Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive233

This is an archive page, last updated 4 May 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>, <232>, <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)

Um... Ed, you left a bit out.

So User188 manages to create an article that a) is more than one sentence long and b) isn't about underage girls. He also proudly proclaims^img "Exactly as I wrote it for Wikipedia." What he forgets to mention, is that his missive at Wikipedia is a) Up for deletion, b) "contains too many quotations for an encyclopedic entry" and c) does not represent a worldwide view of the subject.

Of course, articles of that standard are right at home on CP. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 11:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

History link to see his edit summary^img --Sid (talk) 11:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

He pasted it into CZ as well http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Unit_cohesion&curid=100177349&action=history hat tip to M.B.E. ħuman 13:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I think Ed needs reminding what family friendly^img means. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 15:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

From Ed's 'Unit cohension' article: "In relation to the DADT controversy, an editorial writer for the Wall Street Journal said that unit cohesion can be undermined by favoritism stemming from "exclusive" relationships based on eros." Eros is wikilinked, and leads to "Roman mythology", which has nothing about "eros". It's hard to figure out why Ed chose a Roman god's name that generally translates into love, and why that worked for his anti-gay argument. --Leotardo (talk) 15:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The article is pretty stupid on WP or CP. There are so many militaries around the world that allow gays/women (like Israel) that have seen no problems whatsoever with "unit cohesion" that to repeat the pro-DADT arguments in this regard is just to say, "I'm an idiot who could care less what has never come to fruition anywhere else, I'm still going to argue it." --Leotardo (talk) 16:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Which is part of why American political discourse is generally dumb and/or worthless. Cf. universal health care -- "UHC will destroy our health care system/pull the plug on granny/death panels/whatever!" "What about all the other countries that have UHC and spend less on health care with better outcomes?" "Nonsense! We have the best healthcare system in the world!" Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

In order for the rightwing to keep up their fantasies, they have to think within a vacuum (pretending proposals have never been tried anywhere else) or thinking that America is so exceptional that other countries' experiences have no relevance to us. This is why they say so many dumb things or repeat arguments long debunked elsewhere. It's the intellectual equivalent of a teenager telling his or her parents that they don't understand Childhood Issue X because things are different from when they were kids. --Leotardo (talk) 18:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, there are some cases in which the European model doesn't work in the US. Gas prices come to mind. We're simply a larger, more sparsely populated country than any place in Europe, so we can't pretend we can easily be as fuel efficient as they are. DickTurpis (talk) 02:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I remember trying to explain my way of life to Europeans. They couldn't believe that I drive everywhere I go and that doing otherwise is basically infeasible. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Taking a quick look over at WP, it seems less of a homophobic attack (although that's a bonus for Ed), so much as an attack on women's rights, another favourite topic of his. He keeps returning to women being a problem in the forces and dragging standards down. --Kels (talk) 16:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

tsktsk, jpatt

you claim that he did nothing for easter^img, but in fact, he attended an Easter service, and at a national prayer breakfast claimed that his faith had deepened, and urged people to look to faith to create more civility in Washington. Although, I suppose we can blame his source more than we can blame him.---brxbrx 01:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

It's pretty common, though, that many of the top users are CP don't even bother to read their sources (if they have them) or simply ignore information that's easily accessible. You'd think he'd be able to at least google "Obama Easter" and see what comes up before running his mouth... άλφα^Talk 08:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Too much effort to do that. 08:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Alright, alright, he did something for "Easter", but what did he do for "Resurrection Sunday"? DickTurpis (talk) 12:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Castro

is now officially confirmed dead. ... Hmmm, it is really easy to read only the first few words of a headline! I could be an admin on CP in a flash. How will CP spin this one? I'm sure the BBC is too liberal for them, seeing as its British, but still. άλφα^Talk 08:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

His still-living body doubles are getting old. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

we already have a royal wedding wigo

or am I missing the point?---brxbrx 22:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

They're about slightly different things, although it would be possible to add the newer one as an update to the older one, since both speak to CP's sysops' inability to read.. - Jpop (talk) 23:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

One is inability to read the other is inability to research --Opcn (talk) 00:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Merged or not, it doesn't really matter. - Jpop (talk) 01:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

that silly obama, not starting more wars

http://conservapedia.com./index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&diff=prev&oldid=864339^img Silly obama, why can't you start more wars so we can insult you for not being a "Nobel peace prize man"!--Mikalos209 (talk) 12:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

It's just Rob, who's either got something wrong with his brain or is a terrible person I wish people would stop giving so much attention. Nutty Roux (talk) 13:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure that's either/or? Damo^Hi 13:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

No, but I am sure continuing any discussion with him or WIGOing stuff like this is just succumbing to the troll's poison. Nutty Roux (talk) 13:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Well fuck, connect the dots: the more you harass and troll me here with assholes like AceMcWicked or P-Foster, the more time I got to write Libyan uprising, which is almost ready to spin-out into a separate article. The only problem is where and when do we weave the POW of Reagan conservatives into the narrative:

Ever since we've had Bill Clinton, George W Bush and now Obama, what we've learned is law means nothing to the executive branch in the US. They don't obey our own laws; they don't obey international law; they violate all the civil liberties and buried the principal of habeas corpus - no crime without intent; of the ability for a defendant to be legally represented. ...The entire world is now at stake on American over-reach; American huberus - the drive for American hegemony over the world is driving the rest of the world into a World War.

nobs^{don't bother me} 16:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, let's see. Reagan's non-interventionist foreign policy and his concerns for obtaining Congressional authorization are definitely a notable feature of this great man's presidency. I suppose you could put it into your article on the Iran-Contra affair. Or maybe the part about Lebanon that deals with the US intervention? Since we're dealing with Libya, the best place would obviously be an article on the retaliation for Lockerbie, but you don't have one yet. Or maybe you could just write a general article on the imperial presidency and point out how these lamentable aberrations were introduced by Clinton and how conservatives have consistently opposed them. Röstigraben (talk) 17:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The article does bring up, in a roundabout partisan way, a legitimate criticism of the executive branch's foreign policy. If militarily intervening in Libya's civil war for the sake of humanitarian reasons (even if its really just supporting one side in the war in the hopes they win and off a more amicable government) is legitimate, then why not Syria, or the Ivory Coast for that matter? And if intervening in those nations internal affairs militarily for "humanitarian reasons" is now our general foreign policy then why are we not doing so for those other nations?

Personally I see the Libyan intervention as a mistake, it isn't our place to get involved in their little war. Worse, when we do interfere like this, its typically some confused half-hearted, weak-willed attempt with no clear objectives or meaningful measure of victory. ^{— Unsigned, by: BMcP / talk / contribs}

