical consistency from Andy. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, there we go
Newt Gingrich is now offically a whiny RINO and a traitor to the conservative cause. His multiple affairs and all his lies didn't count but his apparent support for some form of universal health care evidently was the final straw. Oldusgitus (talk) 08:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And your surprised? In a few months, the only people left who are conservative will be Andy, his non parodist minions, and god.--Thunderstruck (talk) 11:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Why'd you include "god"? «-Bfa-»  11:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Why even bother to do a cartoon if you're not even going to attempt wit, Karajou. --Leotardo (talk) 13:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This is one of my favorites. He actually manages to get the conservative line wrong. Brilliant. Nutty Roux (talk) 15:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, there we go (part 2)
Sorry for the lack of links, but cut-and-paste from a phone is a pain. I noticed in the news this morning that the reason for "conservative" Arnold and his liberal wife breaking up was that he fathered a child with a member of their household staff 10 years ago. Apparently Andy took down his main page shilling of his "Marry a conservative" essay before this, so it makes me wonder if he finally suspected that something like this was coming. I have an appropriate WIGO in mind, but others should go ahead since I won't have time for hours. --DinsdaleP (talk) 11:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't imagine any reason why Andy would back down. In fact, I think he'll double up. "Look what marrying a liberal can do to a man." By marrying a liberal woman, you risk degradation of your moral fiber. Occasionaluse (talk) 12:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This is one of the ways Andy craps on the wiki - Arnold's philandering and love child are so well known that most people will find the "Arnold, you should have married a conservative woman [to cheat on]" to be an extremely gauche sentiment (and un-Christian, not that that means anything, anywhere). --Leotardo (talk) 13:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Arnold was already a RINO in CP's eyes, and, unlike a lot of the pols they've termed "RINO", it was pretty accurate in that case. Schwarzenegger is a centrist leaning to the right, and in a lot of other less "blue" states, he might well as run as a Democrat. MDB (talk) 13:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Nature or Nurture?
Andy says that aborted embryos could have been Nobel-prize winning scientists. Setting aside what he thinks of said prize, is it just me or is he implying that *only* that embryo, and not any of its siblings would have won? Thus implying nature over nurture for academic ability, and possibly other things... CS Miller (talk) 14:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Since a Nobel prize is given every year anyway, surely we haven't "lost" any Nobel prize winners due to abortion, right? Phiwum (talk) 14:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * How many serial killers have been aborted? Anyway, speaking of awards, I like how Andy totally forgot about his ConservaMath Medal . --Night Jaguar (talk) 14:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You made the same point about serial killers I was going to make. I like to think Hitler II was aborted somewhere.  ConservaMath Medal is my favorite aborted CP gimmick.  --Leotardo (talk) 14:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There have been years when the prize was not awarded so he could argue that an aborted foetus could have won one those years.
 * Except the peace prizes during 1914-1918 and 1939-1945 when it would have been difficult to award that one at all. Oldusgitus (talk) 14:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And anyway, everyone knows the cp:Nobel prizes are a Liberal plot to stop people reading the Bible, or something. Cantabrigian (talk) 14:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sheer numbers insists that the average aborted foetus was vastly more likely to grow up to be an incarcerated criminal than a nobel prize winning scientist. Therefore you should abort every pregnancy. -- 14:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I think Andy was being a pro-abort (or whatever his weird term is). He hates Nobel Prizes because they're liberals across the board -> if you abort a future Nobel winner, there are less liberals -> the world is a better place. Carlaugust (talk) 14:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Let us not forget, that "God" is the biggest abortionist of them all. Jimaginator (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've always wondered about that...as much as Andy bitches about moral relativism, holding God to such a widely different standard as everyone one seems like the ultimate act of relativism. Carlaugust (talk) 15:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Capturebot
When will we just go full on and create a CP mirror? So I can read it? 03:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If you imply to Rob that you're willing to defect from RW to CP, he might be able to get the 403 lifted in an attempt to score a point over RW. EddyP Great King! Disaster! 18:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I would do it myself but I just don't know how; neither do I know how it got there ion the first place. nobsdon't bother me 19:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The solution would have to be complex. It'd have to be lightweight and ignore the monumental amount of bullshit mediawiki produces and access CP in a distributed fashion so as not to be 403'd. For technical reasons, they've had to unblock most of the popular open proxies. Why can't you just use one of those? Occasionaluse (talk) 19:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I tried something - it's more a proof of concept at the moment, really: User:Diebot

08:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

IMF head and Libya
To read the CP headline it sounds like we are after Dominic McRaperson head of the IMF in order to return a favor to Pres. Sarkozy for backing us in Libya. However as I remember it Sarkozy was urging us to get more involved in Libya than just dropping a few bombs then just supporting NATO. Why do we need to return him a favor for only doing half of the favor he wanted from us? --Opcn (talk) 18:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, in the pantheon of "Let's dream up a reason ['thanks for Libya'] that's different than the obvious [he raped a woman]" that they use to introduce an anti-Obama spin on everything, this one was weaker than normal. --Leotardo (talk) 18:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As The Daily Show pointed out, the head of the IMF raping an African-immigrant maid is an unsubtle, grotesquely apt metaphor. --Night Jaguar (talk) 00:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Why do conservapedia support Dominique Strauss-Kahn anyway? Don't they realise he's an evil liberal which considering he's a French liberal must be even more evil and was head of an evil organisation who take money from poor Americans and waste it on the riff-raff of the world? Nil Einne (talk) 12:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I think I figured it out
Andy listens to a lot of Talk Radio I'd imagine, and talk radio (for those of you who don't listen to it) is all about building a false reality, an experience in a fantasy land. The problem is that Andy isn't skilled or determined enough to do what Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage manage effortlessly. --Opcn (talk) 19:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Nah, I figure since Mama Schlafly was always gone on tours and whatnot, her youngest just spouts what she wants to hear to get the attention he never got as a child.--Thanatos (talk) 19:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, as Andy mentioned to a user a few days ago, he doesn't listen to much radio and prefers Conservapedia . But of course you are right about his propensity to ignore reality, and that hasn't been nearly as successful at captivating the simple-minded public as Beck/Limbaugh/Savage have. --Tabrcg23 (talk) 20:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think talk radio influence Andy much at all. Talk radio hosts like Limbaugh and Beck appeal to their audience with a populist form of social conservatism.  Andy though sees himself as the singular, ultimate authority on what is considered true conservatism based on his own peculiar, idiosyncratic mix of beliefs centered on the idea that everything, and I mean everything is political; or what I call the philosophy/cult of Andyism.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 00:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Although Andy and Savage have so many parallels. I've read Savage's Trickle up Poverty and it seems to be extraordinarliy similar when dealing with Obama and other liberals.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 00:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In the Savage universe alternative medicine is part of conservatism. In the Limbaugh universe Bush 43 was a good solid conservative. In the Beck universe conservatives cry and don't trust the dollar. They all invent things and invent themselves as the arbiters of true conservatism. Andy just sucks at it is all. --Opcn (talk) 03:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In other words, he prefers to listen to himself. 07:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I suspect there's a great deal of things Andy (a-hem) only does with himself. MDB (talk) 14:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Fucking Kanazawa
CP picks up on uber-hack evopsych Satoshi Kanazawa, which reminds me I need to write an article on him (see this PZ Myers post for previous offenses). Just needed to indulge my MASSIVE hate-on for that guy. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I like how Ken brands him an evil, liberal, evolutionary psychologist (missing the point), whilst on his own blog, Kanazawa argues why Coulter would have been a better president than Bush. -- PsyGremlin  21:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Kanazawa is relatively foolish, but he has no expertise in this field. Satoshi Kanazawa is an obvious racist (He says that it would be better if we all engaged in a little bit more hate), and his bias is reflected in his research. He forgets that all people are not attracted to the same things in other individuals, and that this can vary by culture. I have seen studies on the topic of physical attractivness in people, and he doesn't even have the basics! You have got to remember, Kwanza said that less intelligent children are likely to grow up to be liberals or atheists. This guy is nothing more than a hate-monger who became a scientist, and now has a platform to spray forth his ugly and vile remarks....You just wait, the minute he says a certain remark, everyone will know who he is, because he is going to be on the news!--Lefty (talk) 22:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Why the fuck was he published, anyways? Actually, I think my grandmother has a subscription to Psychology Today.  Or at least its French equivalent.  It's a shame that we all play the association game, too.  He's just reinforcing the evolution=racist bullshit that's hung around.  It only takes a single asshole to fuck it all up sometimes (in this case, a whole slew of assholes has been the problem, from Hitler to this Kwanza fellow).--Foucault5.jpg-brxbrx 23:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not unknown for LSE to harbor political hacks (see their recent Libya debacle). The raging bigotry is just the icing on the cake when it comes to Kanazawa, though. He has an appallingly terrible knowledge of related fields of psychology and anthropology. His papers are riddled with logical fallacies (causalation is particularly abused). The raw data in his work would actually be interesting, but the stupidity and bigotry he shoehorns into it ruins even that. Kanazawa is everything wrong with evopsych rolled into one package. It also makes me wonder if his thesis advisor was Charles Murray. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Is 'Kwanza' supposed to be a piss-take or are people just spelling his name wrong? ONE / TALK 10:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Either way I like it because it's how I was pronouncing it in my head, too. --Leotardo (talk) 15:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Classroom prayer isn't classroom prayer enough for Andy
Andy: Classroom prayer is only classroom prayer if you start every single class with a prayer. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And the sacrifice of an animal. A bull for mathematics and the hard sciences, but probably a dove would be OK for the humanities. It's best to remind the almighty how awesome he is several times a day to be sure to avoid random smitings. -- 13:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Now I understand why I have such a lack of learning - not enough prayer to open my mindAMassiveGay (talk) 14:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If only Harvard's liberal professors had opened all of Andy's classes with a prayer, he wouldn't be a complete failure. X Stickman (talk) 14:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And while we in the UK may have some schools that have classroom prayer on some days when they have morning assembly, I think what we're really missing is having the disbelievers taken off to the nearest football stadium to be shot in the head by the local vicar, as I'm sure Andy would wish for. Bondurant (talk) 14:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Shot? What kind of heathen are you? Stoning is the mandated punishment! MDB (talk) 14:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It would have to be stoning, what with our pesky gun control AMassiveGay (talk) 14:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the Taleban used to interpret the word "stone" as "Kalashnikov" Bondurant (talk) 14:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I went to a conservative Catholic grade school in Howell, New Jersey, and there was only prayer every morning, broadcast over the loud speakers. This is Andy's extremism, not his religion's.  --Leotardo (talk) 15:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Another person from central NJ? I grew up in Fair Haven/Rumson/Red Bank area.  -Lardashe
 * Yes - are you still in the area? I'm in Manhattan now. --Leotardo (talk) 17:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah but Andy sez that prayer before school detracts from the link between God and knowledge. ok, when I was in boarding school, we'd have two periods in the morning, then go for breakfast, then have daily assembly with prayers and hymns. Much closer link to God we had. And by Andy's definition, every school worldwide censors classroom prayer. Seriously tho, I'd love to sit in on some of his classes one day. -- PsyGremlin  15:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I had no idea you were so masochistic. MDB (talk) 16:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The discussion (cp:Talk:Main_Page, &#1071;O&#1071;&#1071;IM: User:Diebot/Talk:Main) is so typical Andy:
 * of course he knows more about foreignstan than these bloody foreigners themselves
 * whatever a liberal does is not enough. Never will be.
 * 16:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You guys keep forgetting that Andy also has a different definition of "censoring", most people would say "keep people from beeing forced to do something they don't want".
 * We have classroom prayer in Germany - once a week in the subject "religion". "We" have the parents (no matter about the childs opinion, de jure) choose the religion of the kid, then he or she is forced to suffer through religious teachings of that religion for up to 9 years of weekly imprisonment. And while those evil atheists that choose "ethics"/"philosophy" courses talk about such evil people as Descartes, Kant, Feuerbach and read Genesis laughing there asses off (no kidding that actually happend in my class), knownledge is brought to the religious by such hard problems of "draw how people would welcome aliens from space" (no shit, that actually happend - and that was public school!). Oh dear old Germany, and we wonder how so much bullshit could come from you. --ǓḤṂ³ 16:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

