Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive232

This is an archive page, last updated 29 April 2011. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>

, (new)(back)

JPratt read good!

JPratt: Standard and Poor's downgrades U.S. credit rating^img
Standard & Poor: Err... no we haven't.

Fuck's sake, Pratti. READ the source. THEN engage brain. THEN post. They've said the outlook is negative, and claim that "there is a one in three chance of the U.S. losing its 'AAA' rating". Do you understand the difference? Do you need a tissue to wipe away the drool now? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 21:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you understand the difference between having a long-term outlook of stable being downgraded to an outlook of negative? This wasn't just some chickenshit statement. The market sure does understand the significance of today's release. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 00:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm genuinely confused right now - you both are saying basically the same thing, but it's still looking like disagreement. This here isn't about the significance of what did happen (that S&P changes outlook to negative), it's about Jpatt making things up that didn't happen (that S&P downgrades the US credit rating). Either way, it's a moot point now - Andy acknowledged the issue after somebody brought it up on the talk page and switched "credit rating" to "credit outlook". --Sid (talk) 01:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Suspected is right--there's a difference between S&P's outlook, and what JPatt said, that the rating itself had been downgraded. ConservapediaEditor seems to be foaming at the mouth here for no good reason, mostly because he asks about knowing a difference but never mentions what the difference is between. P-Foster (talk) 01:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The ad hominems don't work here, so don't make this personal. While the credit grade was not downgraded, the long term outlook was, and the market considered this to be a big deal. Go after Conservapedia for trying to pin this on liberals, but trying to defend the fiscal rating of this country by the S&P by clinging to the fact that the overall rating was not lowered is a pretty tenuous position when the log term outlook was. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 02:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

All the sources I find call it a "credit downbgrade"; and S&P basically says if it wasn't for the fact the US is big big big, the AAA would have been downbgraded. If it had been anybody else, they AAA rating itslf would have been downbgrade today. S&P is saying, all things being equal, and the unwillingness of the US to get control of its growing debt, it would have been downgraded today. You can parse it anyway you want't, but in the end the AAA rating will be downgraded in the very near future if the status quo is maintained. Which begs the question, is President Obama the first US president on whose watch the US recieved a Standard & Poors "credit downgrad"? nobs^{don't bother me} 03:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

No, Rob, he's not the first President in office while the S&P threatened to downgrade the United State's sovereign credit rating. It hasn't even happened yet as far as I can tell. Nutty Roux (talk) 04:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

This is typical CP bullshit. Thinking about doing something and doing it are two different things. Please, please learn the difference. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 06:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

S&P is giving a heads-up to purchasers thinking a quarterly return of .04%, or about $12 per annum on a $10,000 T-bill, is a good deal, that since the administration is hell-bent on resisting entitlement reform, and the GOP committed to nixing tax increases, the outlook is negative and S&P will be doing a credit rate downgrade which will up the return on investment to something more like the government of Greece pays. nobs^{don't bother me} 05:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Andy's followup^img "story" is a fun read too. Quoth teh Assfly: "The Dow Jones Industrial Average plunges 140 points on the news of possible downgrading of the creditworthiness of the United States government." Value of the Dow Jones on Jan 16, the last day before Obama took office: 8281.22. Value of the Dow Jones today, even after this fall: 12201.59. To finish Andy's quote: "Thank you, liberals.". Liberals say: "Our pleasure". –SuspectedReplicant retire me 06:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Considering that Japan's recent credit downgrade was a non-event in terms of interest rates, I'm thinking a possibly maybe threat to downgrade US credit is going to be one as well. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Actual creditors don't seem to care all that much about this, as interest rates on government bonds haven't risen. And as long as we're tying market fluctuations to specific events, it's interesting to look at the five-year chart. The two most obvious short-term changes happen to coincide very closely with the 2008 and 2010 elections - a very sharp drop (indicating a lowered perception of default risk) following the Democrats' across-the-board victory in 2008, and a noticeable rise following the GOP's recent comeback. Investors seem to have a pretty clear opinion on which party will do better in managing the US debt, keeping default risk low and safeguarding their investment. Röstigraben (talk) 06:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Not true. If a government bond pays 4%, and inflation is 6%, your looosing your ass. Investors will demand an "inflation premium." Once interest on US government debt rises, that with $5 & $6 per gallon gas prices, and the exten the debt is purchaed by foreigners all economic growth in the US will be exported to foreignersa, choking off the recovery at a time unemployment remains at 9%. Recessions typically add 4 or 5% to unemployment so now we're looking at 13% unemployment as a distint liklihood in the near future. And the IMF's plan to drop the dollar as a reserve asset later this year also weighs heavy. nobs^{don't bother me} 06:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget about the relationship of the stock market to solar cycles now. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

All the sources I find call it a "credit downbgrade"; and S&P basically says if it wasn't for the fact the US is big big big, the AAA would have been downbgraded. If it had been anybody else, they AAA rating itslf would have been downbgrade today. - what is wrong with you Rob? ^{ONE / TALK} 12:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm typing in the dark. nobs^{don't bother me} 05:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

LOL! I love our strange friend nobs. ħuman 04:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Never a truer word spoken. Not in quite the way you intended it nobs obviously but certainly true. Oldusgitus (talk) 05:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Double LOL, pwned! ħuman 04:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

PLINO

PLINO^img

Are there CINOs (Conservative In Name Only)? --Dave 91 (talk) 10:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of moving the link into the body to make for clearer capturing, I hope you don't mind. :) And man, I was hoping he'd forget about his crusade to coin a new term for this (there had been a discussion on Talk:Main Page a while ago, which included gems like "PLIAR - "Pro-life in arranging reelection (only)")... --Sid (talk) 10:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe Christians in Name Only, because whatever Schlafly proclaims himself to be, his latest utterances prove he's miles away from mainstream Christianity. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 11:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Just about everyone of assflys utterances show he is a long way awy from ANY form of christinaity, let alone mainstream. Oldusgitus (talk) 11:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

You got it mixed up: This just proves that Christianity has been secularized by liberals - Andy is actually one of the few remaining true Christians, and current Christianity is actually Christianity In Name Only. Deny this and lose all credibility! --Sid (talk) 12:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Right. Open your mind, and you'll see that one of the hallmarks of a true Christian is the knowledge that almost no one else is. You don't think Andy is going to be lamestream Christian, do you? ... of liberals? (talk) 13:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Andy isn't a lamestream anything. He's a true maverick forerunner, full of insights! --Sid (talk) 19:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Isn't PLINO a game on The Price Is Right or something? --Kels (talk) 02:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

PLINKO - Pro Life in Name (Kinda) Only 72.92.128.62 (talk) 13:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

A Plinko-commie leftist liberal atheist? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 13:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah Plinko. WP has a massive article on it. --Leotardo (talk) 13:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm astounded that their bio of Bob Barker doesn't mention his involvement in the martial arts, being trained by Ken's dream date, Chuck Norris. --Kels (talk) 21:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

An oldie, but a stupidie

Maybe I'm late to the party, but I was just reading Jpatt's Obama's Unlawful acts, and the very first one struck me:

The government's bailout of American International Group (AIG) is sharia-compliant, in violation of the U.S. Constitution's Establishment Clause.

How can they be so stupid? Don't they even think? Jpatt, let's talk this out. I know this was almost 2.5 years ago...but when was the AIG bailout? I'll let you look it up...what's that? Wikipedia (and short-term memory) tells you that it was in 2008? Alright, good, now...did PRESIDENT Obama, in 2008, give AIG a sharia-compliant bailout? In 2008? When he was President, in September of 2008??? Some people's children, I swear...</rant> ^{— Unsigned, by: Carlaugust / talk / contribs 01:10 20 April, 2011}

And that's only the tip of the stupidity iceberg. Sort of like saying any statutes against murder are Talmud compliant, a violation of the establishment clause. (Okay, I realize there is no federal statute against murder, but that's not the point.) DickTurpis (talk) 02:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

How the fuck does a company that mixed derivatives (gambling) with insurance (which many muslims consider gambling) come out to be sharia compliant? Isn't that sort of like a sharia compliant pork farm? --Opcn (talk) 02:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

A guess: Because AIG operated in a modern pluralist society it needed to offer products that meet various religious restrictions. For many Muslims (and a few other groups) it is forbidden to pay interest. So instead of a conventional mortgage (in which there is a large loan against the Real Property and the home owner pays off this loan plus interest) they need a structure in which the same money is paid (so that the lender is willing to do the deal) but there is no actual interest, and thus no actual loan. A typical structure is that the bank has a trust which buys the house you wanted, and it then leases the house to you at an unusually high rent over a long period (say 20-25 years), but it includes a fractional ownership with each month's rent. So when the lease terminates you're the outright owner.

The bailout will either have been structured merely not to interfere with this (kicking perhaps thousands of families onto the streets just because of their religion is too stupid for even the Bush government) or perhaps it is itself structured in a way which to a suitably warped mind resembles these "Sharia mortgages". Either way it's pragmatic rather than religious in character and therefore of no relevance to the Establishment clause. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 08:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, 18 U.S.C. § 1111 : US Code - Section 1111 -- So they're Talmud-compliant whenever you're in US jurisdiction but not in a US state. The whole "eye for an eye" situation of that statute (and most state variants) is about as Talmud-compliant as you can get too. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 08:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

As someone who lives in the UK and is moderately tolerant but definately atheist I have never understood why there is such an outcry over so-called sharia compliant practices. So what if 2 people want to resolve a dispute using sharia principles? So long as they both agree and it has no effect on wider society who gives a shit? Sharia mortagages are pure sophistry anyway, as is xian justification for paying interest. Don't forget usury is a sin in the bibul isn't it? If their sky daddy does exist he will know what is in their hearts and will know they have been indulging in sophistry to get around his strictures so they're fucked anyway.

And in the UK why do the people who whine so much about so called sharia courts never seem so bothered about the beth din? Or is it that to learn about the beth din would need some thought and research on their part and they are all too pig-ignorant and knee jerk anti-islamic to bother? Oldusgitus (talk) 09:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

My only qualms about using any religious law to settle disputes is the degree of freedom that both parties have into submitting to the jurisdiction of that system. Our civil legal system is based on rights that have been developed over centuries and we specifically (in the UK) legislate against agreements which may attempt to diminish or remove those rights (such as Unfair Contract Terms). Given that many religions consign women to second-class status or chattels I am concerned about peer-group pressure for a woman to submit to a religious court when she might be better served by a civil court.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 10:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Totally agree Lily. The onus is on agree and that agreement must be free of any pressure on either side. If not then either party can and should revert to civial law. Oldusgitus (talk) 11:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Mr Gitus, surely a man of your senior years and thus experience cannot possibly be so naive to think that a woman would ever "agree" to go to a sharia court? Unless by agree you mean "yes OK please stop beating me/let me out of this small room/don't kill me"? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 11:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely Mr Star. But should you and I ever wish to resolve a dispute using incan legal jurisprudence and we are both in full agreement to do so then why not? In the absence of such agreement, or the suspicion that coercion may have been used in any way, then secular law must always be applied. Don't get me wrong, I think anyone who bases their legal system on the fables written down dy semi-literate goat herders thousands of years ago is a bit of an idiot. But if they really want to then go ahead. Just leave me and my belief in a secular legal system out of it. I always used to have great fun when I was in court because I always insited on affirming. And didn't it piss off the clerks of the courts. Oldusgitus (talk) 12:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure some would agree. Surely you cannot possibly be so naive as to think that there aren't plenty of women who willingly subjugate themselves to men on religious grounds. Does the name Phyllis Schlafly mean nothing to you? DickTurpis (talk) 12:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

There are also a fair number of women who willingly subjugate themselves to men on kinky grounds *fist-bumps stunteddwarf* ^{ONE / TALK} 14:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘It's telling that the creeping Sharia types never object to the Halakha or Ecclesiastical courts in the US. Let them have their little play trials, as long as it's not binding according to civil law, which it isn't. It's not any different than other clubs or social organizations having rules and arbitration procedures. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

CP and TP

Has anybody else ever noticed the similarities between CP and TP? For one they rhyme. They're also both worthy of wiping your ass on. They're both sometimes full of shit. You want to flush both of them down the toilet. They're both mass produced. Tonservapedia (TP) (talk) 14:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

No.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 15:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Is CP quillted? 2ply? Able to stand up to "Taco Tuesday"? Untill then, your comparison means nothing. I have spoken.--Thunderstruck (talk) 15:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The similarities between TP and CP are striking. But it does not withstand closer scrutiny. Deny this and lose all credibility. ^{ONE / TALK} 16:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