The "all-or-nothing" argument is rhetorically persuasive, but illogical. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Beats having ill-defined and thus ultimately pointless objectives. What are we hoping to achieve there? A rebel victory? A Qadaffi ouster? Neither of these the are stated objectives at least of the United States; so why are we just wasting our treasure and military blowing up Libyian military infrastructure? Are we going to start doing similar operations every time there is an insurrection against an authoritarian government? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying those questions are invalid, just that the perfect solution argument is. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I am fundamentally opposed to the ongoing campaign in Libya. That being said, in the real world, there's a case to be made for inconsistency when it comes to foreign military interventions. The attacks against Libya have the imprimatur not only of Resolution 1973, but of the Arab League and (IIRC) the AU. As of now, there is no similar international mandate or consensus re: Syria. Moreover, Libya =/= not Syria. Attacks on Syria would provoke massive anger across the Arab world, and given that the country borders both Iraq and Israel, there are all sorts of contingencies that would need to be taken into account. You fight the wars you have to, and you fight the wars you think you can win. China abuses the Uighurs and the Tibetans, but nobody would realistically call for using American/NATO air power to intervene to stop that; that doesn't mean automatically that the same standards will or should apply everywhere. P-Foster (talk) 19:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm ambivalent toward the campaign. I can't help but imagine being fired upon by my government and thinking someone with humanitarian/Genevan chops should help. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure, if your government is a weak international pariah state with no real ties to anyone powerful, the odds of somebody coming to your help are pretty good, especially if a valuable natural resource comes into play. If your government is powerful, or has powerful friends, or is in an awkward geopolitical place, or if nobody gives a crap about your country because it produces plantains instead of oil, well, too bad. That's politics. P-Foster (talk) 19:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Or if your country is very poor without any real friends, but again the key word is poor. Hence the Ivory Coast was ignored even if they had a similar violent crisis with a president who refused to step down to a democratically elected government voted in to replace him. The nation is just too poor and probably too black for anyone in the West to give a shit about the deaths there; your importance to the international community depends on which side of the Sahel your nation sits on. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I have said it over and over again, and probably will say it over and over again: I support the intervention in Libya and wish it would go further then just making peace, but effectively supporting the "rebels" (I question if one can still call them rebels, they have been recognized by France, Qatar, Maldives, Italy, Kuwait, Gambia as the official government of Libya). It is like you see somebody getting beaten up on the street: in most countries not helping them would not constitute a crime, but it is highly immoral not to try to help. Why is there a difference when it comes to whole nations? I say there isn't. If a people had the strength to rise up to opressors and get rid of him - what does it say about us as the West - and especially the United Fucking States of America, whiches whole identity is only founded on the idea of freedom and not much else other then the idea of "I don't wanna pay the taxes" - if we do not help oppressed people when they struggle to free themselves? It says that we don't care about their freedom, even more that they don't deserve the same freedom as we do - and in it's last consequence that we see them as being inferior to us. I understand the egoistic need for a state not to sacrifice it's own citizens lifes for another peoples freedom as an extremly human form of egoism. But egoism together with the idealism I hear in the words of so many constitutions of our Western world is hypocrisy (I know I've been riding that horse to the ground but I don't want to need to ride it any longer, so I'll be riding it for a long time). Obama never was a peace President, he has said in so many speeches during the election that he does not want peace in Afghanistan before bin Laden isn't found and brought to justice, he saw Iraq a an unnecessary war and wrong from the begining, he wanted to take troops out of Iraq and bring them into Afghanistan to speed the process uo there. Just because some Scandinavians thought he should get a peace prize for advocating atomic weapons globally he should stop all the wars now? Please don't jerk of about wordings of things like a bunch of sophists. And while on that topic humanitarian reasons means giving people in need water, food and medicine they need not "out of a huminatarian world view". Rob's argument is highly logical and great in a ideal world, but back in the real world there's something called resources that make it hard to attack every single authoritarian state on that ground, also some of these might have the support of their people (which we of course don't know as we don't have unbiased numbers, so we should wait until it get's obvious), attacking them would mean to force freedom upon them, which isn't freedom. But sadly ideals are what you crap on in politics and economics. --UHM, Your favorite pain in the ass! 20:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem here is the assumption that the rebel forces would form some sort of government that would be any less autocratic and oligarchic than the current one. It is much more likely just replacing one freedom suppressing regime with another. Just look at the history of North Africa, there are not examples of a modern, free, democratic nation in the entire history of the region and people think that is suddenly going to happen now in a tribal land with no democratic traditions when this clusterfuck of an operation run by bureaucratic fools is over? It's like people believing Afghanistan and can be transformed from an insular, religious, tribalistic, authoritarian society it has been throughout all its history into some sort of modern, secular, western democratic state in a few years complete with Mountain Dews, iPads, and bikini contests because of outside meddling by yet another imperialistic (to the Afghans at least) alien powers with alien values trying to tell them all their values and beliefs are shit.

Besides that "interfere for humanitarian reasons and bring freedom" shtick goes right out the door whenever its a nation state where it would actually be a real risk to play the world's moral policeman. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

If we're going to talk about hypocrisy when it comes to "spreading democracy," maybe a Bible lesson would do well here: Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

So, your argument goes like this: if you have too choose between an authoritarian state and the possibility of a democratic society (like some Islamic nations are), go with the athoritarian society? Let me quote from Wikipedia: "[…] clarifying the goals for a post-Gaddafi Libya, the council has committed itself an eight-point plan to hold free and fair elections, draft a national constitution, form political and civil institutions, uphold intellectual and political pluralism, and guarantee citizens' inalienable human rights and the ability of free expression of their aspirations. The council also emphasized its rejection of racism, intolerance, discrimination, and terrorism." So they published that they want a free and democratic society. No I guess we really don't know what they want, right? Because everybody they just could be lying? Why should they? Because they are dirty muslims? Because they live in third world country? Because they are browner than us? Give me a reason why they should mobilize a people lie to it and then try to rule over it the same way (over people who have just overthrown somebody) - that's like standing in front of murder screaming "kill me! kill me!". They could use some sort of islamic fanatism to get rid of Gadafi but they don't. That they won't walk around in bikinis in a year is a sure thing, but they may be allowed to talk about it. The argument there hasn't been a democrativ society in that region is - sorry - laughable, why shouldn't they be the first one? Because they haven't had one before? --UHM, Your favorite pain in the ass! 21:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

There's plenty of precedent for rebels instituting largely identical government, and the US isn't really in a great position to expend more military resources. That aside, I agree that peacekeeping and government replacement are generally worth a shot. (Disclaimer: I don't even know where Libya is, so this is just philosophy.) ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 21:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Funny how the liberal hawks start sounding like neocons whenever it's a Democrat's war (the two are cut from the same cloth, really). Just set up the false dichotomy of you're either with us or with the terr'ists you're either for democracy or for dictatorship. In fact, I'd be fine with beefing up UN peacekeeping forces and enforcing DMZs. What we're doing, however, is active military intervention. That's where things get tricky because of all those nasty complications, like "collateral damage" and "exit strategies." It's not a case of an imperfect plan, but an almost non-existent one with no deliberation. I've probably WIGO'ed at least one of these, but these articles put it better than I can: What Happens Then, by James Fallows; Libyan War Recalls Afghan Pitfalls by Robert Parry; Obama's new views of his own war powers by Glenn Greenwald. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The Bible verse lesson would only work if it was shown I supported such "Spreading democracy" military interventions in the past, or somehow in part responsible for all the ones America has done, most which occurred before I was born. Also Nebuchadnezzar is right. WTF is with the false dichotomy that if I don't believe the United States should ride in on the back of a tank like some Lone Ranger to the rescue every time there is a revolution in some foreign land, I am all for dictators and authoritarian regimes? Because of course all our military interventions have worked so well in the past with a 100% success rate amiright?? Maybe I would more convinced we are doing it all for purely selfless reasons if we say did it first against the far more brutal regime of North Korea rather then the relatively benign regime of Qadaffi; but its easy to pretend one is the hero for the press and pollsters when the enemy is weak and non-threatening. Besides what democratic Islamic Mideastern nation is there again? Turkey? Iraq? Egypt? Algeria? Every time there is a revolution over there it is just another authoritarian regime paced in power that pays lip service to freedom and democratic values and uses religion and nationalism to keep the people in line, at least until it gets intolerable and the next regime comes to power. That's nice the council promises all those flowery things for Libya, but talk is cheap and its pretty easy to make promises when you are not in power. But hey, maybe this time it will be different than every other time, but so what? It still isn't our job to get involved in every internal dispute that doesn't directly threaten our national security, and besides it isn't like we will ever enforce this doctrine evenly, just where it is remarkably politically convenient to do. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 00:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

So I can't give a full response yet because I haven't read all the links yet, but here's what I got so far. I should clean something up: I wouldn't consider myself a liberal or a Democrat, You'd find me way more in the area of libertarian-socialism and anarcho-communism. So I'm not a Con nor a Lib. I'm not a normal interventionalist that thinks "spreading democracy" should be the main goal of all foreign politics, but when a people cry for help to those who are allready "free" (or what we can call free under the circumstances), I think we (the Western World) should help or support otherwise. I don't favor American intervention, actually I think the US shouldn't touch Libya with a 2000 mile-stick. Let "us" Europeans do that, at least we can't be called imperialists because we're not an Empire - and let's be honest we have a far more positive picture then The Hulk Uncle Sam. Why not attack North Korea first (thank you for repeating Rob's point of view, tells a lot)? (1) No uproar by the North Korean people so far. (2) Have you ever seen how big there military is? That wouldn't be 2 week gick! (3) There's a little settlement down in South Korea called Sudogweon (Capital Area) with only 22 million inhabitants in shooting distance of North Korean Army. (4) North Korea is backed by China in the Security Council - not getting a resolution there. If there were violent and well organized rebels in North Korea that would have gained land in their fighting the case is a different one, but in that case South Korea could step in quite fast. "WTF is with the false dichotomy that if I don't believe the United States should ride in on the back of a tank like some Lone Ranger to the rescue every time there is a revolution in some foreign land, I am all for dictators and authoritarian regimes?" - that weren't my words, that's your assumption out of what you see in American politics, I wouldn't say that. I know that from time to time people are just too much of a coward to help other people (me too btw). There are hundreds of example every day: A husband beats his wife and their teenage son does nothing; the old grandma' that get's robed and nobody stops the robberer, the hobo that sits on the streets and is not given enough to eat (although that one is getting seldom) a.s.o.