(undent) Holy crap Leo, I live in Flemington, NJ. Heard of it? Senator Harrison (talk) 22:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Catholic priest abuse scandal? What scandal?
Today the Catholic Church's 'exhaustive' investigative report into the priest abuse scandal in the United States was released: "A five-year study commissioned by the nation’s Roman Catholic bishops to provide a definitive answer to what caused the church’s sexual abuse crisis has concluded that neither the all-male celibate priesthood nor homosexuality were to blame. [....] The report notes that homosexual men began entering the seminaries “in noticeable numbers” from the late 1970s through the 1980s. By the time this cohort entered the priesthood, in the mid-1980s, the reports of sexual abuse of minors by priests began to drop and then to level off. If anything, the report says, the abuse decreased as more gay priests began serving the church." I wondered how CP had handled this issue in light of this report by the church itself. Absolutely nothing. This is a good example of how rife with epistemic closure is CP. They can't examine the mess in their own house because it would interfere too much in their need to believe their 'side' is nothing but good. --Leotardo (talk) 15:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * They do, however, have a biography of Father James Haley, "a Roman Catholic priest who asserts "that homosexual priests, not solely pedophiles, are at the root of the sexual-abuse crisis." 'Sexual-abuse crisis' is red-linked.  --Leotardo (talk) 15:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have 100 Internets says Ed Poor wrote that bit. Only he would wiki-link "Sexual-abuse crisis" -- PsyGremlin  15:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * He also wiki-linked "Homosexual priests". Phiwum (talk) 16:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, a friend once studied for the priesthood, and he says, if anything, it's even gayer than the jokes make it out to be. Now, said friend is gay himself, so he's biased, but still... MDB (talk) 16:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll guess that church was rather progressive? Or, or, please let it be evengalists? --ǓḤṂ³ 16:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope, I meant the Roman Catholic priesthood. He never completed his studies, but felt a call to service, and ended up as a firefighter. He was one of the first firefighters at the Pentagon on 9/11. MDB (talk) 16:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm...a gay firefighter with good values? Um, is he single? --Leotardo (talk) 17:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's been a while since I've seen him, but last time I did, he was happily partnered. To a cop, incidentally. The firefighter was the cuter one, though. Oh, and he's a former firefighter. He had injuries, both physical and mental, from the Pentagon. He now runs a business making stained glass. MDB (talk) 18:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll stick with my boyfriend, who I love very much. --Leotardo (talk) 18:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You know, I had always suspected that you took your username from the Savage Love column, but now I'm even more sure of it. -Lardashe

Open your minds, people. The Catholic Church (or at least Andy's heretical reimagining thereof) has no flaws. Those pedophile priests must have actually all been obese atheists disguised as priests to censor classroom prayer. ... of liberals? (talk) 16:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Set Logic Mania!
I don't know if I should be offended as a mathematician because of Andy's Set article, or just sad as a human being. But either way, I thought I would play along - Let M be the set of male (whatever the fuck that means), M = {a,b,c,d,e} (again, whatever the fuck that means), then let G be the set of goat, G = {f,g,h,i,j,k}, then M∪G={a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k}, and the cardinality of M∪W is less than the cardinality of M∪G -> Men should marry goats. Math is fun. Carlaugust (talk) 13:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Only female goats. Otherwise it would be against nature. --Night Jaguar (talk) 14:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Is Andy proposing that marriage should be the union of four men and four women? That sounds surprisingly kinky. 77.8.170.74 (talk) 13:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * He's also implying that you should marry someone of different political/entertainment tastes than you, to make a broader and diverse set. Wait a minute. Didn't he criticise a republican for marrying a liberal? CS Miller (talk) 14:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems pretty obvious to me what's going on. A simple bit of equivocation on the word "union" (Marriage is a union). Next, Andy will discuss the placement of traffic signals using intersections of {a,b,c,d} and {c,d,e,f}. Phiwum (talk) 14:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Theorem: If we let A = {all of Andy's arguments} and C = {all correct arguments}, then A∩C=∅.
 * Proof: Spend an hour reading his shit. --Night Jaguar (talk) 14:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Corollary - Andy's arguments should not marry all correct arguments. Carlaugust (talk) 15:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Andy seems to be suggesting you should marry someone you have nothing in common with (so your union set is "broader and more diverse"). Using this reasoning (and I use the term loosely), if you're a conservative you SHOULDN'T marry a conservative . --Night Jaguar (talk) 15:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

If only I had an unburned sock, I'd change "diverse" to "perverse", cite Secularized Language, and thereby proof that heterosexual marriage is an affront to God. Carlaugust (talk) 15:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Is it just me or has Andy really been hitting the communion wine too hard lately? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I like how Andy added has managed to put in some misogyny in this math article. Man have four letters a b c d, and women only have e f g, and the e can also be provided by a man apparently... Internetmoniker (talk) 08:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think anyone who cares about maths probably wants to kill him right now. Ancient Greek Pegasus icon.png 18:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As a math major, I'm with you on that one. Well I don't want to kill him because he's so much funnier this way. άλφα Talk 00:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I have to agree... I don't think he understands the concepts involved, and is just abusing mathematical concepts to justify his own position. I could go into explaining how we're not looking at what he's presenting, but rather a set of tuples, whereupon M*F is smaller than the set of P² (where P is the set of all people). but that's wasting explanation that we all already get here... -- 10:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Grade "A" JAQing off
Karajou asks whether or not Obama's birth certificate number belongs to a dead infant. No evidence to the positive, but hey...we're just asking questions. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * They really love hiding behind "just wondering" or "allegedly" or "might be" when it comes to Obama. The most pathetic part is that some sysops actually will themselves to regard this as fair and factual in order to prevent themselves from realizing just what a joke of a site they are on. See the last paragraph here for a very good example. --Sid (talk) 19:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ya know, I was really hoping that the long form birth cirtificate would end this B.S. What was I thinkin. Some one should tell CP that, like it or not, when they wake up tomorrow, Obama will still be president, and the president will still be black.--Thunderstruck (talk) 21:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I like this Edquote from Sid's link:
 * "On the other hand, I have never been kicked out of a gym. I know how to behave myself." - EdPoor
 * ONE / TALK 08:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

ЯOЯЯIM
I don't intend to mirror CP, but I wanted to be able to read some of the more interesting pages without further ado. This is the &beta; (really more of an &omega;) version of an attempt to make this possible:

User:Diebot

18:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * thankyou, LArron. your contributions to this wiki and WIGO:CP are much appreciated.  If you're ever near Phoenix, stop by for some tea.--Foucault5.jpg-brxbrx 19:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Damn, are people still 404'ed from CP? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes we are, Andy and Ken are scared of us even reading their blog. They should be, three minutes with the new mirror and I've already spotted a couple of grammar errors with MPR, without us to proof read their shit they're defaulting to their substandard home school level of education. LArron, I love you. -- 20:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe someone should make a mirror CP in which we can add side comments. --Night Jaguar (talk) 04:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh Larron thanks! With diffs and everything!  Yes, I've been 403'd for ages now.  05:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There's a Google project called "Sidewiki" that might be useful for heckling CP directly. I haven't tried it yet, though. --Gulik (talk) 19:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I remember how I tried to do that a while ago. I think someone even bothered to write a script that would import everything to my wikia. I can't remember what my wikia was called, but it's there... somewhere. Dead. I hope. 08:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Larron, that is awesome, thanks! Bondurant (talk) 08:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