TP serves the public, CP, nope. TP is based in physical reality, CP, nope. I agree with all of the above, except where I disagree. So there. Jimaginator (talk) 20:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

One reason I don't doubt their similarities is because they are too absurd and useless for someone to make up with a straight face!!! Damo^Hi 20:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

That and producing TP supplies people with employment and income while editing CP just wastes everyone's time and server space. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 23:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘dislike. Rationalize (talk) 01:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I am willing to pay actual money for a regular supply of aloe vera-infused TP. I can't be bothered to even figure out proxies to read CP version 403 prior to using the aforementioned TP. ħuman 04:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

If you're not a birther, you're a RINO

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, one of the country's most wingnut governors, vetoed their recently passed birther bill because it was poorly written (arguably, not extreme enough for her). Because she vetoes a birther bill, CP calls her a RINO^img. So according to CP, you're a RINO unless you believe against all evidence that Obama was not born in the United States. --Leotardo (talk) 13:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Well if Obama really was born in the US, as all you liberals seem so sure of, there's a simple way for your God himself to put an end to all this speculation: release his long-form birth certificate. He continues to refuse to do so, and continues to lie to the American people in order to push his socialist agenda and anti-American policies. 200.54.92.187 (talk) 14:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course he hasn't released it. You wanna know why? Because it makes dumbasses like you look bad. Plus, he has released it. But if you ignore those facts, then you need to, at least, face the fact that the "birthers" make the Rapeublicans look bad. Punky ^{Your mental puke relief} 14:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

If only you put the same sort of scrutiny to your belief in God, would you realize how retarded the whole birther argument is. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 14:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

As useful as birtherism is for identifying fucking lunatics, it would be even more fun to see their reaction to the release of the "long form", if a copy still exists. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

(EC)Exactly. Why doesn't Jesus just provide his long form birth certificate? Clearly, when we see that "God" is listed as the father, all arguments against Christianity will evaporate. Quaru^{flan - You can't explain that!} 14:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Leave the birthers be. Otherwise they might engage in harmful activities.--Brendiggg (talk) 14:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

In the words of Jpatt-rick Henry "Give me a birth certificate, or give me a coup!" I aso see he's taking lessons from Rob in how not to reply to a questioner.^img --PsyGremlinSprich! 14:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

And they used to be so fond of her^img back when she was fighting for the crazy immigration bill. Once somebody disagrees with even just a single one of their idiotic causes, they immediately fall from grace. Well, good luck finding and purging all the pro-Brewer stuff on your wiki, guys. Röstigraben (talk) 14:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the birthers have already suggested the next step in their lunacy. The Orly Taitz brigade has been spreading stories of a birth certificate being sent to some secret location in Canada to be phonied up. So, the response to the release of the legendary Long Form Birth Certificate Which Contains No Lies And Sings The Sweet Truth? "It's fake. If you're not afraid, send it to us." And round and round we go.

Speaking of which: BoN, if you're still around, could you tell me what exactly you are expecting to see on this mythical long form birth certificate that isn't already on the birth certificate you have seen? 江斯顿^{What is it now?} 15:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Out of all the stupid this people say, the birther movement has always baffled me the most. Let's grant the stupid for a minute: Obama's mom traveld from Hawaii to Kenya, late in her pregnancy, gave a birth in secret, and then returned. She was still a US Citizen, so that means Obama is still a natural born citizen, right? Carlaugust (talk) 16:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

You have to be born on American soil and to two white people. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

(EC) This whole birther thing is just an ass-lame excuse for their deliberate ignorance that the majority of the American people favored the "socialist ideas" (haha! you people have never seen socialism!) over their "conservative ideas". Quick! The majority of the population doesn't agree with us anymore let's claim that the new Monarch isn't the real son of the King the new President has no right to be the President! They are just drowning and trying to catch a straw to somehow make reality go all away. --UHM, Your favorite pain in the ass! 16:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Taking another step back: conservatives hate America so much are so xenophobic that they wouldn't allow a better man to do the job because of where he was born. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The first 10 minutes of someone's life are the most formative, after all... Carlaugust (talk) 16:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I guess I have to disagree with Occasionaluse. If the Constitution requires that the President be natural-born, then of course this matters and it's not xenophobic to say so. We might think that this is a bad clause in the Constitution, but if so, it ought to be amended. As it stands, place of birth is relevant to fitness to serve as US President, because the Constitution says so. (Which is not to say, of course, that the Birther conspiracy is anything but batshit crazy.) Phiwum (talk) 00:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The thing is, it doesn't say in the constitution where they have to be born. It just says a "natural born citizen" which just means a citizen at birth. There's two ways to attain this. Being born within the country, or being born to citizens. So even if he was born in Kenya, his mom was a citizen, and that gets extended to him. So, no, it doesn't matter where they're born. Or at least, it doesn't just matter where they're born, but who they're born to. Quaru^{flan - You can't explain that!} 01:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

There does not seem to be any ambiguity here. "Natural Born Citizen" means a citizen born in the US, in this context. This is what it means. Had Obama been born elsewhere, he would have been a citizen, but not eligible to be President. (See Wikipedia article.) It may seem arbitrary, but that really is the rule. Phiwum (talk) 03:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

BZZZZZZT! Oh, I'm sorry but that would negate John McCain running for POTUS as well. You Lose. 03:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

But US military bases are US sovereign territory are they not? Rather like embassies are classed as the territory of the goverment they belong to. Oldusgitus (talk) 05:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know anything about McCain's birth, but my claim is simple enough. The Birthers didn't make up the interpretation of "natural born". It happens to be the correct interpretation (where "correct" means "the interpretation used by the courts"). It also happens to have some evidence that it is the historically intended interpretation. There are so many truly stupid things that the Birthers say. If you want to feel superior to them, then perhaps you should focus on the stupid things they say rather than pretending the few accurate claims are mistaken. (Again, the Wikipedia article gives good explanation for the meaning of the term.) Phiwum (talk) 12:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

As stated below, that page on wikipedia does in fact say that being born in Kenya to an american citizen qualifies as "citizen at birth" and agrees that, per common law, that makes them "natural born citizens" I mean, if you only count the earliest decisions, you are correct, but subsequent judgements and laws are quite clear that this counts. Quaru^{flan - You can't explain that!} 13:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Even for Conservapedia, supporting the birthers seems pretty bad. It should be important to everyone that what they believe is true. As thinking, supposedly rational beings, it is important to investigate, to the best of your abilities, both claims you think are true, and claims you think are false. Yes, investigate the birther issue, yes, investigate evolution, yes, the origin of the universe, yes the existence of God. SEE FOR YOURSELF what experts and non-experts alike have to say about such things. Do not accept what non-credible sources have to say. Seek out credible sources, not blogs and rants. READ books, check the facts. FIND OUT! Learn the truth. It may be difficult, but you can do it! Jimaginator (talk) 17:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

It's pretty simple -- if you're not as batshit crazy as the Assfly, you're a RINO. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Anything less conservative than Andy is liberal. And yet they still wonder why they're not attracting big-shot conservatives... --Sid (talk) 21:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

By almost any standard, Andy isn't a conservative. He'd never admit it, but his ideas are actually incredibly radical. Batshit, most of them, but radical. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 21:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

It's difficult to call any of the wingnut factions (generally referring to the religious right and hardline "public roads are creeping socialism" libertarians) in the US today "conservative" in the traditional sense of the word. Reactionary is more appropriate. The end goal is to dismantle the social security system of the New Deal and programs built upon it, severely limit the power of labor and unionism, and junk the separation of church and state. Ironically, the one place where they tend to be liberal is foreign policy as old leftists jumped ship and infiltrated the GOP under the neocon banner. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

"US sovereign territory"

Yeah, no. Neither military bases nor embassies are conventionally sovereign territory. In the case of an embassy it would completely miss the point. An embassy is like a church, it's first and foremost a bunch of people, and the building is just to keep the rain off. So the embassy has to be in a foreign country, it's just that there are treaties which grant the ambassador and to a lesser extent other consular staff certain immunities in order that they can do their jobs more effectively. The building is just a building. Usually a really nice, stone building in an expensive part of a major city. But just a building. Military bases are occasionally sovereign territory (e.g. "Sovereign Base Areas" owned by Britain in Cyprus because it's an ex-colony), but it's the exception rather than the rule. In the absence of a lot of paperwork showing otherwise, assume the base is merely on leased land and subject to a treaty. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 09:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm pulling this down here, even though I'm replying to Phiwum as well. Did you read the wikipedia article you linked to? Not only does it support my statement, that anyone born to citizens (who have resided at least X years in the US) as citizens at birth (the definition of "natural born citizen") but it also quite clearly says "Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth." So yeah. Quaru^{flan - You can't explain that!} 12:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Let me deal with the second part first: I never made any claim about military installations or embassies, so this isn't to the point. I have no opinion regarding, say, McCain's status as a natural-born citizen, which is evidently controversial according to that same article. Now, as for the first part: "Citizen at birth" is not the meaning of "natural born citizen" in the fourteenth amendment. At least, that's not my understanding. Can you point out the part of the article which says otherwise?

In any case, the issue seems more complicated than I realized. Here is an excerpt from [2]

Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"

• Anyone born inside the United States (footnote: There is an exception in the law — the person must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.)
• Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
• Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
• Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
• Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
• Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
• Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
• A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.

If that site is authoritative, then it would appear that Obama is natural born by the second-to-last clause, regardless of where he was born. But the site is one man's project, a college grad with a poli sci degree. I don't really know whether we should count it as reliable or not. In any case, I thought the issue was perhaps more clearly settled than it is. Despite my repeated references to the WP article, I couldn't find a single place where the article clearly stated that "In the 14th amendment, the term means....".

Addendum: I found the clearest opinion in that WP article (finally). I'd say it supports your claim more than it supports mine. Here it is:

According to an April 2000 report by the Congressional Research Service, most constitutional scholars interpret Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution as including citizens born outside the United States to parents who are U.S. citizens under the "natural born" requirement. This same CRS report also asserts that citizens born in the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands are legally defined as "natural born" citizens and are, therefore, also eligible to be elected President.'

If this is correct, then most constitutional scholars think that Obama's place of birth is irrelevant (at least assuming that the statement means "at least one parent who is a citizen" rather than both). Phiwum (talk) 13:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

That is a more or less correct rendering of Section 1401. The relevant section is (g). And I didn't mean to imply that you argued about McCain, though rereading it, I see how you got that. I was trying to cover both replies. And it's not a "feel superior to Birthers" it's just a matter of being factually correct. Their arguments often come off as similar to tax protesters, ignoring 200 years of decisions since what they're referencing. Quaru^{flan - You can't explain that!} 13:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Michele Bachmann a RINO?

Apparently, Michele Bachmann will be branded a RINO too. --Shagie (talk) 01:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Screenshot copyright box

Isn't it time we started calling them "screenshits"? I can't believe we haven't gone there before... ħuman 04:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the Wiki is starting to outgrow such terminology. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

That would be a sad day indeed. ħuman 09:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Conservative constitution project

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=prev&oldid=862629^img "removing ambiguity, clarifying and making use of powerful conservative terms not available to the authors" I'm not sure if I would cry or laugh. --Mikalos209 (talk) 05:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, who couldn't see that coming? I'm surprised the Bible project was done first, really. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Technically weren't the founders "Liberal" in the sense the rest of the planet uses the world?--Mikalos209 (talk) 05:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

They were even liberal in the American sense; a number of the Founding Fathers are on record as advocating limits on the growth of corporations and, of course, separation of church and state. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

In that they advocated revolution, they were radicals. Of course, the attempts by ideologues of all stripes to claim various historical figures as part of their "heritage" reeks of presentism. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

And non-historical characters like God or Jesus(?).  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 06:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I have to say I think it is a brilliant idea. Should they go ahead and do this they will alienate even the fringe wing-nuts who still give them anything approaching the time of day. It is just a shame that someone may have burned what seems to be decent sock in order to try to get this up and running. Oldusgitus (talk) 07:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Seeing as it was written by a likely parodist I wouldn't give it too much weight, until Andy or somebody actually picks up on it. --PsyGremlinTala! 08:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Well I sort of thought parodist at first then I looked at his contributions and I did wonder slightly. Oldusgitus (talk) 08:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Let JPatt do it! He's swiftly emerging as CP's foremost constitutional scholar, and he'd get the chance to bring the Constitution in line with his essays. They'd just have to hire somebody else to get rid of the typos and grammatical errors after he's done. Röstigraben (talk) 08:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