What kind of lame-ass argument is that? They won't ever achieve democracy because they are just power hungry fascists down there? Or is there culture unfit for democracy? And as a German I feel inclined to ask: What the fucking hell in fucking Fuckland would you have done with Germany after WW2? Install another dictatorship? If I am good enough to enjoy free speech and other rights so can Mohammed from Beirut, Ali in Kairo and all the other kids down there - and if they want it bad enough to grab a gun and attack the government who are we to sit back and relax while they risk there lives and we make happy trading family with the people they fight? But I guess if you've been born a few thousand miles too south your on your own and you don't have rights that should be protected. Fuck it! As long as their goverments give us all the oil we need to let them produce out toys who gives a flying fuck if they want to be free! Let 'em get shut! You've been born in the wrong place! ce'st la vie! --UHM, Your favorite pain in the ass! 01:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

"But I guess if you've been born a few thousand miles too south your on your own and you don't have rights that should be protected." You should ask Europe & America that when the same situation occurred in the Ivory Coast, hardly a military power of any sort and no one came to those people's aid. Heck, remember Zaire/Congo, or Rwanda/Burundi? Europe doesn't care about the Libyan people, it cares about Libyan oil, that is why it interferes, "humanitarian assistance" is the cover story for "we needs our black gold". The hope is by backing the rebels is if they win, there will be a friendlier government more affable to European desires. That wouldn't be so bad if they were just honest about it. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

"at least we can't be called imperialists because we're not an Empire." Seriously? Have you spent any time in wp:Northern Ireland? How about wp:Western Sahara? The wp:Falkland Islands are nice this time of year, I hear, as are wp:New Caledonia, wp:Bermuda and wp:Gibraltar. I've never been to wp: Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha, but I am hoping to get to the wp:Turks and Caicos Islands, or wp:Monserrat or the wp:Cayman Islands some day. P-Foster (talk) 02:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Western Sahara, the unrecognized independent state that is officially a Moroccan-occupied area? ListenerX^TalkerX 02:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

"The Spanish colony of the Spanish Sahara up to 1976, 85% of the territory of Western Sahara is now occupied and administered by Morocco. The rest of the territory is under the control of the Polisario Front and administerd by the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. The UN however still considers Spain as administrating country of the whole territory awaiting the outcome of the ongoing Manhasset negotiations and resulting election to be overseen by the United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara. So it's complicated. P-Foster (talk) 02:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I know that with some of the remaining colonies, their independence is being encouraged by the colonial power but the economic subsidies from the metropole are an offer that cannot be refused. ListenerX^TalkerX 02:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

No doubt. I just think it's hilarious that a Euro is trying to disassociate the continent from imperialism. As though history only began with the last major spate of decolonization in Lusophone Africa in the 1970s, as though the previous 350 + years never happened. P-Foster (talk) 03:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Looking only at Libya, I also doubt whether the Europeans are liked better and trusted more than the US. The EU, and France and Italy in particular, had no problems dealing with the old Gaddhafi regime, it is their history of imperialism that used to shape the region, and while the US is certainly more often associated with taking military action, it is also the one nation that has consistently done so in the name of democracy promotion (which is what the rebels want, after all). But that's mostly irrelevant right now anyway, because ATM, the anti-Gaddhafi coalition would welcome anybody's help. The question only comes into focus if this campaign actually succeeds not just in the immediate military sense, but also as far as establishing a democratic system in Libya. Libya has a lot of things both the US and EU want, not just oil, but also - for Europeans - intercepting refugees from Africa, and the country would also be an important participant in the wp:Desertec project. I doubt whether this could be had without significant aid towards the new government in return, something that could easily mean long-term entaglement in the conflicts of yet another fractured society. The intervention would probably not have happened if Libya were not of any interest to the West, but at the same time, safeguarding these same interests will take more beyond the ouster of Gaddhafi. I'm also in favour of intervention for humanitarian causes, better in just a few cases and without a consistent policy than not at all. However, the "you break it, you buy it" principle that kept the US in Iraq for much longer than they'd planned is also at work in these places, and that's something that should always be kept in mind when intervening. Röstigraben (talk) 06:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

@UHM: You might do well to read the articles before taking a blowtorch to a room full of strawmen. Now I agree that, where politically and militarily viable, we should come to the aid of fledgling democratic movements. Of course, that also entails a working knowledge of the ideological composition said movements and their context within the history and culture of the region. Libya is an extremely tribal nation. Now if you want to draw comparisons to post-WWII Germany, it doesn't get us anywhere because of the glaring differences. For one, we were already in Germany, so there would be no reason not to support a democracy. Two, unlike Libya, Germany had a history of a republican government and the makeup of its civil society was much different than that of Libya. If you, y'know, actually study the history of post-colonial African nations, you see a pattern emerge of tribal divisions repeatedly undermining attempts at democratic government. This is, of course, in large part due to the fact that many of the boundaries of these countries were arbitrarily carved out by colonial powers without any respect as to what peoples got lumped where. I wish foreign policy were as easy as just sniping a Saddam or a Gaddafi and letting democracy flourish from there, but, unfortunately, the real world isn't all sunshine and gumdrops. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 08:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

When is a "massive flood" not a "massive flood"?

When secularized language^img takes over, of course^img. P-Foster (talk) 18:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

So it's "flood waters"^img instead? I don't get it, Andy. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 19:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

This is what I love about conspiracy theories -- they may be crankery, but they can be very creative crankery (it's tough work trying to blame everything on the government/liberals/Jews/NWO/Reptoids/whatever). Reminds me of the great quote on the PrisonPlanet page: "...Alex Jones, a radio presenter and heroic source of truth to people who can't fart without blaming it on a bean producer conspiracy."Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec)the term "massive flood" might lead people to read the bible? I don't suppose it'd be too much to ask for Andy to explain his logic there?---brxbrx 19:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Pretty simple. Liberals have secularized language to help remove religion from Murrican culture. Liberals also, obviously, control the liberal media. "Massive flood" refers to the story of Noah's ark. Therefore, this story is a liberal plot to scrub religion from the news. Makes perfect sense. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I know Andy is completely insane, but wouldn't describing this flooding as "massive flooding" minimize the scale of the Noahic deluge? Occasionaluse (talk) 19:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't ruin the Assfly's conspiracy theory with logic, fool! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh come now, Andy never let logic ruin an argument. If pressed, I'm sure he'd go on to argue that all flooding should be hyperbolically compared to the great flood as a way to get people to read the Bible. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

See, there ya go. Now you're thinking with the brain of an Assfly! 10/10 Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

WTF?? I really can't even see where he's going with that. 19:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Neb! I created a template for you this morning! Nutty Roux (talk) 19:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Pegasus: It's pretty obvious liberal deceit by the lamestream media. Deny this and lose all credibility. NR: Not up to the standards of the ♥ K e n D o l l ♥ template. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

That's because calling him Assfly is stupid. The purpose of the template is to let you indulge the temptation in private yet appear to have resisted it to your peers. Nutty Roux (talk) 19:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Would be even better if it just displayed the Schlafly-hypnotoad animation. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The only people who would read the Bible at the mention of the words "massive flood" are those who already read the Bible. I wonder what his wife says when he comes out with this rubbish at the dinner table?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 20:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I imagine he tolerates the same level of dissent from his wife as he does on CP. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Or possibly he's all "Yes dear." "No dear." " Three bags full dear." and CP is where he gets to wear the trousers pants. --Scream!! (talk) 21:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I just like that he thinks atheists/agnostics/liberals whatever are scared to admit there once was a "massive flood" when everyone knows there was. Yes, there was a great flood in history, several in fact. Just because people made up superstitious stories about the flood afterward doesn't validate those post-flood superstitions, Andy. Your Christian mythology to explain how the world works is no more persuasive than Greek and Roman mythology. --Leotardo (talk) 13:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

What the heck?!