La-la Land
You know it's Andy's MPR item because he's so gung-ho over "la-la land" as a nickname for L.A. He thinks Democrats are 'stunned' that Republican Craig Huey came in second (by roughly 200 votes) in a primary for the Los Angeles City Council. Huey was the only serious Republican contender, whereas there were several Democrats who split the vote. Additionally, Huey spent $500,000 of his own money, whereas the Democratic candidates spent about half that. Hardly stunning, any of it. --Leotardo (talk) 18:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not familiar with the politics of Los Angeles; is it rare or difficult for a Republican to be elected to the city council?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No. In fact, this is the 15th District, and the person who preceded Hahn (the Democratic incumbent who is not running), was a Republican and so was the person who preceded him.  This isn't stunning at all. It's stunning that in a traditionally Republican district the Republican who spent half a million of his own money only ended up second and not first. --Leotardo (talk) 19:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Unless I'm mistaken, it's actually the 36th congressional district, which seems to have leaned Democratic for the last decade. And Republicans actually seem to have done a little better than in the past, with total votes for Democratic candidates vs. total votes for Republicans at roughly 56.7 - 40.9. The "force a run-off" part is still nonsense; there would have been a run-off in any case, even if it had been between two competing Democrats. Yoritomo (talk) 00:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's right - I was mistakenly looking at the city council districts. --Leotardo (talk) 14:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't mean to be rude, but the conservative obsession/hatred of California is just another example of regional bias in politics. Just as conservatives assume that everyone in California (specifically San Francisco) is a member of the liberal elite, many liberals would never want to live in the Bible Belt, or in some midwestern states due to what they perceive to be the cultural attitudes there (i.e. gun nuts, superficially religious fundamentalists, etc.) --Lefty (talk) 16:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "California: So liberal it elected Ronald Reagan." --Gulik (talk) 19:47, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

DSK
I find it fascinating that CP is so willing to reveal the identity of DSK's alleged victim. The anglophone media seems unwilling to do so, for reasons everyone will be familiar with. Whereas, the francophone media does not seem to have the same restraint. 09:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you mean that the French media is publishing the name of DSK's alleged victim? Examples please? Ajkgordon (talk)
 * One of many 10:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Publication is causing almost as much of a stir in France as the alleged crime itself. Ajkgordon (talk) 10:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I am actually of two minds about this whole convention. I understand the logic behind it; but if the alleged victim is entitled to anonymity, shouldn't the alleged perpetrator be too? At least until the case comes to a conclusion? Otherwise, if someone is innocent but wrongly accused, they could nonetheless stand to have their reputation ruined. ("You can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride", as they say.) On the other hand, when the accused is such a high profile figure as DSK, anonymity for the accused would be impossible in practice. (I guess similar considerations would work the other way, in the case of a high-profile victim.) 10:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What's interesting is how the French media are showing details of the case that would normally be illegal in France. Because it's happening in the US, they seem to be having a free-for-all. I wonder what repercussions there might be for the media if he does "beat the rap". Ajkgordon (talk) 10:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Probably the same thing that happened here after a pretty disgusting trial by media. i.e., nothing until the person sues for libel which is, for some bizarre reason, not covered by the press very much. X Stickman (talk) 11:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Privacy laws are very different in France compared to the UK. Ajkgordon (talk) 12:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure France doesn't have rape shield laws.--Foucault5.jpg-brxbrx 19:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Harold Camping and CP
Well many of you here may know about Harold Camping and his "Bible guaranteed" rapture of the faithful on the 21st of this May and the media attention he little doomsday is nigh campaign has been garnishing. Thus far CP has been completely silent on Camping's nearly upon us rapture prediction, which I find odd. We know the majority of the CP admin actually do believe that sometime soon they will be magically flown into the sky sans clothes to meet with Jeebus for some fancy dinner/marriage ceremony while all their enemies, real and imagined, will suffer terrible supernatural tourments. So they are spiritual cousins with the latest grafter of the gullible, Camping. Most likely they may view him as "false" as the Bible is rather big on the idea no one can ever know the date of the end of the world (convenient that), but you still think they would use the opportunity to at least proselytize. Thoughts? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It pains me to say it, but I think the guys running CP are just smart enough to realize the probability of the rapture occurring on Saturday is pretty small, so that's not exactly a cart they want to hitch their horse to (is that a expression? Did I get it right? Seems backwards.) They'd have some explaining to do come Sunday. DickTurpis (talk) 12:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * They may be morons for 99% of their waking lives, but they know what will hurt their credibility. Ancient Greek Pegasus icon.png 13:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you type that with a straight face?--Brendiggg (talk) 13:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Cos you can't really move the goalposts after the rapture doesn't happen, right?? With anything else they can usually worm out of it. When it comes to saying the world will end, it either does or it doesn't. They can't worm out of it then!! Ancient Greek Pegasus icon.png 17:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * But making terrible, backward-assed predictions is an Andy staple! ONE / TALK 13:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, even CP isn't quite that crazy. However, I won't be surprised if something like this pops up on MPR Sunday morning: "Liberals predicted the end of the world and nothing happened. If only they had read the Conservative Bible...." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 13:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That sounds likely, if they even post anything at all. Though I'd love to see something like "Give it up, liberals! The greatest conservative minds will be raptured this Saturday!" on MPR. --Sid (talk) 13:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Do we know that "the majority of the CP admin actually do believe that sometime soon they will be magically flown into the sky sans clothes..."? I've never seen much on End-Times prophecy on CP in general. And their pages on the Rapture and the End Times are pretty neutral (by CP standards.) And while Andy's exact church membership is an open question, he was at least raised Catholic, and they're not big on the Rapture.

And even if they were proponents of the Rapture, Camping's prediction is not taken seriously even among many believers in the Rapture. Jesus Himself said no man will know the date, He didn't even know it, only God knows it, and that's the widely held Christian belief.