They won't have to hire fuck. Busloads of eager parodists will appear out of nowhere to help make the CCP into something Andy will be happy with, just like they did with the CBP. The more Andy proudly brags about the thing the better, after all. Hateboy (talk) 11:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I think this is actually a big step back in offensiveness from the CBP. Despite being an atheist, even I know that it's seriously inappropriate to mess around with 'holy' texts. This project could be very informative, since it might help explain the conservative viewpoint much more clearly. If they include the original text, it would be very useful, and would help to cement their perspective on government. Lardashe 13:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Informative? Hardly - as with all things CP, the project will turn into a giant heap a shit, as Schlafly changes the meaning to suit his - not the conservative - world view. Just as you don't need to know Greek to translate the Bible, you don't need to know law to rewrite the constitution. If anything, it would be an even bigger abortion than the CBP. --PsyGremlinPrata! 13:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Atlas Shrugged

Interestingly Conservapedia lists Atlas Shrugged as the best conservative movie, at the same time dedicating an entire article to criticize the book. It is interesting to see how Conservapedia ranks a film at top which is adopted from an atheist, pro-abortion writer. It is also an irony they love this movie so such despite the fact it shows extramarital affair in a positive light. --Dave 91 (talk) 07:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

the article in question, if you read it, is a rebuttal to criticism of the novel--Brxbrx (talk) 08:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

And was written almost exclusively by VomitBum. Seems he has quite a lot of interest in the novel - I thought YEC was his single-issue cause but I guess he has a vague interest in economics too. ^{ONE / TALK} 08:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

In any case, the film does not do the social conservative job. --Dave 91 (talk) 08:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Chuckarse has a huge hard-on for Rand, and an even bigger one for cp:John Galt. We await his unbiased review of the movie with bated breath. Just as soon as he returns to CP - --PsyGremlinSpeak! 08:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

403s and Google

Hello, I have a question. I keep reading that Google doesn't like it if your site is out too often and for too long. I also keep reading that Google really doesn't like it if you present the Googlebot with a different version of your pages than you ship to regular users. Apparently they actively penalize sites that try to do SEO this way. Now how can Google detect this kind of cheating? They have to do spot checks with inconspicuous random User-Agent strings from inconspicuous random IPs, right? Arent't they bound to access CP from the wrong side of a 403 fence, not just occasionally any more but more or less regularly? Won't the algorithm have to see this as evidence of either persistent outages or cheating and downrank the site accordingly?

They are setting themselves up for a significant decrease in traffic, aren't they? Ken will cry bitter tears if his essay stops being the #7 search result for "Lesbianism, atheism and obesity" on Google Outer Mongolia. Hateboy (talk) 11:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

they send another version?--Mikalos209 (talk) 12:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I think he meant the 403-"version". It's not really another version for search engines, but Hateboy is on to something, I think:

Yes, they are setting themselves up for a decrease in traffic since tons of people are unable to access the site. However, whether Google or any other search engine will mess with the ranking is likely a more complicated question (in part because Google keeps the details of its algorithm a secret). Without being a SEO expert, I see two angles right off the bat:

1. The Googlebot gets blocked. In that case, CP is simply hosed because Google would assume this site to be permanently down and would likely just not display CP results at all.
2. Bounce. IIRC, Google keeps track of whether a search result was helpful by checking if the user immediately returns to the search page and tries other results. So if a user does a search, gets a CP result, clicks it, and then returns to Google to try other results, Google will conclude that the CP result was unhelpful, which might lead to downrating.

Ken of course is crying in a corner right now, even without Google woes. He is the only sysop who actually has some clue about attracting readership that is not complete fringe. He knows that Andy's antics insights are turning away people who miiiiiight have been convinced of the merits of conservatism/Christianity/YEC otherwise. So this is pretty much the last nail in the coffin: Tons of people won't even get far enough to be turned away by content - they will never even reach the site. No matter how much Ken "pretties up" the main page, no matter how many wikilinks, satellite articles or essays he creates, no matter how much he trolls forums, his audience has a fair chance of not being able to access CP. --Sid (talk) 12:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

1. Yes, I meant the 403 "version." From Google's point of view, the Googlebot – which connects to CP from US IP addresses not affiliated with academia and will therefore not be 403d – is being dealt pages that a clear majority of the Internet cannot see. This has got to register somewhere at some point.
2. The chances they'll ever directly block the Googlebot are very, very slim. Like I said, the Googlebot connects from non-campus IP addresses in God's Own Country and CP mainly blocks universities and dirty foreigners. My question is about what will happen to their rankings anyway. Hateboy (talk) 18:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't assume Google is only accessing sites with bots from the US. They have servers all over the world, if they are getting reports from some servers that CP is inaccessible it will lower their rankings. - π 01:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I'd like to see someone accidentally 403-block Ken. --Kels (talk) 01:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I'd like to see someone intentionally 403-block Ken. --Scream!! (talk) 01:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Uh-oh...

HSMom has called^img Popeye on his Civil War copy/paste fest. Countdown to Koward throwing a major wobbly in 3... 2... --PsyGremlinZungumza! 15:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

As expected. "Oh dear, you caught me red handed. Wow, am I embarrassed now." er... not quite. And you're not improving it and others like it, why?^img The man is a boor. --PsyGremlinSpeak! 16:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Is HSMom really a very subtle parodist? Honestly, I can't see why she'd continue with the site at this point. MDB (talk) 16:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't it faith in homeschooling? Occasionaluse (talk) 16:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I think she still harbours some hope that CP could become a viable home-schooling resource. She genuinely cares about the site and keeps trying to educate Andy et al that it doesn't need their bullshit. However, now her days may be numbered. Nobody calls Koward a lazy, no thinking, fuckhead, who hasn't even got the creativity to copy edit the stuff he copy/pastes, and gets away with it. --PsyGremlinParlez! 16:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Assuming she's what she claims to be, I feel sorry for her. I might disagree with her on a whole range of issues, but she seems like a very sweet woman who honestly wants CP to be what it originally purported to be. She also seems reasonably intelligent; if I were her, I'd pull a PJR and just start my own site. MDB (talk) 16:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Sweet women who honestly wants CP to be what it originally purported to be are usually Psygremlin. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

LOL! eh, watashi? -PsyGremlinSiarad! 19:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Déjà vu --Too tired to log in (talk) 17:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

From TTTLI's link: "If you see something that is plagarised, and it's clear that it is, immediately remove it." - Karajou. Classic. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

No need to worry, KowardJerksofmenformoney has already eloquently explained how it's not plagiarism^img, so he can just direct HSMom to that rant. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 18:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Does he seriously believe that CP is growing? Seriously? My God... *facepalms* --Sid (talk) 18:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind that, does he seriously expect us to believe that he listens to Brahms and Strauss? Junggai (talk) 19:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Don't forget that in Leon Gary Oldman as the psycho cop listens to Mozart. Add in Alex from A Clockwork Orange and I think you can see a link developing here. Oldusgitus (talk) 19:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

To that one might add Harvey Keitel in Fingers. Junggai (talk) 19:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually caring about conservapedia is a classic mistake. --Opcn (talk) 02:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I had Karajou pegged as more of a k-Billy's super sounds of the 70's psycho. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 03:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Swabbie is keeping it classy

Two teen girls commit suicide during their sleepover as part of a suicide pact due to them being bullied and ostracized by other teens [3]. Swabbie uses the tragedy as a personal political opportunity to make a jab at public schools^img, as if kids in private schools or are home schooled never suffer depression or suicidal thoughts. Now that's real class. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I would imagine his point is that the bullying that drove them to suicise is somehow unique to the public schools. MDB (talk) 18:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you're putting more thought into this than Kara did. That entry is nine words long and one of them is singled out for emphasis. His point is "public schools bad." 江斯顿^{What is it now?} 18:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I remember growing up that homskollars got bullied like whoa. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

But the ones you knew Occasionaluse were obviously bullied by the publicly educated kids, therefore meaning public schools are bad. SJ ^Debaser 18:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Well...yeah. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

This here fiver says kids in private schools are significantly more likely to commit suicide than kids in public schools. I have a specific reason to believe this. It even involves religion. Mountain Blue 18:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Please explain. MDB (talk) 10:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Being in a private school correlates with having been born to money, which correlates with not being Latino, which correlates with being Protestant as opposed to Catholic. Catholics have lower suicide rates, in many different countries on several continents. Nobody knows why. Mountain Blue (talk) 15:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

My guess is because they are told all the time that if they end there suffering now, the will suffer untill the end of all time and beyond without any help from the God that loves them - you know, because you took your live before he did. Thinking about it, that's as classy as Swabbie. And thinking about it even further is Catholic Faith related to the Stockholm Syndrome? --UHM, Your favorite pain in the ass! 21:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Except, of course, for the large numbers of Catholic schools (unless you're differentiating between sectarian private schools and church-run private schools.) MDB (talk) 15:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Except for those, of course, yes. I guess I was differentiating between "WASPy New England prep school" and "other". Mountain Blue (talk) 20:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Surely the data on that exists. 21:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the biggest demographic factor for suicide is whether you're LGBT or not. With LGBT people around 5 times more likely to kill themselves. Generally this can be lowered by being open and supportive in the community and environment (i.e., school) but there seems to be a suggestion that this also lowers suicide rates in heterosexual teens. This makes sense because if you're going to be caring and compassionate and understanding to one specific group, you'll almost certainly treat everyone else the same way by extension. If we assume that homeschooling communities are (stereotypically) deeply religious and practically fundamentalist, we can say that they are emphatically not accepting of gay people. Hope that helps. ADK^{...I'll meditate your lentil soup!} 21:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Rats from a ship

That damn Karl Rove screwed us over!^img they say, simply because they do not like the state of affairs they have found themselves in. Obama is Roves fault because Rove gave us bad advice, well he didn't give us bad advice it was 'good' advice and we liked it at the time, and point by point we can go back and we still like it, but now that this terrible thing called Obama has happened we blame Rove! --Opcn (talk) 03:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a different tune than the rightwing was singing in 2004, when everything we knew about Bush in 2008 we also knew in 2004. --Leotardo (talk) 15:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Give it up for Angle

Seems like Andy loves his annyoing new catchphrase so much that he's just stopped caring about the context altogether. According to CP^img, a Republican Senator who resigned after admitting an affair and coming under an ethics investigation will be replaced by a Republican Representative, whose seat could be taken over by...another Republican! Or maybe not, since the challenger could be Sharron Angle, who already wasted another excellent opportunity in the last election. So the best case scenario for the GOP is to hold the seat, there's no upside whatsoever and they can only lose. Needless to say, liberals will be so disheartened by this massive power shift that they'll probably just go and jump off the nearest cliff. Röstigraben (talk) 06:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Rostigrabbin', you're clueless when it comes to liberal bias from the lamestream media. Perhaps wackypedia would be a better place for your talk, talk, talk. Deny this and lose all credibility. Godspeed. PACODOG^{woof, bitches} 06:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah I almost forgot: Give it up, liberals. That's right. PACODOG^{woof, bitches} 06:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

So, completely ignore the conservative, Pentecostalist, Promise Keeper, anti-porn RINO senator's marital infidelity, abuse of power and general deceit to take a swipe at liberals because there is unlikely to be any change in the political balance? FFS. They might also like to amend their article on Ensign concerning his running for re-election in 2012.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 07:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

GOP shoots itself in the foot. Give it up, liberals? (Still waiting on the "Fidel Castro resigns, give it up commies liberals!" headline.) Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 08:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

"A Republican resigned today over a scandal. He might be replaced by another Republican after a special election. Give it up, liberals!" Isn't that what Andy's saying? EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 12:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

They don't chastise Ensign because they are Republican cultists - same reason they had no problem with whoring diaper boy David Vitter in Louisiana. --Leotardo (talk) 15:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

To believe that Reid beat Angle solely because Angle was a bad candidate is a bit naïve and underestimates the strength of Harry Reid's extraordinary campaigning abilities. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 19:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Unstable

As opposed to unhinged, I mean. CP has been up and down like a whore's drawers all morning. 500 errors nearly every second click. The site is falling over rapidly. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 09:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Well stop clicking then! You're only ruining it for the rest of us.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 10:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I blame ken. I got a look at RC and ...damn. Senator Harrison (talk) 10:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I blame all the people leaving facebook for the truth and light.--Mikalos209 (talk) 12:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget the masses that are leaving Liberal Wikipedia in favor of an encyclopedia that values The Truth. Oh, and of course the people who stop reading all those Liberal Books and instead decide to write one. --Sid (talk) 16:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

They did afterall have their most... march right? views ever this year--Mikalos209 (talk) 04:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

How Easter Killed My Faith in Atheism.