So, I just read this^img comment by Ken on the talk page. And, while it brings vomit to my mouth, Ken actually made a fairly reasonable statement I think, one that I'm partially inclined to agree with. Anyways, my point is - have I slipped into some sort of parallel universe where black is white, up is down, and people throw ducks at balloons and nothing is what it seems? Am I high? Or, rather, am I that high? I'm having a bit of a crisis here. Ken wrote something like a normal human being! Carlaugust (talk) 22:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm kinda worried. He must have undergone serious head trauma to reach this level of transformation. - Jpop (talk) 22:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Holy stopped clock, Batman! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not all that surprised actually. We have seen before the Ken is capable of some rational statements on foreign affairs. I remember one exchange he had with TK and JPatt (though not the details, sorry) where he made a lot of sense and really made TK look silly and confused. Get Ken away from religion and creationism and he isn't too bad. Damo^Hi 00:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Between his atheists-are-fat "jokes", flying kitties and posting pictures of Chuck Norris' freedom crotch, Ken can sometimes be reasonable. What's kinda sad is that if he actually got help it could probably be more than just sometimes. --Night Jaguar (talk) 00:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Ken is best compared to Don Quixote. Keep him away from the fantasies he believes in his intelligence and thoughtfulness shines through; get him onto those topics that set him off he is highly irrational and starts tilting windmills. - π 04:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Good analogy.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 06:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Ken has been pretty consistently anti-war and his blow up with TK was pretty epic. That said, it's sad that he only speaks up against Bush when Bush is out of office. Another spineless sysop, scared of offending Andy. --PsyGremlinFale! 10:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

According to CP, being against the Iraq War makes you a liberal. I guess "Conservative" needs to change his name. DickTurpis (talk) 14:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

RW on CP

I know that mentioning RW over at CP is a serious taboo, but surely, at some point they must have an article about us? Does anybody have a cap of it?---brxbrx 02:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Considering that "rationalwiki" is a blocked string there, what would they call the article? ħuman 04:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

well it wasn't always blocked, was it? and I've seen the deletion log. two instances of a rationalwiki article have been deleted. I'm sure one of them was parody, but the other?---brxbrx 06:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

On ConservaLeaks, karajou threatens to put an article together, but as with most things it came to nothing. CP's never had an 'official' page, that would be tantamount to admitting the amorphous "vandal site" exists. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 06:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Yup. The archives don't even contain the word "Rationalwiki", much less a page title including that term. They did have a page about a certain "Conservapeida" once, and back in 2007 there was page on "Cokewiki" for a few minutes. Mountain Blue (talk) 06:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and there was (is?) an essay discussing the alleged fact that liberal wiki vandals lack machismo. Mountain Blue (talk) 06:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, there had never been an actual article about RW, only random people poking fun at CP by seeing how prominently they could feature the site name. Kara did consider writing an article back in 2008 (complete with a draft), and Rob recently considered writing an article about CP's history as a tragic victim of vandal attacks which also would've required lifting the spamblock. --Sid (talk) 09:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

When RationalWiki was first founded there were many attempts to publicize it and get disgruntled CP editors to mosey over. It was a taboo word long before it merited an article at CP and even now I can conceive of no reason for them to have one other than as a hate screed. Any article would have undoubtedly been the work of a "cyber terrorist/vandal". I think Andy's attitude to us in public is RationalWho?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 09:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Minitrue has removed all references to this non-existent, so-called wiki you speak of. Conservapedia-nia has never been at war with East RatWiki-a. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 11:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Recall that it was the spam filter that removed the link from Richard Lenski's email automatically. A bit of a rock 'n' hard place for CP there. Display the link and link to RW or censor it and people wonder what the link was. Ha. So it has bit them on the ass at least once. ADK^{...I'll terrorize your chiffon!} 22:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Irony

I'd like to nominate this page^img to the OED as a definitive illustration of the concept of irony.Infoseek (talk) 06:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Heh, I'm pretty sure that's been brought up before. Besides the really obvious stupidity on that page, my favorite is: "Materialists refuse to address the impossibility of material explanation for migration and homing" (I once wrote an entire paper relating migration and homing in birds to human memory mechanisms and evolutionary psychology). Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

My fave is Kara's "No, we're not going to accept the so-called "proofs" of whale origins, nor anything else related to evolution." What better example of the topic do you need? --PsyGremlin講話 06:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think I changed my favorite to "Advocates of the global warming theory refuse to consider any scientific evidence which shows that natural causes have always had a greater effect on terrestrial air temperature than human activity." Wow, no shit? Maybe it's because humans and industrial society didn't fucking exist for most of the earth's history. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The page is so perfect that it verges on the sublime. In my eyes it stands as justification for the entire Conservapedia project. I like it when Andy won't look at two of the three pieces of evidence because there from Wikipedia and Youtube (Especially given the extravagant praise he's heaped on various Youtube videos). I wonder if the people who write this realize what joy they bring into the heart of their opponents?Infoseek (talk) 06:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: migration and homing, Andy has offered the non-material explanations of "intelligent design that might allow for abstract programming features or divine guidance"^img. Yeah. --Night Jaguar (talk) 07:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Andy's God is such an Earth-centred God that he can guide bird migrations. Bugger the rest of the universe, that can take care of itself! And anyone in the way of a natural disaster, then that's tough titties for thousands apart from the one lucky individual who is rescued by God's grace.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 12:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

It's called a hippocampus, Andy. Look it up sometime. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 08:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

One question that has not been asked too often :re Obama's birth certificate?

This discussion was moved to RationalWiki:Saloon bar#One question that has not been asked too often :re Obama's birth certificate?.01:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Socialist Landfills

What a load of perverted garbage DMorris is writing^img. Landfill is socialist? Most recycling has only be encouraged by eco-liberals because in the past it has been cheaper to dump stuff. If private companies are making money by recycling then by and large it is as a result of government legislation.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 17:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Landfills? Why don't we start with the creeping socialism of public roads? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I was working in DC the day of a Tea Party rally, and saw people I suspected were teabaggers getting on the subway. I was tempted to ask them why they were using such a socialist means of transportation, but thought the better of it. MDB (talk) 17:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Does he realize he is promoting environmentalism? Rationalize (talk) 02:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Or supporting that great socialist military thing. 08:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Reading that, I still don't quite know if E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, the video game, was socialist or capitalist. And that was the first thing I thought of when I read "landfill". It is a very important question. Dendlai (talk) 10:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh wow graphics used to be beyond shit. 19:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Fact is, landfills are obsolete, a lot like the health care systems in socialist nations. Privatization would probably eliminate landfills altogether because private enterprise could come up with ways to make money from garbage rather than paying to bury it in a landfill. Privatization is a beautiful thing, and don't bother trying to refute it; I already know there's pros and cons. DMorris2 (talk) 21:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

If companies can make money so easily from garbage, maybe we should sell the garbage in the landfills and they can come and pick it up. Can't see any companies clamoring to do that, though. ^{ONE / TALK} 09:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Companies can make lots of money out of disposing of rubbish in new and inventive ways. wp:Trafigura recently displayed the same kind of initiative and private enterpise which is so valued of small government right wing wing-nuts and which was so wondefully and thoughtfully displayed by wp:Hooker Chemical at wp:Love Canal. Oldusgitus (talk) 10:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

You know what the worst part of public schooling is?