Don't make the mistake of assuming all conservative Christians hold to a certain belief. It's no more fair to do that than it is for Andy to say "all liberals..." MDB (talk) 13:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see people are acknowledging CP probably wouldn't take Camping seriously. Still, though, I thinl my point that we shouldn't assume the Rapture is part, or a major part, of Andy's belief set, is valid. MDB (talk) 13:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Karajou seems to think it's going to happen soon. Probably not this weekend, but soon.  «-Bfa-»  13:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, the "CP sysops and the Rapture" thing isn't just silly speculation, it's something that pops up here and there in the Conservaleaks. See also here for more. --Sid (talk) 14:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Look at Conservapedia's page on the "Rapture"; in the "Timing" section it mentions May 21st as a possibility (and that entry has been there for a while). --Composure1 (talk) 14:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Considering the attention Camping's prediction has gotten, it's appropriate to add it. They're certainly not presenting it as gospel. MDB (talk) 14:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Shariah Law
Following through the links for the article on MPR, I was frankly unsurprised to find an immediate conflict. Went to the the source document (Shariah Law and American State Courts) and the first of the top 20 cases listed is one where the court is criticised for allowing Shariah Law to be given credence when dealing with ... wait for it ... marital rape. Wonder if Andy's read it? ;) <font color="#000099">Worm (<font color="#000099">t 14:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Here in America we justify marital rape the American way. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:47, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Marital rape can't happen in Islam because nobody is married. A true marriage can only occur in a Christian church. In any other institution the marriage is void, because God wasn't looking. ONE / TALK 14:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I skimmed through some of the cases, so I haven't read the whole thing, but it was idiotically illiterate legally speaking. The cases all had some aspect in which some contract or obligation was drawn up in a foreign nation, and US courts consider that as part of the ruling. You could just as easily say "Oh noez, court cases are being decided using English common law, the British are coming!" as you could "Oh noez, Sharia law, the Mooslims are coming!" Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I read but few of those cases, but the very first one where the court was claimed to have used Sharia law was the Arkansas case where the court explicitly and repeatedly stated that it had no intention of evaluating the Sharia claims relevant to the case. If that counts as applying Sharia law, what should the court have done instead? Yoritomo (talk) 01:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You know, I honestly wonder why anyone would complain about interpreting Sharia law just like any other contract... -- 02:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not the interpretation of Sharia as a contractual obligation the wingnuts are worried about -- they think Sharia is actually supplanting decisions based on Constitutional and case law. However, the wingers screwed themselves over in Oklahoma where they got an anti-Sharia amendment passed. The problem was that it stated that no law with origins outside of the US could be considered in legal cases in addition to Sharia, which would ironically also bar any legal considerations based in Christianity (except for Mormonism, I guess?) and fuck up the court system in a number of ways, which is why judges have banned the thing. There are also Catholic and Jewish religious courts in the US, but I haven't heard anything from the wingers about "creeping Canon law" or "creeping Halakha." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow. I wonder how a federal court sitting in diversity would handle a choice of law problem involving that Oklahoma statute and, oh I don't know, say, just off the top of my head, English law for an insurance policy drawn by Lloyd's in England for property located in England owned by an Oklahoma outfit. Not very well thought out. Nutty Roux (talk) 03:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it is Oklahoma. (One of their Senators is this guy.) Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know what you mean. What I guess I'm trying to ask is, what is wrong with these people that they can't conceive of interpreting Sharia law as contract law, which individuals have already prior consented to being beholden to. (Also, Scientology has their own courts as well!) So yeah... there's a massive disconnect between how Sharia law fits in US law and the way all other religious laws fit into US law. And it bugs me that someone can be so racist about it... especially if they're a lawyer and thus ought know better. (*ahem* Andy *ahem*) -- 03:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * But the Mooslims are all actually under the control of Osama Ayman al-Zawahiri and the Mooslim Brotherhood, or something. IOW, it's just Know Nothingism for the 21st century. Nothing new under the sun. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Osama isn't dead. We didn't see the death certificate or the corpse. Deny this and lose all credibility. Cheerio! (talk) 17:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

A legitimate question
Okay, I fully understand that the sharia law cases have generally been about enforcing contracts drawn up under sharia law. No one (of any importance) is seriously proposing the US courts start enforcing sharia law, Saudi style.

However, I've also heard it said that US courts have historically been very hesitant to get involved in religious law cases -- for instance, when a church undergoes a schism and there's a fight over who owns the real estate, the courts generally say "you all handle this in your own church courts; we're not touching this with a ten foot stack of law books." (Well, they say it much more legalistically, of course...) Why should sharia law cases be any different? MDB (talk) 11:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Separate is not equal. That's all we need to know about any proposal (and they have seriously been made, though I don't know about the US) which attempts to make the decisions of religious courts binding as a matter of civil law on those who profess the religion. Either your Sharia court can impose judgements on Christians, or it shouldn't impose them on anybody. It's a serious problem with multiculturalism - equality is not (as a matter of pragmatic reality rather than logical consequence) possible when you divide people. A cultural "melting pot" may not always be desirable, but it's clearly preferable to the gross inequalities associated with attempts to live apart.
 * IMO Proposals to just have "religious courts" which are actually merely arbitration services with a religious flavour are fine, in principle, as with any other arbitration service. There must be safeguards to ensure participants understand that they could have their day in (real) court if they prefer. Basically, if "Sharia law" is OK, then so is "Starwars law" and "Let's just decide by tossing a coin". 82.69.171.94 (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Damn you, will you please stop
Showing up our lies and hypoccrisy Go karajerk, go. Oldusgitus (talk) 20:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Why does Conservapedia have talk pages, anyway? I mean, all the sysops like Karajerk do is revert a point by a new member that could be valid, and then block the poster for five years to infinity.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 01:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I had a "reasonable" argument on CP about God == Allah... of course, none of them had the sense to understand how languages work, but meh... they didn't block me over it. -- 01:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Nobody at CP can understand English, let alone any other language. That's why the CBP is such a failure. And the almighty God sysops at CP didn't block you for questioning their authoritae?--Colonel Sanders (talk) 01:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope... my name was even "RahamatAllahi" (should be RahmatAllahi: "mercy of Allah/God" ... RobSmith, if you're around, I wouldn't mind the name being fixed, but whatever). -- 01:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You'd probably have to ask Andy to change a name; at least that's how it's been done in the past (IOW, you probably need good and/or civil relations with anyone at CP to get anything done). nobsViva la Revolución! 20:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "why does Conservapedia have talk pages" A brilliant summary of the Conservapedian machine.  The best I've ever seen.--Foucault5.jpgFoucault5.jpgFoucault5.jpg-brxbrx 01:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This here was a "honeypot" trap, anybody naive enough to complain about the way they were treated by admins were given a fair trail, and then shot banninated. The archives are good too, plenty o' grist for the mill. 02:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC) C ® ackeЯ
 * Protected, not edited since 2009. There's CP in a nutshell. P-Foster (talk) 02:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

ЯOЯЯIM II
The project became bigger than I originally intended: the faithful User:Diebot looks at all recently changed pages (or recently changed templates in pages) in the namespaces MAIN, TALK, and USER TALK. This can be done as the traffic isn't high...

I found an amusing solution for the pics: I just insert at random a fitting image already in RW's database.

Special:Contributions/Diebot works like a kind of cp:Special:RecentChanges.

08:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * lol @ the images. I'm enjoying the Homosexuality mirror article.