Ken put up a link to a Wall Street Journal essay^img titled the same as this thread. It's a good read because it shows how proselytizing Christians rely on conjecture as fact. It is a response to this Ricky Gervais atheist Easter essay. Lee Strobel, the author, a supposedly former atheist, writes about how he almost divorced his wife when she said she became a Christian (what a stupid reason) but then he spent "two years" researching Jesus: "I was determined only to consider facts that were well-supported historically." This is what passes for a "fact":

Was Jesus’ tomb empty? ...[I]f it hadn’t been empty, it would have been impossible for a movement founded on the resurrection to have exploded into existence in the same city where Jesus had been publicly executed just a few weeks before.

I can think of many, many other ways a tomb could become empty, but he thinks it is "impossible" and so therefore, a man arose from the dead. "[N]obody had a motive for taking the body, especially the disciples." I can think of many political and personal motives, actually. Strobel's underlying assumption--the essay doesn't make sense without it--is that all these religious people at the time of Jesus were actually logical scientists making informed, empirical observations; as opposed to superstitious, uneducated ancients who knew very little about how the world worked and would believe almost anything a persuasive grifter zealot might tell them. --Leotardo (talk) 15:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

That reads like a half-decent, fun RW article. Can we get Ricky's permission to post it here? ħuman 08:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Completely ignoring that "fact" of an empty tomb, considering that it was written decades, or even centuries later. Interesting fact, I was crucified, and rose from the grave. Worship me! Hey, at least you know(or can assume) I exist in the first place. Quaru^{flan - You can't explain that!} 15:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Anybody who says they turned to Xianity after a scientific study of the facts is - to quoth Tim the Man - "These people aren’t plying a skill, They are either lying or mentally ill." --PsyGremlinRunāt! 15:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Since no one has ever found my dead body, this proves that I have been resurrected from the dead and that I am therefore the Messiah. As the Messiah, I will grant eternal salvation to anyone who gives me a cookie. Seriously, that article is spectactularly poorly reasoned even by the standards of Christian apologetics. ... of liberals? (talk) 16:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I liked the P&T episode where they compare "eyewitness" accounts of Jesus' resurrection to ones about Elvis' resurrection. Elvis didn't do no drugs! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually I read that article before. It really is bad.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Even if the tome was still full or sealed when they checked it two days later, it wouldn't have prevented the spread of Christianity. While it may have been the main cause of the spread, it's not a requirement: other prophets or major figures (e.g. Guru Nanak Dev) weren't necessarily given post-mortem specials, or even rumors of them. Besides, if you make a martyr from a sufficiently trusted leader of a Jewish sect, you create a primitive version of the streisand effect. --Sigma 7 (talk) 18:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Editing rampage at CP

DouglasA and Conservative are on a tear right now; a full page of recent changes only covers about a half hour. A great opportunity for sneaking some parody in under the radar.Simple (talk) 00:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

...sneak parody into a steady stream of parody and as-good-as-parody? I bet you also spit into lakes to keep them wet. ;) --Sid (talk) 00:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks to me like Doug is deleting articles made by DuncanB. But it's a shame to see Ken's holiday seems to have fallen in. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 08:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Ken is on a real roll. About 330 edits from 15:38 yesterday until 05:55 today (and counting) that's over 14 hours without a significant break. As it's Good Friday will he take time off to go to church? Or is the Lord's work better served by skewering obese atheism on the internet?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 10:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Still going strong strong - makes it about 17 hours non-stop now. Clearly a lot needs to be updated about tubby atheists and ponies and Chuck. Go Ken! The site is growing rapidly more stupid. --PsyGremlin講話 12:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks like someone stopped taking his meds... Did anyone see his message to Karajou the other day about how he'd met all of his goals and wanted to know whether or not he should ride off into the sunset? Occasionaluse (talk) 13:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering why he'd burn Karaturd's page to the ground the other day. Clearly the voices told Ken he still has much to do, and thus he never said anything to Karajerksoffinwomen'sunderwear. --PsyGremlinSprich! 13:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Screencap?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 13:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

No, it was only up for 30 seconds. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

This is why I have some sympathy for Ken - he is so public with his mental disorders. We can trace them, no matter how often he tries to burn them. Perhaps most pathetic are his talk page messages to Jpatt and Anger Bear. --Leotardo (talk) 15:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone else appreciate the irony when he posts "Medical science indicates that excess weight impairs brain function!"^img.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 05:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Castro

Coverage of Castro's resignation on MPR:

Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Dead men can't resign. Deny this and lose all credibility. Carlaugust (talk) 01:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Dead mean can resign... in Hell! MDB (talk) 10:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

"Generalissimo Francisco FrancoFidel Castro is still dead!" --Leotardo (talk) 15:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Waiting for CP to come up with either "I see hear dead people." or "Dead Man Talking". Somebody burn a sock please? --UHM, Your favorite pain in the ass! 21:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Still nothing. Someone with a sock should add it and see what happens. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Stupid Karajou

It's held in a land trust you fucking moron.^img This kind of baseless hit piece is why WhirledNutDaily is so poorly regarded. Nutty Roux (talk)

What you talkin bout, Nutty? Occasionaluse (talk) 16:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

You mean WorldNetDaily that publishes doctored Birther photos of Obama, writes that soy is making kids gay and whose owner admits he publishes misinformation? Excellent resource, Anger Bear! --Leotardo (talk) 15:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Soy decreases penis size? Okay, that is just fucked up.--Thunderstruck (talk) 17:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

that would explain my micropenis. I have to use tweezers just to aim it at the urinal. My penis is so small--Brxbrx (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Hm. Do you think soy also explains my manboobs? Mountain Blue (talk) 18:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

We all know soy is just an atheist plot to make people read the bible less. - Jpop (talk) 20:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

But how would giving me a tiny penis and generally fucking up my love life make me read the Bible less? Wouldn't it make me bitter and envious of people with nice bodies and romantic successes, thereby driving me to Puritanism? Mountain Blue (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

It would make you hate god for giving you a tiny penis. Thankfully I never touch soy, so Thor's as powerfull as ever. No word on why I have man boobs though. Probubly the whole atheism thing...--Thunderstruck (talk) 01:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Pseudo-œstrogens

Actually, about 10-20 years there were a few scares that the pseudo-œstrogens in soya could negatively affect puberty in males. In rat studies (wikipedia), some pseudo-œstrogens cause bisexuality if given during puberty. However, in humans the androgens have a lesser rôle in regulating puberty than in rats. See Google Scholar. CS Miller (talk) 10:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC) CS Miller (talk) 10:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Nostradamus

Any idea what Jpatt is doing here^img? For the record, the previous version of the article was written by DanH back in 2007, and it hasn't been touched since July '08. Andy never touched the article so it's not like this is heresy, but I still have a hard time believing that Schlafly would want a promotion of Nostradamus on his site. 江斯顿^{What is it now?} 02:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Not exactly promotion, if you read the end. --Kels (talk) 03:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

It's on the "History" Channel tonight? I prefer the Ancient Astronauts shows because they have the guy with the crazy hair and M. Kaku. But this will do for now for entertainment... ħuman 03:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear. Johnny Sedition's "improving" an article? Now all they need is somebody to go over and try and resurrect (did you see what I did there?) the butchered English. --PsyGremlinSermā! 08:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Ich sah es und lachte laut auf. Mountain Blue (talk) 10:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Man, what a mess. Jpatt really should stick to his anti-Obama rants. --Sid (talk) 11:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Napolean, eh? Would that be the low-fat version? Doppelheuer (talk) 00:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Nice!  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 05:41, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Amused as the innertubes collapse on each other

So I was reading the comments at an MJ article suggested by someone on arsebook, and was first, surprised to see a CP parody in the comments, but then even more so to see someone recommending CZ. There are only four websites and six of us on line, right? ħuman 04:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll bite. MJ? CZ? And I think it's generally known that the information superhigway gets congested if more than a dozen or so of us are on at the same time. I'm not counting Conservative, but he creates a bit of a bottleneck in the slow lane.Simple (talk) 04:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

not everybody is up to date with the abbreviations/acronyms. MJ? CZ?--Brxbrx (talk) 04:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a wild stab in the dark and assume it's this one you're talking about. ADK^{...I'll enumerate your verb!} 05:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Mr BS Detector is a little obsessive-compulsive in talking and very slow on taking the hint. "I'm not a creationist but here's all the anti-evolution cliches I can think of" and "hey, I'm smart because I used to work for some nuclear agency, so here's a list of things they could do at Fukushima, even though they wouldn't work." ADK^{...I'll condense your Subaru!} 05:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

MJ = Mother Jones. CZ = Citizendium. Keep up with the old news, m'kay? And yes, AK, that was the link, IIRC. Hmmm, we need snartikle on Mommy J... ħuman 04:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Hang in There! Ken's 90 day sabbatical is nearing the end!

I know you are all pining away for the return of Ken DeMyer's editing sprees. Remember how he used to go for many hours on end, to the exclusion of all that makes life worthwhile (and probably the exclusion of personal hygiene too, but I digress), making hundreds of trivial, stupid edits to his trivial, stupid fantasy articles? Well, I'd like to remind you that his sabbatical, which started on February 1st, (as shown here^img), ends on May 2nd. That's a week from Monday.

Things just haven't been the same without him. I'm looking forward to drinking my fill of his wisdom on the kinds of subjects that only he can write about. One thing I'd like to see is some articles linking the internet, atheism, and obesity, all in one coherent, brilliantly presented essay. I can hardly wait. Gauss (talk) 06:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Bravo Karajou...

I thought that AugustO was done when DouglasA blocked him^img for Trolling / Liberal Trolling: Snide anecdotes have no place here (the snide anecdote in question^img). But he was unblocked again by Karajou. What's this all about? Does Karajou like a challenge?

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 06:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Shroud of Turin Photography

Andy wrote in 'Biblical scientific foreknowledge'^img: "Modern photography, using negative imaging, was predated by the Shroud of Turin with respect to the imaging on the Shroud likely due to the light of the Resurrection."

I'm speechless. --Night Jaguar (talk) 05:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Andy's living in the dark ages. Most modern photography uses positive digital imaging.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 05:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

So does this mean Jesus was partly transparent or what? «-Bfa-» 06:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, photography is based on imaging mediums that are able to record intensity of light. Digital photography is essentially taking CCD signals and putting them together as a bitmap. Film photography is essentially the same thing, except that the film, which stores the "bitmap", is a physical object and you can't just copy it like you can copy a bunch of pixel data. The fact that you have a negative image on film and a positive image on paper print is essentially a Clever Hack to Make Up for the Deficiencies of the Medium®. People didn't want to invent negatives; they wanted to invent a comprehensive system that can produce reproducible photographs, and one of the easiest ways to solve that is to form negative images on the film and positive image on the paper. Digital photography achieves the same goal, without the limitations of film - one of which is the fact that the image is negative on the film. </graphics geek> --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Bet this doesn't make MPR

Hottest April ever is forecast for UK since records began. Global warming, anybody. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 11:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

As a Brit I'm really conflicted over this one. Of course AGW is a Bad Thing but... Oh, the weather is glorious for my birthday. Jack Hughes (talk) 11:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, our April has been cold and rainy. Typical of you running dog imperialist colonialists, coming over here and stealing our resources and weather. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 11:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

But records only go back to 1998 when all the records mysteriously melted. 12:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

And a few hundred miles east and south, a Rationalwikian hasn't seen a single cloud for 5 days - oh, sometimes I wish Andy would be right about this. --UHM, Your favorite pain in the ass! 12:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

We had awesome weather yesterday, melting sunshine for most of the day, with a half hour summer storm early afternoon immediately followed by a violent hailstorm throwing down .44 calibre chunks of ice for the same duration. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 14:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to burst your bubble, Psy, but where I live it's been unseasonably cold. Ergo global warming is a liberal plot. Deny this and lose all credibility. DickTurpis (talk) 14:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

That's just because Zeus (and possibly Chione) hates you. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 15:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Get Acclimatised! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I admit I'm stunned.