This guy sounds like a ton of fun^img. What a bloody whiner. P-Foster (talk) 04:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

You know, I have to admit that people walking in the middle of the road when there's a sidewalk right there is a bit of a pet peeve of mine. Though I find it's often not school-age kids doing it, and even when it is, it has nothing to do with public school. This guy's a parodist anyway. DickTurpis (talk) 05:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Andy watches too many movies---brxbrx 13:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I am a graduate of the American public school system, and I am not entirely against public schools. That said, there are many flaws in the system, and Conservapedia is right in criticizing it; most of what we at Conservapedia report on the subject is sadly very accurate. Like landfills, I believe privatizing the public school system into a non-profit organization independent of the government can bring great improvements to the system by removing all of the politics involved with it being part of the government. The system could better compete with private schools and homeschooling if it were run as by private enterprise; teachers could mention God without the fear of atheists attempting to get them fired over it. Students more interested in causing trouble than learning could more easily be expelled if public schools were privatized. I believe Conservapedia's criticism of public schools is a constructive criticism. DMorris2 (talk) 21:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Would they still be government funded? If so they'd have to answer to the government regardless, and I'm not sure I foresee a huge difference being made. You do realize teachers can mention God, right? History class inevitably covers religion, and religion necessitates the mention of God. I assume you're not so subtly advocating teacher-led prayer, which still confuses me. Why do conservatives, who allegedly want the government out of their personal business, insist the government get involved in the religious upbringing of their children? Expulsion is an interesting topic, but when education is not just a right but an obligation, kicking kids out of school is not such an easy solution. Private schools can do that, in which case the kids get sent back to public school, who then get a double dose of troublemakers. DickTurpis (talk) 21:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

^ This. I've never gotten the hard-on for teacher led prayer. I mean, do you really want your kid led in prayer with whatever the teacher happens to believe in? What if you're protestant, and the teacher catholic, or vice-versa? What is they're a Jehovah's Witness? In this new idyllic public school, do we vette the teachers to make sure they have a mainstream concept of christianity? That's a bit bizarre. It's the same reason I'm generally against sex-ed, and think it should be in the home. That kind of shit is, and should be, personal. That said, I do get why they teach sex-ed in school, as many parents find it too uncomfortable (mine included) and would rather let the schools take over. Is that really what you want with your religion, too?? Quaru^{cow - You can't explain that!} 22:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't advocate it being government funded, I advocate it being run on donations like all other charitable organizations. Maybe even charging a small fee to attend the facility. I went to public school, I know teachers can mention God, but I also know that it's really easy to piss off the atheists over nothing. All people do is bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch, and when you're part of the government, it's more difficult to tell the fringes to fuck off. Granted it's not just liberals or atheists that bitch, but it's a pain in the ass. Ever worked in the service industry? Some schools are more conservative than others. Some schools won't see any harm in an innocent Happy Easter if the majority of the class is Christian, and hell, I wouldn't be opposed to a harmless Happy Passover. However, more liberal public school strictly enforce Happy Holidays, or even require complete secularism/atheism. Teacher-led prayer can open up a can of worms, but by censoring things like "Merry Christmas" and intelligent design we're teaching kids to live boring, atheist lives absent of culture. My idea of privatization is to make it completely independent of the government. DMorris2 (talk) 00:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Funded by donations and fees. That'd work great. Teachers would all be volunteers; the poor would be denied education if they can't afford the fees. Real utopia there. But teachers get to pray, so it's a much better system. Oh, and do I really need to explain to you that secularism is not the same as atheism? Do you think about any of this stuff before you post it? I realize you're just a naive kid, but still, try to think things out at least a little. DickTurpis (talk) 02:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Um, there are schools that are just like what you're proposing. They run on donations, and charge fees to attend. They can mention or even teach religion if they want. They are called private schools. People who want these things for their child's education have the option. They may not be able to afford or be admitted to their top choice, however there are many private schools from which to choose, and financial aid is often available. The public schools are there for families who don't choose the private option.
--Too tired to log in (talk) 02:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Pwnd!

One thing we've never heard was the final resolution to TK's "Oh woe is me, they're outing me on WP!" crap, besides Rob's "nothing to do with me!" plea. Well, thanks to Rob (who also inadvertently revealed the name of the new CP admin group), we have the reply from WP's over-sight committee (namely one Happy-melon)

Subject: Re: [Oversight-l] "Outing of IRL Name, repeatedly", "Outing of my real name", etc

Thank you for your emails of 13 March (21:05 and 21:15) and of today. This email system is indeed monitored 24/7, and we have been investigating, with increasing bemusement, the edits surrounding your original concern [1].

In the event that you had kept quiet except for contact to this list, as common sense would recommend, it is likely that no one would have made the connection between your account and the real name which was mentioned in the post. As it is you have consistently shown the red rag to the bull by publicising your 'predicament' on a wide variety of talk pages and noticeboards. Your dismissive reaction [2] to a genuine outing attempt [3] leaves us in no doubt that the dust storm you are kicking up has nothing to do with a genuine concern for privacy.

Before you ask, no I am not a RationalWiki editor or admin. I am not a Conservapedia editor or admin. Like pretty much every other Wikipedia administrator and functionary I Just Don't Give A Shit about your petty little inter-wiki war. Wikipedia editors do not care if X was blocked on Y wiki, or if editors from wiki P are vandalising wiki Q. What we do care about, is keeping such petty disputes off this project.

We care very deeply if the Conservapedia article on enwiki does not reflect a neutral point of view. We could not care less if that view is being pushed by members of RationalWiki, Conservapedia or the Church of the Giant Flying Spaghetti Monster. If you have concerns about the neutrality or presentation of that (or any other) article, present them on the relevant talk page, comment on the content, not the contributors, and work constructively to find a better consensus for the article. Do not spew your petty dispute onto noticeboards and talk pages which have nothing to do with the articles you are nominally concerned about. Do not use other editors or systems as chess pieces with which to play power games. Your pseudonymity is not a card to play; Oversight is not an ace up your sleeve with which to score points off other editors.

Your request for oversight of edit [1] is denied, since the edit itself draws no connection between your real name (which can be found in sources to the article) and your username, and the now-clearly-established connection is entirely of your own making. You are reminded that Wikipedia is not a battleground [4] or a place to bring disputes and conflicts from other wikis. You are reminded that Wikipedia's policies and guidelines exist for the purpose of dispute resolution and consensus building, not as a means to score points off other editors in disputes [5]. You are warned that continuing to violate these community norms will result in escalating sanctions being taken against you and any other editor, on either 'side', who continues such behaviour.

I hope this clarifies the situation to your satisfaction. If you have any further questions or concerns, please do address them to the oversight mailing list at oversigh...@lists.wikimedia.org so they can be investigated promptly.

Thank you, and have a nice day,

--PsyGremlinHable! 10:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Did you not know this already?  Lily ^{Nice melons.} 12:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Evidently not. --PsyGremlinParla! 13:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

That email is one of the most awesome things I have read in ages. Damo^Hi 13:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

This is what Rob selectively quoted to try to prove that WP is as bad as CP when it comes to breaking rules. Of course, being functionally illiterate, Rob doesn't realize that you can't post random shit unrelated to anything and expect to prove a point. DickTurpis (talk) 13:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Well Dick, you're misreading it, I think. TK fucked himself up. I tried to counsel him how to play nice. What's missing is TK's original oversight request, where, one can imagine, he gave it to them "with both barrels" as well. The amazing thing about this response to his request is, it turns into a warning: " You are warned that continuing to violate these community norms will result in escalating sanctions being taken against you." I told him privately, "Seriously, If you would've said "Would you please...blablabla...(throw in some stuff to briefly damage XXXX's & XXXXX's credibility)....Thank you for your attention to this matter," they [WP] probably would have done it [oversight] by now (Rob Smith to ZB Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 10:20 PM). And seriously Dick, the WP admin could have used better langauge than "I Just Don't Give A Shit," for PR purposes at least. nobs^{don't bother me} 21:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Brilliant! What's the new CP admin group name btw? EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 15:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh crap. I deleted the mail. Um, something like CPadmins, or admincp, or conservadmins. Doesn't matter. The flow of info continues unabated. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 15:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

A thought

And I treating it carefully, because it's in a strange a lonely place...