 * Yep, I'm pretty pleased with the outcome at the moment :-)  11:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sometimes the pics can be weirdly appropriate. I think it should stay like this! ONE / TALK 12:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There won't be much change - and I like this one: Gallery of American Heroes 12:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Very cool. Occasionaluse (talk) 12:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't count me out! I have a hilarious idea for creating a mirror of the bisexuality article! (It is perfect for parody because it mentions "satanism" so many times).--Lefty (talk) 13:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh man, that's brilliant LArron! Look at Richard Dawkin's page, I'm not sure whether I would've noticed the images being swapped out if I didn't know! My favorite bit is the picture of the dancing goat in front of a woman playing an according with 🇰🇪's retarded caption that women find atheists less appealing. GTac (talk) 14:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Barack Obama just lost the college vote
Aside from just giving Andy a sugar high for his fantasy world, it's really stupid to start making predictions a year and a half away from the election how broad swathes of people will vote in November 2012. Who is the polling company that produced this? Actually, it's called "The Polling Company" and here is their advertised roster of clients: "Clients have included The Heritage Foundation, The Federalist Society, Jack Kemp; former Vice President Dan Quayle; Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich; Senator Fred Thompson and Congressman Mike Pence, the Chairman of the House Republican Conference and the third-highest ranking Republican in the House." According to Polls Я Us's website, they are a "privately-held, woman-owned corporation founded in 1995" and if you click that link you'll see its comely founder, who couldn't look more like a caricature of a Fox News hack opinion head if she tried. Haha - here she is touting propaganda during the last election about how Republicans love Medicare - you should try polling "rightwing social engineering" Kellyanne, because I don't think the Repubs have that issue in 2012! --Leotardo (talk) 14:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Conway is basically a mini-Luntz. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if Conservapedia will pick up on this issue
It looks like one of CP's pet issues is under assault. But this shift has been ongoing for decades now, it would take willful blindness not to see where America is heading. Which is exactly what we will see on CP, they probably won't even mention this. Which is to our advantage, if the opposition won't even look at reality there is no chance they will be able to alter it. Infoseek (talk) 16:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * They won't discuss it because they only time they care what the majority of Americans think is when the majority of Americans agree with them. Although that pretty much describes everyone.  Still, it's good to see how more and more marginalized Andy and his lot are.  --Leotardo (talk) 16:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem with saying that the majority of Americans now support gay marriage is that only a small portion of them feel strongly about it. They might be willing to say, "yeah, sure I don't care if my friend Bob marries his partner Joe", but not many of them will vote based on that. They might take it into account when evaluating candidates, but few will make it a primary consideration -- not like they would, for instance, consider a candidate's stance on taxation. And it won't motivate them to go to the polls when a gay marriage referendum is on the ballot. Ultimately, it boils down to the fact it doesn't effect them personally.
 * By contrast, the people who oppose gay marriage are very committed to the issue. They view it as a threat to the very institutions of marriage and the family. They will make that a primary consideration when voting, if not their sole consideration ("no one who supports gay marriage will ever get my vote!") And they'll go through fire to vote if it's up for referendum.
 * To create a military analogy, the pro-marriage forces have the larger "army" now, but they're mostly draftees who's biggest goal is to get home alive. The anti-marriage "army" are fanatical veterans of a hundred campaigns. MDB (talk) 17:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with everything you wrote, but the good news is that the anti-marriage folks are old and dying off:
 * "You are 30 years older than I am. You and your whole lousy generation believes the way it was for you is the way it's got to be. And not until your whole generation has lain down and died will the dead weight of you be off our backs! You understand, you've got to get off my back! - Sidney Poitier in Guess Who's Coming to Dinner"
 * Gay rights might not bring voters to the polls, but now it's becoming more of a red flag when a candidate is anti-gay, instead of 'normal'. --Leotardo (talk) 18:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Stuff like this is why I prefer direct democracy over representative democracy. It's the fact that people can vote on actual issues rather than voting for a candidate with a whole bunch of beliefs in different issues. It is the fact that society can move the way it actually wants instead of founding it's whole political movements on a few of a priviledged elite - and as populistic as it's sounds - their sometimes fringe views. It also is pretty much the only department were "best of the public" actually can work. --ǓḤṂ³ 19:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, no thanks to direct democracy. The problem is that direct democracy would only work with a wise and informed populace. If you find a country (or indeed even a large town) with that your worries are all over anyway. Representative democracies do sometimes lag the general population on reform issues, but rarely for a long time, and they sometimes lead it. And, at least in theory, a representative has time to learn about the issues, engage in serious debate (not yelling at the screen on Fox news) and make a decision after careful thought. With even one item a week on a "direct democractic" ballot most people who even bother to vote are going to go with their gut, which is not what anyone wants. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 21:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't want to go too far of topic here but I have to say what I think about it. When a populace is inhereted with the trust of making the desicion, there should be a civil unwritten duty too those voters too think through what they are voting on. An interesting example of this is Switzerland, which has a parliament but could be theoratically be run by referenda which are held every three month. Normally about 30-40% of the people that are allowed to vote actually vote. As far as I have heard from suiss people, if one votes one has the unwritten duty of actually being informed about the issue. On the other side of the system, representative democracies are often more polarized than direct ones. And there is a reason for it: One does not need to be informed, one will simply vote for a candidate and that all you are allowed to do. I'm not entirely certain but from what I have seen and from what I know of, if a referendum is held in the US people are normally well informed about the issue at hand. Also may I point out that America is the most nutty country and a very bad example of it. Let me put this in a straight jacket: a political system forms the political discourse of a country, if that is a representative system one does not need to know, in a direct democracy - which can by all means have basic laws which are not to be ignored - an actual discourse can be found faster and better. And from what I have seen out of parliaments most of those representatives aren't even there and if so many vote as their party told them to vote. --ǓḤṂ³ 22:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Being a social conservative in America means knowing when to defend the will of the majority and when to say that America is a republic, not a democracy. Already, I've heard 'phobes say that the correct answer on the issue isn't determined by a nose count.  Not too much doublethink there.  ... of liberals? (talk) 21:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

100 Internets
Say Camping gets declared a liberal, come Sunday/Monday. --OompaLoompa (talk) 16:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Camping is a good illustration of how easily people are led to mass hysteria and illogical thinking. I always find this sort of stuff surprising today (I mean, seemingly normal people have upended their lives).  It shows how it must have been so easy to manipulate people in Biblical times to believe whatever, since they already believed in dragons, trolls, leviathons, mermaids, ghosts, whatever.  --Leotardo (talk) 16:45, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sucker's bet. As likely as Andy declaring Captain America a 'conservative movie' when it comes out. Anyone else got any safe CP predictions? --Night Jaguar (talk) 17:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * They won't mention it because it makes the religious look like idiots. --Leotardo (talk) 18:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Heres where they lose me (besides the obvious 'the world is ending tomorow') The guy says its to happen "7000 years after noahs flood". But wait a minute, I thought the earth was only 6006 years old???--Thunderstruck (talk) 18:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I was wondering about that too! --Leotardo (talk) 18:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * According too ebiblefellowship; 11,013 BC is the date of creation, 4990 BC is the flood (genesis has a lot of gaps i guess); 7 BC is when jesus is born (screw everybody saying he was born about when herod died) 1988 AD is when the church age ends and the 23 (not 7) year tribulation begins, 1994 AD is when 2300 day period of the trib ends and god starts saving lots of people, may 21st is the rapture and oct 21st is the world's death via fir.e --Mikalos209 (talk) 21:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So I shouldn't bother sorting a Halloween costume this year? -- 15:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope.