That the assfly finds it stunning that someone, whos whole purpose since leaving the hitler youth has been to believe in a sky daddy, doesn't believe in evolution^img Oldusgitus (talk) 07:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Membership of the Hitler Youth was virtually compulsory during the later stages of WWII in Germany, IIRC Joseph Ratzinger said he made the right noises, but didn't take the message to his heart. The article isn't that detailed, but it seems to be implying that the church's position is some kind of theistic evolution; the article notes the church's warnings against creationism. Did Andykins skim the article incorrectly again? CS Miller (talk) 08:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. And if I am honest I would almost certainly have been a member myself. It took, and takes, a certain special kind of bravery to stand against things like that and although I like to think I have the strength I doubt I would in reality. But it's a fun stick to poke the catholics with, along with their chruches refusal for a long time to condemn the nazi treatment of the Jew's. Oldusgitus (talk) 10:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I think every German asks him or herself that question sooner or later. As I did against religion I think I could have gone through with it if it would just have been mocking, despair, bad grades and bad jobs - but I think I couldn't have run from military service (something tells me making yourself an invalid would not have ended up just fine). Although, and I'm actually quite proud of this, my gradnfather (may he rest in peace) was a pretty smart about this - he got his unit "accidently" captured by Americans. --UHM, Your favorite pain in the ass! 16:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

He's got those filters that only let through what he wants to be there; even if he does read it anything else goes to the waste disposal. --Scream!! (talk) 08:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The original item on MPR was this^img, also by Andy. CS Miller (talk) 09:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Tee hee! The wikimeister strikes again. --Scream!! (talk) 09:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I am perpetually stunned by the idiocy of the fundamentally religious, but not in the way that Andy implies.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 09:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Wait... so the man in charge of one sect that says God created the world, isn't happy with a theory that says otherwise? And just why exactly should that stun us? I'm pretty gobsmacked by Andy's stupidity, but the Pope? Nah. --PsyGremlinParlez! 14:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course, Andy doesn't read the full article -

Benedict emphasized the Biblical account of creation in his Easter Vigil homily Saturday, saying it was wrong to think at some point "in some tiny corner of the cosmos there evolved randomly some species of living being capable of reasoning and of trying to find rationality within creation, or to bring rationality into it." ... Church teaching holds that Roman Catholicism and evolutionary theory are not necessarily at odds: A Christian can, for example, accept the theory of evolution to help explain developments, but is taught to believe that God, not random chance, is the origin of the world. The Vatican, however, warns against creationism, or the overly literal interpretation of the Bibilical account of creation.

The key item in the title is 'random'. Catholicism as expressed by the pope prefers theistic evolution (it would be interesting to point out where the differences of theistic evolution and intelligent design differ - reading Fr. George Coyne might be of use there) And from an earlier bit from the pope:

Currently, I see in Germany, but also in the United States, a somewhat fierce debate raging between so-called “creationism” and evolutionism, presented as though they were mutually exclusive alternatives: those who believe in the Creator would not be able to conceive of evolution, and those who instead support evolution would have to exclude God. This antithesis is absurd because, on the one hand, there are so many scientific proofs in favour of evolution which appears to be a reality we can see and which enriches our knowledge of life and being as such. But on the other, the doctrine of evolution does not answer every query, especially the great philosophical question: where does everything come from? And how did everything start which ultimately led to man? I believe this is of the utmost importance.

His issue with evolution is that it doesn't answer philosophical questions and those are the ones that he is concerned with as a religious leader. Everything that the Pope Benedict has said has been supportive or neutral to evolution. There is no indication that he is a creationist (and as quoted above is against an overly literal interpretation of Genesis). --Shagie (talk) 04:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course, what he misses is that, when people talk about 'creationism', they're not talking about some fairly vague belief that God created life by some method, including via evolution. What they're talking about is the idea that God specifically poofed life into existence fairly close to as we find it now - which utterly denies evolution (except when it's convenient for them, like the super-charged evolution from 'baramins' proposed by some young earth creationists as an answer to the problem of the size given for Noah's ark in the Bible being nowhere near big enough to carry all the species that exist in modern times). As such, you cannot accept creationism and evolution, as they are directly contradictory. 86.173.221.77 (talk) 11:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

So what is Ken up to?

Deleting a Schlafly essay^img.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 09:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Outing himself as a deep cover liberal? --Scream!! (talk) 09:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

google cache^img CS Miller (talk) 10:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

and the talk page^img incase it also gets deleted. CS Miller (talk) 10:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe Ken is finally awakening to the stupidity around him, although given is own essays, that's debatable. I'm guessing the opening line about conservatism curing obesity offends him - he wants to be the only one to play in the obesity sandbox. --PsyGremlinTal! 11:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Great googaly moogaly, that was the stupidest fuckin thing ive seen in a LONG time. In five minutes, I found counterexamples to every thing andy put down, many of them concerning andy himself. No wonder Smooth-As-A-Ken-Doll took it out.--Thunderstruck (talk) 13:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Today must be bizarro day - suddenly, Ken is the one deleting crappy essays, and DouglasAdams is the one bringing them back^img. Meh, I would've rather seen Andy retaliate by nuking one of Ken's idiotic screeds. Röstigraben (talk) 16:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

They are just celebrating Resurrection Day. --UHM, Your favorite pain in the ass! 18:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I for one will greatly miss this great piece of Andy work. My two favorite bits from that essay and talk page is where his references are just other claims which desperately need references themselves, and where on the talk page he says that low rates of lung cancer for non smokers is all the proof you need that smoking causes cancer. Oh Andy and your silly idea of how science works. GTac (talk) 19:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Andy? "science works"? This is a man who makes a "scientific" argument that conservatives are more likely to get remarried after 50 because he met a couple of conservatives (Nearly 100%!) who did and then looked up the overall rate of remarriage, BAM proof positive. --149.169.134.251 (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

So by putting that statistic forward, Andy proves that there are more conservative single men beyond age 50 than liberal. Good job Andy. - Jpop (talk) 23:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Obviously Ken is saving himself for a few more years.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 17:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

LOLOLOLOLOL PZ MYERS IS FAT: is ken even trying anymore?

Or did he ever try? [1]^img --Brxbrx (talk) 00:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

That is one weird essay, even by Ken's standards. An "addendum" before the table of contents. Huh. And what's up with that "references" section? PACODOG^{woof, bitches} 00:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

and it's featured...--Brxbrx (talk) 00:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

He even had to link to the hilarious-if-it-were-a-joke Essay: Are atheists smarter than the average bear?. That shit is insane, even by CP's standards.

"Atheists, are you sick and tired of pesky bears dragging your trash around your property and creating an unsightly mess? You can't seem to outsmart those wily bears and you don't have enough machismo to stand up to them? There is no longer need to despair! The genius of private enterprise has come to your rescue and government bureaucrats have CERTIFIED their handiwork. Yes, there are now CERTIFIED bear resistant trash containers! Go HERE and never again be humiliated by God's creation the bear. "

I rest my case - Jpop (talk) 01:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really sure where he got the idea PZ is obese, honestly. He had a pretty average build for his age to start with, nothing too special, and he's been taking steps to lose since due to his heart (no idea how he's doing on that). It's such a weird idea. --Kels (talk) 02:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why Ken is given any attention at all. The purpose of RW as I understand it is to monitor and debunk the lunacy at CP and elsewhere, but surely no one in the world could take Ken's incoherent ramblings seriously. Syndrome (talk) 02:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

It has been said before^{many, many times} that Ken should be receiving help with his undoubted mental state. I always feel a pang at taking the mick out of him - rather like kicking a hamster. Having said that, if Andy wants to allow him to masturbate all over his blog, then why shouldn't we point and laugh? --Scream!! (talk) 02:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

If atheists were Christian, they'd be able to beat the shit out of bears with their bare hands, like Chuck Norris! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Please, if atheists were Christian, bears would clearly be less attracted to their trash... God works in mysterious ways. - Jpop (talk) 02:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Click on the talk page link and see that its been redirected to another of his articles - its all just a scam to get you saying WTF and click on the talk link to respond, then you up his page views on another article. . ^{— Unsigned, by: 71.227.237.117 / talk / contribs}

The weird references section is because Ken has put multiple external links into one <ref></ref>. As for redirecting the talk page this is a common tactic by our hypergraphic friend as a way of avoiding any confrontation or criticism. Although he locks his own talk page it would look a bit too obvious if he locked the talk pages of his pet articles so he redirects them to other articles like some Escheresque literary illusion. Although some people have commented about Ken having bi-polar disorder he may be epileptic as religiosity and hypergraphia are not uncommon amongst those with temporal lobe epilepsy. In addition some of the side-effects of epileptic medication are drowsiness and a tendency to obesity, so if Ken is omitting his meds to avoid obesity then this would explain a lot. Anyway, this is just a pap diagnosis from a lay person and should in no way be used in place of a professional diagnosis by a qualified neurologist.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 07:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

P.S. A low-carb diet has been shown to reduce seizures so maybe Ken is ultra-slim and that is why he has a hard-on for obsese atheists.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 08:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

God has been known to use bears for his work before you know.--Mikalos209 (talk) 13:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Looking for a link

Can anyone supply me with the diff in which Andy recently stated that CP was responsible for a substantial rise in conservatism of late (specifically, I believe, the 2010 elections)? I skimmed his talk contributions of late but couldn't find anything. Since that's about as delusional as one can get, I really think we can't afford to lose it. DickTurpis (talk) 04:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

This one? From Conservaleaks?

All of our traffic sees the conservative message, and with our high volume, our site could be the single biggest reason American culture is moving to the right.

There's also his comment on the rotating logo CP had for a while:

Those who saw it (the logo) Monday night and Tuesday, however, are likely to be persuaded by the message it conveys: Conservatism is the backbone of the United States, and freedom in the world.

--PsyGremlinFale! 08:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

That's what I was looking for. No wonder I couldn't find it, I was looking for it in CP instead of conservaleaks. Thanks. DickTurpis (talk) 18:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Account creation was on last night/discussion on mainpage talk

and is now turned off. Wait, how exactly is it you create a account now? im curious and to lazy to look it up. --Mikalos209 (talk) 13:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

My last 4 socks all registered through normal channels. Given what an unmitigated failure the e-mail option was, I think that's been scrapped. Reg will prob be on again once someone is awake, to make sure no user:KarajerksoffinfrontofFashionTV are created. --PsyGremlinSermā! 13:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I too signed up without going through email confirmation. As long as you live somewhere without a blocked IP address, and you aren't too clever with your name, you'll get in.Simple (talk) 15:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be on at night and not the day. oh and the talkpage has a discussion about it and how blocking people for usernames discourages people. the questionhttp://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=864279&oldid=864270^img and andys later reply http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=864291&oldid=864289^img

Not reading and comprehending the reference

I notice that in his average bear essay^img that dear little Ken references a Guardian blog written by their religious columnist which discusses a study on IQ and religiosity that supposedly equates atheism with intelligence. The headline is "Science proves Anglicans smartest" with the top four places being 1. Episcopalians(Anglicans), 2. Jews, 3. Atheists and 4. Agnostics. So these non-literal Bible-reading, evolution-believing, homosexual-accepting, wish-washy Christians are held up as the smartest. What he glosses over is that the bottom three places are held by creationist-believing, homophobic Pentecostalists, Baptists and Holiness churches. Duh, Ken.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 19:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention the whole point of the article is to dispute the results and the methods used... Of course, to notice that would require one to actually read the article, a concept that must be liberal/atheist seeing as CP consistently ignores it. - Jpop (talk) 00:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Seems Jpatt could be in trouble

The resident seditionist is on record as saying "yes I am calling for a military coup" right. Well, after doing a bit of research, I've come across U.S. Code Title 18 § 2385, "Advocating overthrow of Government" which seems to be pretty unequivocal on the matter:

“”Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; ... Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

What say our resident legal beagles on this? --PsyGremlinSermā! 09:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I take it you mean UNequivocal on that Psy? Oldusgitus (talk) 09:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

erm... yes... sorry... I blame Mugabe. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 10:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Have you notified FDACS the FBI?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 10:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but JPoot would appeal to the second amendment because of Obama's...erm..."violent oppression".--Brendiggg (talk) 10:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Nothing's gonna happen, people write seditionary material on the internet all the time. The authorities aren't going to pay any attention unless he takes it to the next level (i.e. something in real life like distributing pamphlets). Putting something on the internet might get his name on a watchlist but the authorities won't make an actual move. ^{ONE / TALK} 10:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Do it. Get him on the watch/no-fly/extra security list. It would be great to hear about the TSA guys getting the rubber gloves out every time jpratt wants to board a plane. And as owner and administrator of the hate blog on which the screed was published, and as he didn't remove it, assfly could also get himself watch-listed perhaps? Oldusgitus (talk) 10:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

You sound like Karajou. JPatt is a mentally deficient nobody. The only people who read that stupid essay are us and whatever parodists keep up with CP. Senator Harrison (talk) 11:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

He's just venting. There is no serious attempt to encourage the "overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States". Technically it might be illegal, maybe, but lets not get carried away with fantasies like ole Karajou does. Damo^Hi 12:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh sure, but I can dream about a TSA operative putting on the gloves can't I? Oldusgitus (talk) 19:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I really doubt that any government agency would care about jpatt--Brxbrx (talk) 13:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

That's even funnier. Is there any way we can get the FBI to write him a letter like that? "Dear Mr. JPatt, we recently received information that you have been uploading seditious and potentially illegal material to the internet. However, we really don't care about you at all. Just FYI. Sincerely yours, The Government." X Stickman (talk) 14:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Haven't we already learned that the Bureau doesn't give a damn about what goes on at CP?