You how Andy's been railing against women daring to aspire to run a restaurant, or gods forbid! a Fortune 500 company? You know, because that's just feminism? How on earth does he equate that with people like Palin, Bachmann, Angle running for elected office, which is probably a far more important/responsible position that running a restaurant?

Or am I being foolish for looking for logic where Andypants is concerened? --PsyGremlinTala! 09:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Conservatives are allowed to be feminists. also, they aren't stuffing their "I WANT FREEDOM" down our throats like the dirty liberal feminists. --Mikalos209 (talk) 12:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe Andy thinks Timothy Chapter 2 is liberal bias. ^{ONE / TALK} 12:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It is a fool's errand to look for consistency in a sea of hypocrisy. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Well Andy's mom does the same thing whilst espousing the same views on women. I think I recall her saying something like "If my husband wanted me back at home, I'd go there and stay" or whatever. So putting some thought into it, I guess Andy assumes that conservative women are being free and active because their husbands (and/or other authoritative male relatives) give their consent, and Palin and co would stop what they're doing and go back to being kitchen/bedroom women if their respective males demanded it, but those damn liberal women are doing it because they've overpowered their husbands (or their husbands are too much of a whiny liberal bitch to do anything about it). It's still dumb, but it's the only explanation I can come up with that doesn't involve simply holding two directly opposing ideas. Which isn't too unlikely. X Stickman (talk) 15:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

And listening to them you know why their husbands don't say anything about them coming back home. --UHM, Your favorite pain in the ass! 19:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Nebraska as Killing Fields FTW

Obama = Pol Pot? WTF? You know, if Karajou keeps up this psychotic bile-filled POTUS hate-spewing, he's likely to pique the interest of the Secret Service. I mean, you really genuinely do have to be fucking batshit insane to think Obama will likely turn psycho dictator running death squads that will exterminate millions of citizens - or that America could even go that way if he wanted. What a fucking whackjob, he genuinely scares me. --DogP (talk) 22:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't you know? According to Conservapedia, the President's hands are stained with the murder of millions of the unborn. You are right, these people are going to eventually get at least the CIA on their tails if they are not careful. User:Lefty

Or worse, the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. P-Foster (talk) 22:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Uh, I'd think Michael Savage is the one that has to worry, not some nuts on the internet. (Not that this isn't pretty much business as usual for Savage, so, in other words, no one is going to care.) Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I laughed. Seriously though, I don't think they'll get on any watchlist (other than ours). There're plenty of idiots writing far worse stuff on the internet, because it's the internet. Once anything they do crosses over into real life, or starts involving more than just their core group of merry prats, maybe they'll garner some attention. But as it is, it's just a bunch of idiots raging about things they don't... no, *choose not to* understand. X Stickman (talk) 22:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Why Nebraska. Iowa is a better place >.>--Mikalos209 (talk) 23:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Please, the Secret Service is never going to care if some idiot with a blog calls the president Pol Pot. Let's not pretend this isn't anything more than morons on the 'net parroting far more creative people's bizarre conspiracy theories.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

if anybody else came on cp and made that assertion, they'd be blocked for parody.---brxbrx 17:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Hubert Schlafly

Hubert Schlafly, inventor of the autocue (teleprompter) has died. Was he any relation to Phyllis, Andy and the clan? He worked for 20th Century Fox, which implies a dangerous flirttion with Hollywood Values.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13204808

FretfulPorpentine

Possibly related to Andy's dad? --PsyGremlinSpeak! 15:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Considering one of Andy's bugaboos is Obama's "reliance" on a teleprompter, it would be ironic if they were related. MDB (talk) 15:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The answer is yes.--76.205.114.186 (talk) 18:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

And you would know...how?.--Thunderstruck (talk) 20:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It might be Johnny, who might know. Either way, who cares? Occasionaluse (talk) 20:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Roger says he's a distant relation alt (talk) 21:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

“”The teleprompter is the invention that made the Barack Obama presidency possible. Five years ago he was a nobody whose principal assets were the ability to read a speech from a teleprompter, and to convince the liberals that he was a symbol for change.

The Eagle Forum remains a collection of horrible bastards. ATP (talk) 18:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear Rob

Rob, are you ready to come out as a parodist yet? After your clear nonsense interpretation of Goodell's article^img about collective bargaining, I can't imagine that you are anything but - you're not even trying to cover it up anymore. Unless, of course, you suffer from some sort of vision problem that only read the headlines of articles, and then misinterpret them. If this is the case, then I apologize. Carlaugust (talk) 00:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, based on what I've seen, vision problems and misinterpretations are apparently two rife symptoms qualifications of being a sysop on that site, so it's not out of the question. - Jpop (talk) 00:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually you have to take a physical exam were this is specifically tested, but it's probably not that hard to fake. --UHM, Your favorite pain in the ass! 00:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

aaargh capturebot wrrryy---brxbrx 00:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Let get this right (I did indeed read the article): the unionized super rich millionaire and billionaire players who got filthy rich by collective bargaining are now using the collective bargaining process to advocate an unfettered free market for thier labors and are trying to destroy the sacred bastion of corporate socialism, the NFL. So, if players enter the league as free agents and sign with the highest bidder, what need would there be for a union? If the laobor boards and federal courts back the claims of the union, and effectively wipe out and destroy the non-competetition clauses among 32 separate business entities for the hiring of players, there is no league left. Since the league does not employ the players, but rather each individual franchise, How can the players union have a con tract with the league? Wouldn't each franchise be free to sign contracts with it's own union, apart from the players union? Would the league likewise be in a position to rewrite the player safety rules that have extended avewrage players careers beyond two years, bring 1940s style smash-mouth football were players are maimed for life after an average career of three games? How mch then would players earn in comphensation, since none woujld last very long to make names for themselves and become stars? nobs^{don't bother me} 00:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Wait, Rob, are you saying that by banding together in a union, the workers have been able to both improve their working conditions and salaries? That's pretty pro-union. Your post seemed like a pretty glowing endorsement of "the sacred bastion of corporate socialism", and that getting rid of collective bargaining would destroy the NFL. But then your one sentence summary is "collective bargaining threatens future of NFL"? Carlaugust (talk) 01:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Threads that Rob comments in are destined to become novels. It's fun to read, but he's winning. I think he screws with you guys. Senator Harrison (talk) 02:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The only winning move is not to play. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Careers are not that short by decree, but due to competitive forces. --Opcn (talk) 07:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Yay, Social Darwinism!  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 10:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Um no.--Opcn (talk) 20:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Lost in the Birther Blather...