Eh
This is absolute gold, eh? It'll be longer than the Bible one day.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 17:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC) and your entire career is an excercise in stupidity...try contemplating that. Nutty Roux (talk) 17:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Bye, stupid" gave me a laugh. --Leotardo (talk) 17:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Of all those impotent little tyrants, Karajou's block messages have always seemed to be the most obvious self-projection. Nutty Roux (talk) 18:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Is it just me, or is there a correlation between more verbose block messages and oversighted contributions by the blocked user? "Trolling / Liberal Trolling: Our summary was accurate, just as it's accurate to call you a habitual liar as well as a troll." for CarlTurner, for example. Yoritomo (talk) 19:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And here's Jpatt's blocks for some amusement ,Some funny reasons there too. Notice how he can't even spell Pakistan right.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 10:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually that was him poking fun at Obama's "Muslim pronunciation of Pakistan as Pokistan" - further evidence that he's a stinkin' raghead. --OompaLoompa (talk) 10:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh. How familiar are you with CP, anyway?--Colonel Sanders (talk) 10:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Edited there for a while. Been lurking here and there, keeping and eye on things. --OompaLoompa (talk) 10:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Study confirms CP editors have terrible anguished sex
Despite Ed Poor's obvious powers of seduction, I think it's a safe assumption that CP editors are generally an unattractive lot who probably don't have a lot of opportunity to have free sex. But when they do, it's usually bad according to a study [highlights mine]: "Atheists have far better sex lives than religious people who are plagued with guilt during intercourse and for weeks afterwards, researchers have found. Some 79.9 per cent of people raised in very religious homes said they felt guilty about a specific sexual activity or desire while 26.3 per cent of those raised in secular homes did.... Worryingly, children raised in strongly religious homes were more likely to get their sex education from pornography, as they were not confident enough to talk with their parents. However, there was some good news for religious groups. People who had lost their belief and became atheists reported a significant improvement in sexual satisfaction.  People who had left their beliefs behind said their sex lives were 'much improved' and rated their new experiences on average as 7.81 out of ten." Poor Ken. Not only are the religious less healthy (as are their kids), but they also tend to burst into tears after they climax! " Find yourself a conservative wife and you will never " enjoy sex again. --Leotardo (talk) 18:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And while we are on the issue of sex and idiots are people still telling their kids these moronic stories how children are brought by something and haven't been made by two people having sexual intercourse? TBH my parents never made a big deal out of sex, but I also never asked them anything relating to that matter. Not that I'm afraid to - a picture of them would clear up why I didn't and never will. --ǓḤṂ³ 19:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The study is flawed. They didn't include Raelism. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * @UHM- my parents just threw a bunch of sex ed books at me and left me to figure it out for myself. Anything I missed I got from a fifth grader whose parents let him watch the playboy channel--Foucault5.jpgFoucault5.jpgFoucault5.jpg-brxbrx 19:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My parents didn't discuss it with me at all, and for an embarrassingly long time--I'm gay, so it's not like I tried this--I thought to cum in a girl meant you urinated in her. --Leotardo (talk) 19:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Leo there was this one girl I met who...never mind... P-Foster (talk) 19:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Great so I'm not the only one. @Leo: Thank you, I lolled. --ǓḤṂ³ 22:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I miss wet dreams. Sigh - never to be had again.  --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 02:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Does masturbating while blocking a librul count as sex? Enquiring minds want to know. Jimaginator (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sadly, no. But it is a common practice on CP. Especially for Ed Poor, seductomaster as it said somewhere else here at some beginning.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 10:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