Seriously, though, it's my understanding that the Secret Service has a "there's no such thing as a joke about assassinating the President" policy, but for the most part, it involves a visit from some agents who will tell the loudmouth "we don't appreciate you saying 'somebody oughtta shoot the President'" and that's that unless there's evidence the person has plans to go further, like stockpiling weapons, making obvious plans, and the like. MDB (talk) 18:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

So, what are you saying, that Barack Hussein Obama is the government of the United States? That's a bit of stretch, don't you think? nobs^{don't bother me} 19:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow, Rob. I can only assume you're being deliberately obtuse, because nobody can be that stupid naturally, even if they take lessons. --PsyGremlinSermā! 08:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

If somebody provided a link to this I would report him to the Secret Service just for shitz n' giggles. --Leotardo (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Well it's been posted multiple times but if you need it the link is here.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 20:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

WTF nobs, are you that stupid? I'm a brit and even I know the POTUS is the head of state, in the same way our good mrs lizzie is nominally head of state for us. Are you saying that advocating the forcible removal of the head of state by the military, the representative of the government, is not treason? You really are still typing in the fucking dark aren't you? And no matter how many floodlights you switch on it will still be dark for you. Oldusgitus (talk) 19:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

America has a history of deciding what the current idea of treason is is ignorable, your country should remember when we did it to you. --Mikalos209 (talk) 22:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Oldusgustus, the language of the statute quoted above refers to "destroying or overthrowing the government"; if, God forbid, a sitting president by force or someother means was incapacitated to the extent he could no longer serve in office, the Constitution provides for sucession, i.e., continuity of the executive office of government. Also, he Congress and Courts are co-equal branches of government. The forcible removal of an executive it would seem, would not constitute "overthrowing the government", nor "destroying the government". A sitting executive does not constitute "the government", as the statute clearly declares. PsyGremlin research may be faulty. nobs^{don't bother me} 22:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

How about you're wrong? Instead of arguing this, why not go look up what the statute applies to? Apparently you'll be surprised to know that ... ta da ... overthrowing the government means overthrowing any part of the government. Surely you don't believe a violent traitor must have a plan for disposing of the entire fucking thing before he can be prosecuted? Nutty Roux (talk) 00:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a stretch. "The president" is not the "the government". Neither is Barack Obama "the government". Your premise is laughable out of a Court of Law, and the Court of Public Opinion. And the statute does not say what you say it says. nobs^{don't bother me} 16:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

"It's a stretch" to say that a call to the army to remove the president from office is somehow treasonous or seditious. Okay, Rob. P-Foster (talk) 16:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's an intersting discussion. A coup against the commander in chief, while leaving the co-equal Congress and Courts in place, could hardly be "overthrowing the government." More than the Chilean experience of 1976, let's examine the coup against Gorbachev in 1992 in hich he was placed incommunicado under house arrest. But in both the instances, we also must pay attention to the separtion of powers doctrine which may not exist under either system at the time. nobs^{don't bother me} 17:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Rob, it's not just an interesting discussion. If I tell you that you're wrong and ask you nicely to go do some research on which units and persons of government are covered by the Smith Act will you do it? We're not going to examine Gorvechev or talk about the "separation of powers doctrine." Urging the military to remove the President while leaving Congress and the courts in place is a disgusting treason. You should be ashamed of yourself for defending it. Now go do some homework. Nutty Roux (talk) 17:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘That is bollocks and you damn well know it nobs. jpratt is calling for the forcible, military, removal of an elected head of state. The fact you leave the courts or any other fucking part of the executive in place and functioning is immaterial. What jpratt is calling for is nothing more and nothing less than treason. Your argument that if the potus becomes incapcitated there is a procedure for the executive to continue to function is a straw man of the highest type. And you know it. We are not talking about the democratically elected head of state having a bout of wind and needing a few days to recover. We are talking about the right wing hate blog you are such a proud member of allowing a senior member to call for a military coup and not distancing itself from that call. Now you may in all honesty think jpratt is a moron to have written what he did but you also have the power to remove that call and any decent person would have done so. Oldusgitus (talk) 17:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Pinochet?!?! Gorbachev!?!!? rob, you DO understand that the US Constitution does not apply in Chile and Russia, right? Try to stay focused, buddy. P-Foster (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Surely you don't believe a violent traitor must have a plan for disposing of the entire fucking thing before he can be prosecuted? Nutty Roux (talk) 18:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Traitor? Let's paraphrase a soldier under Commander-in-Chief Lyndon Baines Johnson (remember him? the fucking idiot who sent 500,000 troops to country he could not even pronounce right): "We had to destroy the village in order to save it." That kind of thinking has been around in Democratic administrations for decades. And the WP article even cites the Kremlin directed Stanlinist mouthpiece, the New Republic, as a source. Oh, what evidence is there America's premier liberal publication is a treasonous commie rag? See the bio of Frankin Roosevelt's speechwriter and KGB operative cp:Michael Whitney Straight. So, when FDR was mouthing words written by an agent of Joe Stalin, did that make him a traitor, or a stooge? - nobs

(Crossed out irrelevant comments - please keep your comments related to the subject)Damo^Hi 04:51, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The unstated premise here is the argument, "We had to destroy the constitution (or government) in order t save it," an argument first appearing under Commander-in-Chief Lyndon Johnson (who should have hung for the Mai Lai massacre based upon the Nuremberg precedent). nobs^{don't bother me} 04:59, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

No Rob its totally unrelated to the topic and it is just an attempted slur of a president who happens to be on the other side. Revert this and you will be blocked. Damo^Hi 05:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Bullshit. And why the fuck do you feel the need to threaten me? Do you think being a suck-up will get you elected bureaucrat on this site? Perhaps so. But if you have problems follwong a rational historical argument, that's your intellectual deficiency, not mine. Don't dump your prejudices and bullshit on me because you choose to be ignorant of historical facts. nobs^{don't bother me} 05:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Damo, if you were to block Rob for reverting talk-page posts, I would be inclined to Make a Point by blocking you for the same offense. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Jesus, Rob. Put the tinfoil hat back on. Also, you're not blocked, so use your damn account. P-Foster (talk) 04:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Jpatt is a violent traitor because he's urging the military overthrow of our president. Nothing you've written is responsive to that, or even coherent. Weirdo. Nutty Roux (talk) 04:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, Mr. Legal mind, do I have to show you where your emotions obscure your legal analysis? The act of incapitating a sitting executive so that he/she is incapable of performing his/her duties is not "overthrowing the government", whereas deliberately altering the chain of command (making someone other than the President the Commander-in-Chief other than by Constitutional means), and the act of extra-Constitutional succession, could be considered "overthrowing the governmnent." Stick to messiah worship, it suits you better than legal analysis. nobs^{don't bother me} 04:51, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

So just to be clear; if the army stepped in and removed a sitting president from power, you don't foresee any sort of constitutional and/or legal problems arising from that situation. P-Foster (talk) 04:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Correct. The act of violating the chain of command and line of succession would constitute "overthrowing he government", not incapaciting an executive officer from performing his duties. nobs^{don't bother me} 05:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

(EC) And the Army arresting the President would not be violating the chain of command because...? - π 05:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

That B what I'm saying. The military incapacity the president, i.e., taking orders from someone other than the commande in chief, and secondly, violatig the line of sucession, would effectively be overthrowing the constitution, or govenrment. I hope we have now debunked the flawed premise that Mr. Barack Obama is "the government", or that any sitting presidentwho is only one/third of three co-equal branches, is "the govenrment". And you guys have verey effectrively diplayed why so many non-Obama supporters are fearful of the emotion driven twisted reasoning of the pro-Obama camp. nobs^{don't bother me} 05:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Would you repeat that in English, please? ListenerX^TalkerX 05:51, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Basically he has conceded the Psy was right in the first place without actually admitting to being wrong. - π 05:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Obama ain't the govenrment; circumvetning the constitutional provisions of chain of command and line of sucession would be overthrowing the government. Now, if the president order he be removed by the military, that's a different question.... nobs^{don't bother me} 06:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

It looks as though Rob thinks that someone wanting to "overthrow the government" would have to attack Congress and the federal courts as well as the president. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Amen. nobs^{don't bother me} 06:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

How Rob wants to read that section or how he defines "overthrow the government" is of no importance, how a judge would read it is what Jpatt has to worry about. - π 06:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd venture to say nobody even read that statute. Possibly other statutes may apply. But several posters here seemed to be more concerned with the wellbeing of a single man more than the survival of our system of government. Not surprising amongst Pharoah worshipers. Can we all agree now, Barack Hussein Obama is not the government of the United States? nobs^{don't bother me} 06:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

So nobs, under your insane (lack of) understanding of law I am quite at liberty, for example, to kill the Queen of England because there is a clearly defined and legally based order of succession? Do you have the faintest clue about anything you spout on about? Oldusgitus (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

If the Queen of England were assassinated, the government of England would survive. nobs^{don't bother me} 07:08, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Way to not address the point there nobs. Under your logic idiocy killing the head of state of ANY country would not, and could never, constitute an act of treason. The only way to do so under your insanity would be to attack ALL institutions of the executive simultaneously. How do you manage to tie your shoelaces in the morning? Or do you wear slip-ons? Oldusgitus (talk) 07:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

In Libya, US policy calls for the overthrow of the head of state, but specificallY does not call for the overthrow of government (or regime change). They'd rather keep the Libyan Socialist Jamahiriya in place than deal with an Islamic Republic of Libya. nobs^{don't bother me} 12:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

And just what the fuck does that have to do with anything Rob? Especially US LAW?? --PsyGremlinSermā! 13:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Overthrowing the head of state is not necessarily overthrowing the government, at least in the US, British, and Libyan examples. nobs^{don't bother me} 13:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The fact that you seriously seem to believe that is worrying. So to commit sedition (in your mind), I would have to replace the Pres, the Senate and Congress?

Also - in your mind - Obama is to blame for everything, but Obama isn't the government. Please expand. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 13:51, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Somehow I doubt this "it's not really treason because it's just the President" wouldn't apply if it was George Bush... 05:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Bush was a commie lib; got is involved in useless wars to wear down our defense and passed the prescription drug benefit. A covert subversive infiltrator in the conservative movement if there ever was one. nobs^{don't bother me} 05:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

That's it. I call POE on nobs. Oldusgitus (talk) 06:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not; my wingnut friend was calling Bush a Red even before the Afghanistan war started. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Yep. I'm the guy that (citing Bartlett) called Bush a big government liberal. nobs^{don't bother me} 06:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Murdering every government employee would not be "overthrowing the government" because we can just elect new ones. Altering the government's chain of command would be. Conservapedia makes politics fun. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 06:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

uh, duh, the military is on the gubmint payroll, isn't it? nobs^{don't bother me} 18:59, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Rob, are you fucking kidding us? "survival of our system of government" and you are arguing for a military coup? This is US Law we are talking about, not the Third Reich or any other dictatorship you might favor. --UHM, Your favorite pain in the ass! 18:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

...and JPatt won't let this go

And the seditionist proudly sez^img, "an idea is taking shape," after quoting an article written in September 2009. What this numskull is too dumb to realize is that the article he's linking to was savvier than he in two respects: first, they explicitly said "to talk about a coup is not to advocate it," and second, the website realized that shit like this is possibly actionable, and removed it.

Rob, the fact that you're not explicitly telling Johnny to knock it the fuck off makes you at least partly culpable. Junggai (talk) 09:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Bullshit. I even posted a comment on the talk page. And fuck you, I ain't obligaterd to do anything. nobs^{don't bother me} 16:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Has Rob ever stated that he has the kind of devotion to CP's accuracy and reputation that you have all assigned to him? Occasionaluse (talk) 16:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Fuck you Rob. You're being totally irresponsible about this. While you say you don't approve you already telegraphed that you're deathly afraid that you're going to be held guilty by assocation, which is an appropriate thing to do to an administrator with the power to remove this nonsense who doesn't lift a finger to do anything but express some equivocal disapproval. If you want to argue the merits of whether this is seditious without knowing what the fuck you're talking about you guys deserve whatever you get. Cunts. Nutty Roux (talk) 17:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

No. You misread it. I telegraphed a bureacrat on this site boasts the notorious seditionist Jullian Assange was his flunky. nobs^{don't bother me} 17:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but this is a liberal vandal site, so that's to be expected. Surely a pro-American, Constitution-honoring site like CP should be held to a better standard, treason-wise? P-Foster (talk) 18:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh god you really are a fucking moron, Rob. Jesus fucking Christ. I know this is hard for you and that you're just starting to explore the joys of reading. So go back to where you wrote about what your subjective belief about the applicability of the Smith Act is. See that up there? Now does even that apply to a guy publishing government documents given to him by a soldier? No, right? It doesn't? Publishing documents isn't the same thing as urging a military coup. Right? Right? Nutty Roux (talk) 18:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah, Rob, I forgot about that scathing critique you left on the essay talk page, where you said in no uncertain terms that he should tread carefully with seditious speech which could get the whole website in trouble with the law. Just like I forgot about all that valiant fighting back you did when TK had the run of the joint and used the whole site as his own personal troll bridge.