...was this gem by Jpatt near the end of this section:

"Stanley Ann was 17 when she got impregnated, Hawai'i wasn't yet a state, if an illegal alien impregnates an underage American- the child is an American. B. Hussein is practically an anchor baby. No?--Jpatt 00:19, 29 April 2011 (EDT)"

Memo to CP: Since you're moving the goalposts just about everywhere to fit the CP version of reality, don't forget to edit the Hawaii article to change the year of statehood from August 1959 to December 1960 or afterward. --DinsdaleP (talk) 14:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Urgh. More functional illiteracy from Jpratt. Not to mention his creepy emulating of TK's ending a sentence with the questioning, "No?" --PsyGremlinZungumza! 14:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Very funny comment from Jpatt. Because the alien parents of anchor babies always bolt from the country. That's why they have them, right? Occasionaluse (talk) 14:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

wan't Barry Goldwater born in AZ when it was just a territory?---brxbrx 15:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

That guy's Catholic father beat him too much. Now he's mentally retarded. Nutty Roux (talk) 15:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Brxbrx, if AZ was a territory at the time, Goldwater still would be a natural born citizen by common law. But then so would Obama. OH NOZ!!! Occasionaluse (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

JPatt's response^img after TracyS succinctly tears apart his anchor baby argument is bizarre. Is he making fun of TracyS for pointing out facts, or is he making fun of himself? --Tabrcg23 (talk) 00:55, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Andy's legal ignorance

Look at this argument from Andy:

Brad, your quote [from US v. Wong Kim Ark] refers to when both parents are citizens. In the case of Obama, one parent was an American citizen and one was a Kenyan citizen, and there is no reason to think the American part would take precedence. --Andy Schlafly 00:35, 29 April 2011 (EDT)[1]

For a man who went to Harvard Law, his ignorance is astounding. Wong Kim is a very basic Constitutional law case, and the crux of it is that his parents weren't citizens and returned to China, even though he was born here. I mean, if Andy's interpretation of the case was taken into account, we would not have birthright citizenship. --Leotardo (talk) 16:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Yup. That's what he's saying. We don't have birthright citizenship.--Danielfolsom (talk) 18:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

No, what he is saying is that this Supreme Court case says something than it actually says. The 'anchor baby' argument is that the 14th Amendment was not supposed to grant virtually all babies born on American soil citizenship and that it has been misread (including by the S.C. in Wong Kim). --Leotardo (talk) 20:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Like pseudo-theologians taking advantage of the obscurity and impenetrability of some complex theological principles, Andy's doing pseudo-law and trying to pull the wool over people's eyes by hiding behind red herrings and obfuscation. I find it rich that that ape Karaturd chimed in with yet more absolute hogwash and that Rob is still busy doing his false flag shit over here but heaping on the lies and dissembly at CP. This issue is real simple. Wong Kim Ark settles it. Poor losers. Nutty Roux (talk) 21:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Invincible ignorance, thy name is Conservapedia.

La la la^img, I can't hear you^img. ... of liberals? (talk) 16:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

CDC scientist indicted

Saw this posted on MPR. Anyone know anything about this story? No doubt this now "proves" vaccines cause autism. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Note that the article is dated 13 April. :) Orac has commented on it: [2] --ZooGuard (talk) 18:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Forgot to check the dateline on that. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Conservative calls out the Birthers.

Conservative grows a pair.^img P-Foster (talk) 19:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Just saw that. Can it be? A fellow conservative not perfect???? HOLD THE PRESS!!! Rationalize (talk) 19:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Ken easily out-insanes the other CP sysops when it comes to his niches and SEO, but when it comes to big-picture things, he tends to show slightly more realism and focus than the others. That's also why he wasn't too happy with the Obama article (IIRC) - he knows that beating Obama is only possible if conservatives tackle actual issues and drop idiotic speculation about his religion, his birthplace or his mind control powers. --Sid (talk) 19:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

When Ken writes something lucid and sensible, as he did back when he sided with PJR against the 'Obama is a muslim' stuff, it's like he's another person entirely. Grumblejaws (talk) 21:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

That's probably because he has bipolar disorder.

That may or may not be made up, although I wouldn't be surprised if it weren't. - Jpop (talk) 21:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Makes it incredibly difficult to believe that it's the same man who thinks he's combatting atheism with articles about flying pets and pointing out one or two portly atheists. SJ ^Debaser 21:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Holy shit, they really do want his kindergarten records. Well, as they say, irony is dead (again). Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Am I missing something? The link at the top points to Karajou writing this, not Ken. --Leotardo (talk) 14:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Andy removed the direct attack on WND. And then later questioned whether being born to a foreign citizen on American soil makes one American. I'm not sure what his legal basis for that is (perhaps he's suggesting that, in the same way that American parents who have a child overseas can often "pick" American citizenship for the child, Barack Obama's parents picked Kenyan citizenship? I don't know. Nor do I know if that's possible. I just ... don't know.)--Danielfolsom (talk) 02:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

He's a fucking moron. Obama's mother was an American citizen. Obama was born in Hawaii. He's a fucking citizen. Senator Harrison (talk) 02:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Obama never denied his father was Kenyan - everyone knew that. And now he's finally proven to these people that he's white enough American enough for the position, they've turned on his father's citizenship? Truly sad. SJ ^Debaser 08:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

So By Andy's logic, if he took a DNA test and discovered his father wasn't Mr. Schlafly but that Czech grad student Phyllis was boning back in the 60s, he wouldn't be a citizen either? DickTurpis (talk) 14:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Total morons. My parents had their third child about 11 months after we arrived in the States (anchor baby!). She is, was, and always will be a US citizen by birth (well, should could renounce it, of course, but some countries don;t even recognize that). Citizenship is a complex thing in many ways, but birthers are just simple-minded racists. ħuman 06:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Really? I thought you're from Indiana? You're a hoosier. I thought you don't know hoosier dad. nobs^{don't bother me} 14:55, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank teh gods

For oversight: Angry Bear is now the sane one! Oh, well done User:C, well done indeed! 22:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

Heh, my tingling Oversight Sense had been correct, then - this was basically the only link where I went "Hm, no capture. I think I'll actually bother to use a proxy to check the link and screencap it..." --Sid (talk) 23:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I conflused myself, I was thinking the edit was the same but only now appeared that Brian was the wrtier. Checking the link AND the capture shows that Kookajou's edit has the same number that the now oversighted (see capture above) was. Still, fun to see. 23:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

Questioning the birth certificate and his citizenship is A-Ok but asking for the kindergarten records goes to far. Nutty Roux (talk) 23:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

More like "Oh, okay, that didn't quite work right, so let's try other angles until we can- OH COME ON GUYS, STOP BEING IDIOTS! CAN'T WE JUST PRETEND THIS NEVER HAPPENED?" --Sid (talk) 01:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Jus soli

Two questions:

1. How thick is Andy? He gives a new definition of under the jurisdiction^img, virtually stating that a foreigner in the United States can just state that he doesn't want to follow American laws to avoid to come under American jurisdiction. For a reality check: wp:United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark#Opinion_of_the_Court...
2. Has Andy ever won a single case in court?

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 09:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Given his diabolical performance in front of the state Sup Courts, I'd hazard a guess that he doesn't win many. We certainly don't heard of the AAPS winning many cases, and he's their counsel. As with most things, Andy's understanding of the law seems to be "it says whatever fits my worldview at this moment in time." --PsyGremlinSnakk! 09:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

And of course his epic fail at ATT.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 10:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I have said this before (and was flamed mightily for it) but I don't think its fair to criticize Andy for his performance in the NJ Supreme court. A lawyer cannot help if his case is awful. I really think he did about the best anyone could have done with an untenable position. OK so his protestations about Washington's letter was humorous, as were his gestures, but it wasn't really his fault that his case was so pathetic. I am wearing my flame resistant jacket. Damo^Hi 10:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Lawyers are judged by their performance. You have a point about someone needing to step up, no matter how ridiculous a case is. But what about this instance? Are you defending Andy for making batshit claims that fly in the face 300 years of legal precedent? Are you going to defend Andy every time he dreams up another categorically false case? Occasionaluse (talk) 12:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