GIGO?
I'm afraid I don't understand.-- 20:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Garbage in, garbage out. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * still not getting through my thick skull-- 21:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If you provide garbage input (Andy's lectures), you will get garbage output (vote result), no matter what's in the middle (students). --Sid (talk) 21:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Lolwut? Reagan more influential than Lincoln, Jefferson, FDR, etc.? Actually, what I find surprising is that they let Washington take the #1 slot, where St. Ronnie belongs. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL True story. king of the rats do you wanna kick it in the backseat? 00:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't be the only one who thought that was a play on "WIGO." - Jpop (talk) 00:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Seconded. 02:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact his students voted for Reagan doesn't bug me. Whenever people are polled for "greatest presidents" there is always a bias towards those presidents who were in office during the lifetime of those polled, or at least within a generation.  What is worthy of mention is that he actually believe his students voting this way is significant in any real way. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 07:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I found myself having a hard time expressing the sardonic rage that I felt so I assumed it would be best if I kept it brief. I noticed the similarity to WIGO. Anyone who likes is welcome to express it in a less confusing way, I will not be offended. --Opcn (talk) 09:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I wonder just how much freedom one of Andy's students had to open his mind (the girls were baking cookies for the end of class party) and suggest somebody other than Reagan. Also most influential American? So no Edison, Ford, Oppenheimer? Wow... just wow... --OompaLoompa (talk) 10:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Remember, in Andy's world, everything is ultimately political, therefore politicians are the most important people, period.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Hollyweird strikes again!
So someone posted this Newsblusterers story to MPR, and I naively thought it might be a legit case of "liberal bias" where Heaton was fired or denied a role because she was conservative/Christian/whatever, which would be bigoted bullshit. However, clicking over to the cited article leads to nothing but a one line, offhand comment from Heaton about people saying they wouldn't work with her because of her politics -- no actual cases of her losing work cited. Now recall that she has won multiple Emmy awards, starred in one of the biggest sitcoms of last decade, and gotten multiple roles in other sitcoms. But now, oh noez, Hollyweird libruls are persecuting her! I mean, I've been desensitized to the wingnut persecution complex and faux outrage for some time, but Jiminy fucking FSM, this is petty. This also demonstrates why Newsblusterers will never be a FactCheck or PolitiFact, or even a Media Matters. Finally, I offer a modification of Mencken's definition of "Puritan" Wingnuttery: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be liberal. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My enemy's enemy. Beautiful. Except: "Telling me that she has many gay friends and doesn't oppose gay marriage, Patricia gets frustrated being automatically lumped together with other conservatives, a characterization she says has cost her possible work. "We know for a fact there are some people who have said they wouldn't want to work with us because of our politics," she said, with her husband David Hunt adding, "We get lumped in with lunatics." Nutty Roux (talk) 05:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And in what role does she speak against abortion, euthanesia and capital punishment? Spokeswoman of "Feminists for Life". Beauti-fucking-full. --ǓḤṂ³ 12:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm Terry Chuckarse and I speak for all the Jews!
Chuckarse linkspamming as usual, but just read his latest. The best/worst part is his accusations about everyone else's "ignorance" of history. I tried to snark here, but all I could come up with was "Good fucking grief...." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I enjoy how no one calls him on the fact he is using CP to attempt to make some cash for his own little bog.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 07:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And who did you have in mind that might even attempt this?  Lily Inspirate me. 18:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Did Andy Admit Defeat?
This is from a few days ago since I haven't been following CP closely this week, but here it looks like Andy is not even putting up a fight when a user tries to use logic to debunk 2 of his cp:Counterexamples to an Old Earth. Sure one of those wasn't made by Andy, but the other was. Is Andy going soft? --Tabrcg23 (talk) 07:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I hope not. I love the Schlafly Statistics and faulty arguments that result in bans for violating 90/10 rule against talk, talk, talk. He better not be compromising his YEC viewpoint to an evul librul.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 10:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's just possible that without the late TK's influence Andy has regained limited capacity for rational thought. Kirk Johnson (talk) 10:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. Now that's just scary.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 10:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, since Obama released his birth certificate and killed bin Laden Andy seems nuttier than ever. --Night Jaguar (talk) 15:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Dead infant? Are you kidding me?
Can someone witty please WIGO this? I'm way too tired right now, just in disbelief! ConservapediaEditor (talk) 10:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Link? All I've got is Karajerk copy/pasting stuff. --OompaLoompa (talk) 10:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * http://conservapedia.com./index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&diff=prev&oldid=870058 took forever to find which edit it was--Mikalos209 (talk) 13:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Perl can do anything. http://kobesearch.cpan.org/htdocs/Mediawiki-Blame/Mediawiki/Blame.html --85.76.153.109 (talk) 15:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Karacunt makes a dead baby joke. I love this guy! He wins. Nightwish (talk) 15:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Karajerk's got bird fever!
Notice how CP's Recentchanges are filled with empty bird articles by Karajoke like. I thought they gave up on being an encyclopedia and became solely a right-wing blog.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 11:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sure it won't be long until he finds info he can plagiarise from the Park Board or Museum of Natural History or something. His Civil War copy/paste fiesta is still only half-done, if I remember the links from when "wanted pages" was still viewable. Not to mention battleships. Popeye has worse ADD than Andy. --OompaLoompa (talk) 11:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you just answered your own question - KJ is taking the "right-wing" thing a bit too literally. M.B.E (talk) 18:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sadly the deluded old swabbie still harbours delusions that CP can be an online encyclopaedia. I do hope that his bird articles reflect a young-Earth Christian conservative viewpoint.  Lily Inspirate me. 18:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There's something to be said for the workmanlike efforts of a doofus steadily chipping away at something worthwhile, but honestly what's the point when there's absolutely no possibility on this green earth that that moron can come up with something, let alone 40 or 50 somethings for all those stubs he's making, that could compete with Wikipedia or any of the dozens of better resources out there. There's little chance that a single person will ever use one of those stubs to learn a single thing when (a) they won't show up on the first 10 pages of Google and (b) from a cursory glance it's obvious they're incomplete and simply regurgitate miniscule amounts of material that's available elsewhere, and then some. Wutevs. Nutty Roux (talk) 18:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Herman Cain?
Will people really vote for someone who sounds like a Bond villain's incompetent henchman? -- 22:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Unless they catch Obama with a live boy or a dead girl, he's got this in the bag. He could campaign from a Barcalounger and still do only a teeny bit worse than 2008. P-Foster (talk) 23:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * A goldbug Teabagger? He's pretty much a joke candidate outside of the wingnut and monetary crank circles, if that, since he's not very well known. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You'd think they'd have learned their lesson with that last "We have our own black guy!" debacle.-- 00:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I guess Andy and his mother were raptured
CP is down for me. Andy isn't around to make sure it's up and Syphyllis isn't paying the bills anymore. Senator Harrison (talk) 04:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Up for me. Rodlen (talk) 04:37, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Essay: New Liberal Terms
Hoo yes, time for fun with a new essay. But it's disappointing! Andy says liberals words are increasing as well, but that they are dwarfed by the geometric rate of new conservative words! I had hoped he would try to prove that liberals words are disappearing. Unlike the steady trajectory of conservative words, liberal words crop up in big messy spurts, like in the 1960's. --Leotardo (talk) 14:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * After looking at that list multiple times, I see two terms from the 1960s, not 10. Also, the list is far shorter than the wordcount at the top. Smooth, Andy. Edit: I see that the list of terms doesn't actually correlate to the top count. Errr?  – Nick Heer 14:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sadly it's not a new essay, he just copypasted it from his pet project page. Can't have those liberal words liberalling up that good, honest, hardworking conservative article now can we? ONE / TALK 14:45, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Shockingly Andy's out on his definition of whip and its origin by a couple of hundred years. -- 15:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoa. "Wiki" is a liberal word.  I'm speechless.  (Also, mighty puzzled by the inclusions of "inane" and "telecommute", but I suppose that they're no more arbitrary than the great bulk of Andy's choices.) Phiwum (talk) 15:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's unfinished, so we hopefully have more to look forward to - but the list of words that are on there now are of unknown political persuasion and could go either way. So "telecommute" is one of the bisexuals of linguistics.  --Leotardo (talk) 16:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * For one, they think that missionary means conservative. And yet, they haven't spread religion. --Sigma 7 (talk) 16:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps 'missionary' is liberal because when we talk about it we ain't talkin' bout spreadin' religion as much as legs! --Leotardo (talk) 16:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ignoring the 1600s, and assuming the libs keep up their pace through the rest of the 2000s, it looks like the liberal words are multiplying even faster than the much-heralded perfect doubling by century of their right-wing brethren: 3-13-37-100 could actually be a tripling by century! Give it up, conservatives. --MarkGall (talk) 19:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You obviously don't understand. The pace of conservative words has been 25-51-100-203.  Now, 3 < 25, 13 < 51, 37 < 100 and 100 < 203.  So, clearly, conservative words are winning.  It's simple arithmetic, man. Phiwum (talk) 20:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Cannot fathom why genetics deserves both a place in the Liberal Terms article, and the comment "perhaps this should be on the conservative list?". There is literally (no really!) nothing I can see about the word that can possibly be politicised.AlexR4444 (talk) 17:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)