Shit Rob, you really have delusions of integrity, don't you? Junggai (talk) 19:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Delusions of integrity? nobs and most of the others on cp have delusions of adequacy. Integrity doesn't get a look in. Failed patent lawyer leads other failures in their delusion that anything they do or say influences anyone. The mere fact that people like Maddow haven't even bothered picking up on jpatt's screed shows how little they have to do with anything. When even the satirists start to ignore you then you really are irrelevant. Give it up nobs. Oldusgitus (talk) 20:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Media Matters covered this bullshit two years ago. It's old news. More significantly see the exerpt from How Donald Trump Will Kill Birtherism:

• public views are probably less fact driven than we'd like to think. They're more like mass impressions, with feeling, logic, and "truth" leading individuals to answer polls, express views to other people, and vote (or not vote) in ways that connect them to morally and emotionally significant universes, as much as to agreed upon "facts"... etc. nobs^{don't bother me} 23:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I assume that by "more significantly," you mean "has not a fucking thing to do with the topic at hand. Are you saying that CP is not meant to be a truthful website? Junggai (talk) 23:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

#NotIntendedToBeAFactualWiki «-Bfa-» 23:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Ok, let's break it down further. express views to other people, is exactly what Jpatt did. It was recycled bullcrap that MediaMatters reported on two years ago. Let's look at mass impressions that connect people to emotionally significant universes. A birther, for instance, who may regard Obama as an illigitimate president based upon a belief in his non-native birth, may not have a moral problem with removal of an illigitimate president by extra-constitutional means. Th\e Atlantic article cited examines the question how birtherism has survived several years now, and illustrates how both Obama diehard-defenders failed to take it seriously and deal with it, and how Republicans of good faith likewise often gave legitimate good faith responses to inquiries that were misinterpreted by journalists. My point is, the coup talk is merely an extension of the birther movement which regards Obama as an illigitimate president. You can deal with coup talkers harshly, if you wish, but the underlying problem remains the mass perception among a large segement of the voting electorate that Obama is an illigimate president. And Obama supporters themseles are partially responsible for survival of the birther movement, which is one thing I take away from Ambinder's article. nobs^{don't bother me} 00:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I do honestly appreciate getting a reasoned explanation from you for once, Rob. Unfortunately, you've picked to use some quasi-postmodernist reasoning in a conversation with a real-life student of semiotics. Unfortunately, even from the point of view of a hardcore postmodernist who sees all truth as literally a factor of one's own perception, your logic is still faulty. Whatever someone believes about Obama's place of birth, there still are constitutionally-prescribed avenues of dealing with a president who has broken the law. Calling for a coup, no matter how you slice it, is advocating going outside of the constitutional framework to reach your desired goal. That also has a specific name: sedition. One can argue and ask whether it's justified given what people see as Obama's sins and the system's inability to punish them severely enough, but it's still sedition, and still an illegal and unconstitutional course of action. Junggai (talk) 10:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Let's assume the birthers are correct & Obama was born in Kenya. Is an illigimate executive then still afforded all constitutional protections and provisions relagated to a legitimately elected president? nobs^{don't bother me} 13:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

In a word: YES. You idiot. There are laws and procedures in place to remove him if that was the case. Are you seriously suggesting in that case, the military could remove him? Wow, you never fail to amaze me with your complete lack of ignorance. If you spent less time hunting imaginary commies and more time actually learning your country's laws, you might get somewhere. --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 13:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Jpatt clearly states the Congress ain't doing its job proscribed by the constitution, hence the need to for extra-constitutional action. While I hear a lot of whinning about an executive being incapacitated by the military, not a fucking word about how the Congress would also be affected by this action. The argument seems to be Obama is the government, but a military coup that affectively removes House Republicans from the process is not a coup. House Republicans are made of Boehner & Tea baggers, so who gives a crap if the military marginalizes them by extra-constitutional means. nobs^{don't bother me} 13:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Proscribe: To condemn, denounce, prohibit or forbid. Rob, you are a moron.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 13:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Nobody but you has come anywhere near a statement that "a military coup that affectively removes House Republicans from teh process is not a coup." Are you not paying attention to the conversation everyone but you is trying to have here. PS You're still comically wrong if you think advocating the military removal of a sitting president isn't sedition, so here's the challenge: sign on to Jpatt's essay by repeating the central demands on CP and I'll call the Secret Service for you. Nutty Roux (talk) 14:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I just stated my dissent, the House GOP & Tea baggers are doing a great job by not using Congressional powers to force the State of Hawaii to reveal Obama's birth certificate. They should be congratulated by every loyal American who loves this country. Now, seditionists and critics, and partisan snippers who twist every nuance to impugn the motives and integrity of the peoples elected representatives, and advocate the forcible removal of Congress from its constitutionally mandated role, people who fail to speak up and condemn a course of action like that, why they may be commie symps for all I know. nobs^{don't bother me} 14:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Rob, let's get back to the basics. Even if your fantasy world scenario were to turn out to be true, and Obama really were born in Kenya and had been lying all this time, forcible removal by the military is still going outside of the constitution. Like I said above, one might argue that sedition is a just and noble thing, but that doesn't make it not sedition.

But to get to the biggest point of all, your whole line of argument which entails "well, some people believe so, so that makes extreme measures justified" smacks of the highest form of moral relativism, the same kind of bullshit that conservapedia thinks only liberals are capable of. You have to ignore a whole bunch of inconvenient facts (yes, facts, Rob) to believe this, and a bunch of people being deluded does not make the scenario more plausible. Junggai (talk) 20:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I never said extreme measures are justtified. Incidentally, can ballot box stuffing be called a justifiable extreme measure? nobs^{don't bother me} 21:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

You're defending one of your comrades who's calling for the unconstitutional overthrow of the president, which is by definition seditious speech. You dance around the issue a lot, but that's exactly what you're doing. Junggai (talk) 21:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Defending my ass. I'm setting you idoits right on legitmate lines of attack. You guys can't seem to understand usurping legislative power is seditious because your blinded by pharaoh worship. nobs^{don't bother me} 16:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Er more like your knee jerk must-defend-conservative-roommate-no-matter-how-idiotic-I-look. So you're saying it's not against the law to call for the overthrow of the president? --PsyGremlinPrata! 16:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Never said none of that. I condemned it early on. You dense idiots cited the wrong statute, then made the argument the government of the United States consisted of a single person. Then you haven't been able to digest or comprehend your flawed reasoning and arguments are bullshit, so you invent in your imaginations that me & Jpatt are the bobsie twins. Jezuz. And worse, you all think you're rational. Holy fuck. Maybe a few wp:Seroquel washed down with vodka would relieve some of symptoms. nobs^{don't bother me} 16:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

"made the argument the government of the United States consisted of a single person." Learn to read, Rob. Nobody is making the argument that the government consists of one person. The argument being made is that advocating a military coup is seditious--no matter which branch of the government is targeted by the plotters, or that taking out the Commander-in-Chief is treason or mutiny. P-Foster (talk) 16:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. Now go have an after dinner doobbie since that Seroquel cocktail worked so well. nobs^{don't bother me} 17:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Rob, are you being willfully dishonest, or do you really not understand the difference? Junggai (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

So, do I get this right?

So as I get from this discussion and watching way to many TV shows in my life, a 27 year old having pre-marital sex with a 17 year old in complete consent over it could go to prison for a few years and be listed as a pedophile in a publicly accessible database, but a guy calling for a military coup to violently remove the democratilly elected Head of Government and State goes away without a scratch? America is a funny place. --UHM, Your favorite pain in the ass! 20:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Dazzit. You got it. As Itzyak Rabin said upon hearing of Reagan's shooting, "In America, anybody can be president, anybody can shoot the president." Reagan's shooter, who never spent a day in jail thanks to Obama White House Counsel wp:Greg Craig, now "lives like a kid on perpetual Spring break," according to the Washington Post. Some might call it the triumph of liberalism. nobs^{don't bother me} 22:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Jesus fuck you're dense. The man has been in court ordered inpatient psych care for 30 years. Nutty Roux (talk) 23:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Yah, suckin the gubmint tit for psyche meds, three hots & cot. Probably collecting SSI, too. nobs^{don't bother me} 23:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Aaaand we're back to the Rob who's not really sure what all this "human decency" thing is all about. I much prefer the Rob who answered straight questions and didn't try to turn everything into propaganda that was here for a few minutes the other day. --Kels (talk) 23:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Bull. If I ever shot any president, I'd want a lawyer who someday ends up with an office right next to another president. I mean, only a decent guy would get that job and the president's ear, wouldn't he? nobs^{don't bother me} 00:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Good thing for Hinkley that he had a time machine so he could work that out, huh? P-Foster (talk) 00:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

What a bunch of wimp-asses -- can't handle intelligent discussion and valid points. And Greg Craig is a decent guy, why he saved that president with his pecker in is hand (Tubin, p. 179) from the people's elected officials who wanted to remove him from office. - nobs

If I was a foreign soldier and I shot five US civilians I would want a lawyer who would one day become president. - π 01:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow, now I know how it feels to make a point and get completely missunderstood. Don't you see the point I was trying to make? The Government engages in an action to punish somebody who hasn't harmed anybody but does not engage against somebody who is outspoken about supporting an unconstitutional act - that's basically the hypocrisy American Conservatism is all about. And I don't know if you actually have such delusions not to see it or if you're too stupid too see it. From your comment I get that you think "we" (as much as I can speak for the "left from center"s around here) have no problem with a right-wing guy been shot but get all outraged when a right-wing even speeks about violent and unconstitutional means to get rid of people he doesn't like. No, we don't. Let's take it to the most extreme: A complete idiot who isn't even abe to make a sinlge logical assumption, who hates pretty much everyone who isn't exactly like him and who bases his whole thinking on some illusions of some greater meaning - let's say Andy because the description suits so well - is President. But in his whole term he hasn't violated a single right of the citizens. All laws have been made with the support of the Congress and the House of Representatives. Even then when the absolute anti-me is in office, I would demand that somebody who calls for the violent removal of such a figure, again let's say Andy, would have to go to prison and the above described person that would be branded as a pedophile for his whole life should neither go to prison nor be branded as such. No doublethink on my part, just in the mental asylum you call your ideology.

What you are all together arguing for is that the state should violate a persons privacy but not be able to prevent violence against itself ("itself" is here everybody who is part of the government, from the President to police man Bob on the streets Eurpean-named American city #35,654). I don't even think there's a word for such idiotic state methods, because it goes against all intelligent thinking ever made up. So you're a Christian, right-wing, anti-abortion, homo-hating, freedom-loving, free enterprice-loving, commie-paranoia-engaging, authority-fetish-having American - that's fine with me. But at least have some respect for yourself, because what you are doing by defending such bullshit like Jpatt's, is simply embarassing to yourself and only to you. --UHM, Your favorite pain in the ass! 16:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

No, that's a leap. The essay clearly proposes overthrowing the Congress's constitutionally mandated authority to remove an executive from office. It has nothing to do with guys we like and dislike. Meanwhile, editors in this discussion have maintained the fiction that a single person constitutes the government. Removal of an executive does not constitute overthrowing the government, whereas impinging on Congresses mandated powers would be overthrowing the government. - nobs 16:23 April 23, 2011

If that was a leap why did you start mumbling something about Reagan's shooter? What does he have to do with, if actually it seems he needed a lawyer and was brought to court (with what result by the way is of no importance to the question whether or not one should be prosecuted). Nobody ever claimed that Obama is the sole government. But he is part of the goverment and therefor, by trying to overthrow him, is trying to overthrow the goverment. It doesn't matter which part of the government you attack - attacking one part of the government is attacking the government. With your bullshit logic slaughtering your arm would not be attacking you, but just attacking your arm. On a completely different part, if a communist conspiracy were to take place (and with that I mean real communists and not the people tea baggers scream "You dirty commie" at contemporarily) , to take over control of the government and let's say they actually let the judges and supreme court and that full branch in office - they did not overthrow the government? Would you still say the same thing? Or would you grab your gun and try to kill those dirty commies? Or are you actually so dense to think that that's exactly what's happening right now? Because believe me if you think Obama is a socialist, "my" chancellor(ette) Angela Merkel would be the second coming of Stalin. And for this whole birther thing: evidence - make the claim → evidence. But in the first version of his ramblings essay Jpatt did not make such a demand, he did not reason this way, he just and plain stated that Obama should be removed because he is (or would be) the worst President the US ever had. So stop touching touching your keyboard because it makes so nice sounds and try to think and then write something. (and for fucks sake read what other people write) --UHM, Your favorite pain in the ass! 18:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

This is what is so fucking scary about the US. In the UK we have people who want to overthrow the government with violence but they are few and far between and no-one - not even the daily mail - takes them seriously. We shake our heads and let special branch get on with watching them and if necessary neutralising them. In the US fucking morons spouting shit like this are taken seriously and supported by certain radio and tv show hosts. And, of course, sysops on 'trustworthy encyclopediae'. The fact that some of the US's own press and mainstream republican party are willing to allow this and not condemn it says a fuck of a lot about how the US is nowhere near being a mature democracy yet and has a VERY long way to go. Having the most guns does not make your idiotic wingnut ideas right. And it never will. Most true democracies world wide have matured and grown into an intelligent place where debate is possible. The wingnuts in the US want to reach for the gun wheneve rhtey lose the argument - and that is a fuck of a lot of the time is nobs cares to be honest. Oldusgitus (talk) 18:46, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

(EC) How should there be a mature democracy? Not long ago most of them believed outspokenly that their nation was chosen by a god to fullfill his own vision of the world (which he did not prophecies!) and even today I'd guess at least 30% still believe this crap (I mean Isreal I see that, but the US?). The thing that always scares the piss out of me is that mumbling idiots like GWB and gamblers cold war "winners" like Reagan (because there never a was a Gorbachev, Kohl, Thatcher, Mitterand or uh all people that actually decided against a communist system, but don't say that to loudly) get to desice whether they will drop atomic bombs or not. --UHM, Your favorite pain in the ass! 19:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Look at the authors own words, "Impeachment is a loser of an idea that will go nowhere. But it begs a greater question..."; if this material may be deemed seditious, it is the usurpation of power from the Legislative branch. I just don't see where it's a left/right, liberal/conservative, Democrat/Republican, us/them, good guys/bad guys type thing posters here made it out to be. nobs^{don't bother me} 18:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

FFS Rob, I've already instructed you in what "begging the question" means, so can you get the message through to your dim-witted accomplice because he makes CP looks like a bunch of ill-educated wingnuts. Oh wait, forget about that.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 19:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

UHM, What I think is the difficulty here is failure to commun'cate: The premise of JPatt's prattlings is that Obama is The Problem; one possible solution to this "problem" is a metaphorical decapitation. The Constitution doesn't enter into it when you're just brainstorming. But even if it were (and here is where Rob gets involved) The Problem is soooo teh bad, that we need to do something about it before It gets elected again and Democracy is thwarted by the (s)elction process. As seen by the Founding Fathers, Obama isn't eligible to be POTUS simply because he isn't (by the Constitution as adopted in the late 18th century) a full human being, (even if we were "generous" and gave him 100% on 50% of him since his slut mother was white), he's still only 4/5ths of a person, the Bible Constitution says in Article II that only a "person" is eligible to be President, NOT 4/5ths of a person!!!!!one!! Since the Constitution has been violated anyways why stop now!? By removing Obama (forcibly if necessary) the military wouldn't be sinning VIOLATING the Constitution but upholding it! 18:59, 23 April 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

It says here, "Impeachment, like treason, is from a byegone era when the public demanded integrity and honesty from their leaders. The impeachment of Bill Clinton was a joke. A sitting President lies to the nation, than lies under oath in court. A Republican House & Senate could not remove him from office." (bolden added) Seems more like criticism of Republican legislators for failing thier constitutional duties and suggesting to remove, by force, thier constitutional powers by the Executive branch, i.e., the military. nobs^{don't bother me} 19:19, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Rob, I asked you questions, it would be nice if you'd answer them instead of ducking away cowardly. The legislative is not the sole government either, but just a part of the government that makes laws. Oh btw your dear leader Andy 403'ed me, so links might just not help so much... (yes, I'm making you work for it) And are you actually trying to make an "essay" that says the President should be taken out of office by the military into a critizism of the Republican legislative? Because, you know, I don't think Clinton was the only President ever lying to save his own ass because some slightly anti-sexual voters (uh, who could that be?) would found it unbearable if he actually just said "Ops, had an affair there, my bad!". --UHM, Your favorite pain in the ass! 19:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm saying the author equally criticizes a Republican dominated legislature (then and now) for failing to dispatch what he considers to be thier constitutional repsonsibilities, and suggests a dramatic siezure, by the Executive branch, of powers solely delegated to the Legislative branch. I'm also saying editors here can't find thier ass with two hands if they seriously think this is a partisan argument. nobs^{don't bother me} 19:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Great then we have an equal opinion about each other. Answer my dirty commie-question now and you'll get a cookie. --UHM, Your favorite pain in the ass! 20:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Is this the question about Angela Merkel and "market socialism"? In the US, some m ight say the commies got control of the executive, legislative, and judicial decades before I was born. nobs^{don't bother me} 20:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

"Some" also say that aliens took them up their spaceship, that America is evil, a.s.o. It basically was the question if you would argument the same way if it was a communist calling for a military coup or if this is just a thing of defending one of your own. And btw, I'd find it ok if it would be, that would at least tell me that you actually believe in what you are saying so much that you'd die for your ideas... (which I honestly question with most CP Sysops). --UHM, Your favorite pain in the ass! 20:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Where am I defending "one of my own"? nobs^{don't bother me} 21:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Uhm, Jpatt? Or wouldn't you consider him a conservative? --UHM, Your favorite pain in the ass! 21:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

How would I know. I haven't spoken to him very much. nobs^{don't bother me} 15:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

This is a great example of Rob's complete lack of good faith. He's perfectly happy to call Phelps a liberal despite nothing about Phelps resembling even CP's twisted definition of liberal, yet he declines to answer the same question about Jpatt because he wants to have his cake and eat it too by distancing himself from Jpatt's treasonous hatescreed and incoherently defending it balls-deep. Sure, makes perfect sense that Rob wouldn't know if Jpatt's "conservative" after working with him on the Trusworthy Encyclopedia and trading emails with him on secret email lists for years. Why are you people talking to this man? He's defective. Nutty Roux (talk) 13:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

By comparing that what he says about what he believes in and what he does to what you think to be conservative. No wonder you guys think that everybody who wants to raise taxes one per cent is socialist... But absoulutly seriously though, if you don't know that technique this whole discussion was giant waste of time. And we don't need to go any further with it. --UHM, Your favorite pain in the ass! 16:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Just to go back to the main point, in some states, like NY the age of consent is 17, so a 27 year old and 17 year old dating/sex whatever would be legal. Depends. Rationalize (talk) 16:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I know. I just wanted to make the age difference clear and choose 17 because most 17 year-olds know what sex is and know if they wan't it or not - and not to give Rob the chance to say "Well if she was 12 that pervert earned it" - although I now see that I don't need to work so much dicussing something like that with somebody like him. And I just watched the first season of Pretty Little Liars were that is kind of a big storyline, I blame Lucy Hale for that thing not going out of my head. --UHM, Your favorite pain in the ass! 16:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

It depends on the State; in some States, a 14 year old can consent with her parents consent; in some a 16 year old without parental consent; in still others, no one can consent under 18. But in most, none can drink til thier 21, yet they can vote and make decisions affecting the rest of us. nobs^{don't bother me} 17:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

IT's they're* Robby. Rationalize (talk) 16:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

A lay person writes

I'm not a student of the US constitution but I know that the POTUS is the commander in chief of the US armed forces, so calling for the military to remove him from office is incitement to mutiny.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 07:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

You know

Good old nobs is spending an awful amount of energy defending something he initially declared was a non-event. Methinks the lady doth protest too much. And too stupidly. --PsyGremlinFale! 08:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Judging by his typing skilz & general coherence methinks he's ratarsed. --Scream!! (talk) 08:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

To Clear This Up for Once and For All

Sadly it seems as if the Secret Service doesn't have a general e-mail address, so below is the text of an e-mail I've directed to the Washington DC office of the FBI, to try and obtain a clear and definite answer for once and for all.

Dear Sir or Madam

I realise that you must receive many requests on a daily basis and your time is precious, but I wonder if I could trouble you for some input on what is turning out to be a rather heated on-line debate.

To provide some background, a comment was made on a certain right-wing website, to quote "I strongly believe the President needs to be removed from office by the U.S. Military and tried under the military court system." In addition to this, the author states elsewhere that "Technically, yes I am calling for a military coup. In normal circumstances, the military removes a leader, disbands congress, shreds and restarts a constitution and a Junta becomes the defacto leadership. It's not in the Constitution but the commander-n-chief is the head of the military and the military can relieve commanders. I would like to see the military remove Obama, the second in command becomes the chief executive, Congress stays in place, the Constitution stays intact."

Now myself and several colleagues have picked up on this and feels it falls foul of U.S. Code Title 18 § 2385, which deals with "Advocating overthrow of Government."

The counter argument to this is that the President does not represent the Government per se, and that § 2385 would only apply if an individual was advocating the overthrow of the US Government, presumably meaning the President, VP, his cabinet, the Senate and Congress. Simply calling for the President alone to be removed, does not fall foul of this statute.

Unfortunately, not being a U.S. citizen myself, I'm not fully au fait with the finer details of U.S. law, and I wonder if I could please impose upon you to provide some clarity on this matter.

Thank you in advance for your assistance
Yours faithfully

Let's see if we get a reply. --PsyGremlinTala! 16:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Why, yes. There are some large men in suits and wearing sunglasses at the door right now. I hear it's lovely in Guantanamo this time of year. P-Foster (talk) 16:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget:

§ 2387. Activities affecting armed forces generally

(a) Whoever, with intent to interfere with, impair, or influence the loyalty, morale, or discipline of the military or naval forces of the United States:

(1) advises, counsels, urges, or in any manner causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States; or

(2) distributes or attempts to distribute any written or printed matter which advises, counsels, or urges insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States--

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

Cheers, Nutty Roux (talk) 17:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

...just use Preparation H. SJ ^Debaser 17:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow. I'd start cp:Rationalwiki:FBI incident but unfrotunately RW is still on the spam blocklist. nobs^{don't bother me} 18:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

As far as I understand Psy did not squeal but simply ask if that would fall under that law or not. But anyway, I can't wait for the answer (hopefully it's something like "Yeah it does. Got an address?"). --UHM, Your favorite pain in the ass! 18:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Last I heard, RW wasn't trying to supress the fact that someone contacted the FBI, although also unlike CP this is a simple request for information rather than reporting someone out of sheer malice. --Kels (talk) 19:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I work with prisoners in the county jail regularly; they have a saying, "snitches end up in ditches", and are overwhelming loyal liberal Dxemocratic Obama supporters. Hell, many are so loyal they voted for Obama 4 or 5 times. Being branded an FBI informant or snitch is no great honor. Does Psy have have an ED page? this aspect of his career should not go unnoticed. nobs^{don't bother me} 22:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

When the bottle says "take twice daily", it doesn't mean five at a time, Rob. --Kels (talk) 23:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Oh hey, Psy, addressing a woman in the United States as "Madam" is inappropriate; a Madam runs a whorehouse. nobs^{don't bother me} 23:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, you would know, wouldn't you nobs. PS ED is dead. For the head of counter intelligence, you're not very up to date are you. Also since when did a request for info become snitching. Also, ar you implying that Andy and Karajou, who claim to have snitched to the FBI, belong in ditches too? It's not like I mentioned names. Hmmm... I get the feeling that suddenly nobs isn't too sure of himself. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 08:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

so what?

as if jpatt is the first nutter masturbating to schemes against the president. don't you people remember the bush years?--Brxbrx (talk) 18:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, good point. Jpatt is entitled to freedom of speech. Rationalize (talk) 19:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone expects or even wants Jpatt censured for treason or anything. It's just fun to look at how ridiculous the essay is, including the fact that it's rather a call to mutiny. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 19:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm someone and I'd be delighted to see a violent extremist teabagger prosecuted for encouraging military insurrection. Rob's been trying to distract people from the meat of things by focusing on his ridiculous claim that the president is not the "government" and not spending a microsecond on the fact that urging the military to mutiny is also seditious. Nutty Roux (talk) 17:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Karajou agrees??? Occasionaluse (talk) 18:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)