What Occasionaluse said. Besides, Andy isn't a public defender assigned to a Teabagger case. He took it up himself and formulated those crappy legal arguments himself. A smart lawyer would have not taken the case because it would only make him look ridiculous, just as Andy looked ridiculous. Lastly, there is something to be said for not raising odious legal arguments that re-write history to score cheap political points for your "side". That Andy wanted to win on the argument he raised shows he doesn't much care for a system of government that doesn't ensure his extremist opinions are put into practice. So defending him over this is myopic at best. --Leotardo (talk) 14:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I am only referring to the recall petition case. And I don't buy any of the criticisms. I suspect that the clients who hired Andy got exactly what they were looking for - lots of media coverage and public sympathy for their "cause" however badly it is based in law. --Damo^Hi 19:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello! May I return from self-imposed exile, make a point, and then disappear? Yes? Oh good! Well, Damo is right. Sometimes clients hire you to fight losing cases, and sometimes winning isn't the point. In the past week, we lost one big case before a circuit court, but we all knew what it was going in. The client hired us to make the point as best as someone could, and we did. And Occasional, it's true, we're judged on our performance. But that imports more than just a win/loss record. Ok! That is all :).-caius (spy) 04:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The most amazing thing to me in the Main Page talk discussion is that nobody has brought up that his mother was an American citizen and he was born on American soil, case closed. They are all focusing on his father. I refrained from calling Birtherism racism, but at this point that's exactly what it is. --Leotardo (talk) 14:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't you know by now - women count for nothing in Andy's world. --PsyGremlinHable! 14:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, at a certain point, even if you assume it's not racist against him being black, it's clearly racist against him being half Kenyan. I'd like to think that the they'd have the same issue if he were, say, half Japanese, or even half Romanian, or anything else. But I'm really not so sure. Quaru^{cow - You can't explain that!} 14:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see it as racism, rather as deceit using his race as a basis. I consider birthers a lot of things, but for the most part I wouldn't say they're racist. Instead, they see the opportunity to undermine their president due to his Kenyan heritage, and they seize it. In other words, they know, subconsciously, that they are wrong, but the fact that he is half-black leaves the possibility that maybe he might have faked all evidence thus far, possibly, and that's what they desperately cling to. - Jpop (talk) 15:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course if O'bama's dad had been Irish then it would have been a different matter altogether.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 17:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

O'bama, lol. But at the level of a great-great-great-great-grandfather, isn't that the point where you're practically related to everyone in the world so would have heritage everywhere?? 17:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

This is, for me, Andy's worst moment on CP

Seriously. Doubling down on the birtherism by trying to redefine citizenship law is amazing; it shows, more than anything else, how detached from reality he's become. Lenski? At the end of the day, Andy isn't a biologist, so he was just talking out of his ass. The Bible project? At the end of the day, he's not a theologian, so he just pulled that out of his ass too. In either case, he had no real stakes in the debates he started because he was speaking as an amateur. Arguing in front of the NJSC? That's just a guy playing beyond his league, and we're surrounded by those. The pathetic homeschooling lectures and grading are probably more egregious in terms of the stakes, but I believe that his customers are getting exactly what they want out of him, so I blame them more than him.

But this is a really simple matter of fact, first year law school stuff. Beyond a doubt, there's ZERO room for debate about Obama's citizenship, and the question of who knocked up his mom is completely irrelevant. I have to wonder if Andy is being stupid or disingenuous when he makes the argument he's making. Either way, he looks so, so, so bad on this. It's pathetic. P-Foster (talk) 18:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

You can see the glint of a supreme court case in his eye. For some reason, he thinks Wong Kim Ark doesn't apply to Obama. Why, I really can't imagine, but you can tell he wants the 14th amendment to be reinterpreted by the supreme court. I don't think it's a far cry from the recall antics; Andy knows what the authors intended and it wasn't birthright citizenship. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Another thing to consider, Andy is a very small man and is literally taking this news very hard because he had a lot of intellectual capital invested in the idea. That said, on the Kubler-Ross model, I think what he's doing now could be seen as bargaining. Parodists, remember he's in an especially fragile mental state, so don't rush him. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The level of cognitive dissonance is increasing rapidly!!!

What I would really, really like is for Obama to send a handwritten note to Andy telling him how much he enjoys reading CP, and that he always checks the latest news column when he starts the day. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 21:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I think Andy is following Orly Taitz's lead on this: since she got savaged by Lawrence O'Donnell her story has been that she thinks the birth certificate is real but that only the Supreme Court can resolve whether a person can be a dual citizen and president. There's nothing in the Constitution suggesting she's onto anything like a real dispute that merits resolution but that hasn't stopped her from filing stacks of frivolous papers so far. Nutty Roux (talk) 21:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Seeing on how all the other morons - Karajerk, Jpratt and Rob have all leapt on the bandwagon, this really is CP's crowning moment of stupidity. And it just goes to show that it was never about the birth certificate to begin with. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 09:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Courtesy of Right Wing Watch we have this explanation of why andy has suddenly leapt full length onto the birther bandwagon. Old mamma schlafly must have convinced him of the merits of the case and now he has to defend it in order for mummy to keep paying supporting him. Oldusgitus (talk) 09:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

How much encouragement does he need to actually take the case?? Id like to see him in front of the supreme court again. Probably with a judge telling him to fuck off for being a racist. 23:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Question

Not been following the last couple stages of this debate very closely; got bored a while ago. As far as I can tell it's been proved beyond reasonable doubt Obama has held US citizenship since birth. Now some birthers are telling us he might have held not just US citizenship but someone else's citizenship as well, and that would allegedly be a problem.

I don't get it.

The constitution says if you want to be president (1) you must have US citizenship and (2) you must have had it since birth. The constitution does not say (3) you must never have had an additional other citizenship. Not explicitly at any rate. This can't be just sloppiness on the part of the framers, can it? Dual citizenships aren't something we invented yesterday, are they? If you read the constitution literally it very clearly doesn't care if Obama was British, Kenyan, or Indonesian at some point. All it cares is that he always was American. For all the constitution cares he could have been Soviet! Are the birthers telling us we need to abandon Original Meaning and become more like those Activist judges in our reading of the old rag?

Hateboy (talk) 18:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Dual citizenship isn't really something that needed "inventing" per se. Citizenship is a relationship between a sovereign entity like a nation state and a person. Being a dual citizen is thus only like being a member of the gym AND the book club. Neither the book club nor the gym need any special rules to permit this, in fact they'd need special rules (which isolationist states like China have) to kick you out of their club if you try to join another. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 22:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Apart from this, there's also a difference between being eligible for citizenship and holding it. No matter whether Obama could've become a citizen of Kenya or the UK, I've never heard of him actually applying for it. And then there's the question of whether dual citizenship is even accepted by both nations, and what their criteria are. For example, I'm a dual German/Swiss citizen by birth, born in Germany, so my parents registered me as a German citizen with the local authorities. At age three or four, they also applied for Swiss citizenship on my behalf. It's a simple bureaucratic procedure, but it has to be actively sought nonetheless. Some nations may demand that you hold their citizenship exclusively, but to my knowledge, that only applies to people who become eligible through long-term residence in that country or marriage. In Obama's case, it probably becomes even more complicated through Kenya's colonial status and it becoming a sovereign nation only after his birth - I guess the British didn't award full citizenship to its colonial subjects. Anyway, even though he could've applied for Kenyan citizenship if he so desired (maybe he would've had to give up his American passport for it), he obviously did not do that. This is just what everybody predicted: the birthers won't shut up after they're confronted with the document that they demanded for so long, they'll just find something new to latch on. Question its authenticity, develop idiotic novel interpretations of US citizenship law, whatever - as long as it keeps them from admitting that Obama is their president as well. Röstigraben (talk) 07:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

"I guess the British didn't award full citizenship to its colonial subjects"

As a general rule they didn't. They originally distinguished (at least) between British nationals, British subjects, and British protected persons. Classes of British nationality kept being added, being disbanded, and being redefined as the Empire dissolved, the UK became more and more republican, and people moved from being seen as subjects to being seen as citoyens. Both the British citizen and the Commonwealth citizen are fairly recent innovations. For some ethnicities they also distinguished between people who had citizenship and people who merely had the right of abode, at least for a while. The whole time a fairly complex mix of ius solis and ius sanguinis was applied. Mountain Blue (talk) 10:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Amongst us foreign-born US Army brats it was common knowledge legend that once you turned 21 you would need to go with one country or the other to belong to, since the US did not recognize dual citizenship. No one came knocking on my door on my birthday blaring, "You must choose!" (nor Sie müssen wählen! neither)

Something about not serving in a foreign military trickles through my leaky memory... Anybody know how US law views dual citizenship?

I believe I have known one or two people who did hold dual cit, perhaps Israeli or Greek, but they didn't make much noise about it in front of US authorities. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 23:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Dual-citizenship has always been fine in the US as far as I know. Schwarzenegger is a nice high profile example of someone who has even achieved a high office while retaining citizenship of his country of birth as well as obtaining US citizenship. So he's even beaten the political problem (your opponent can portray you as having loyalties divided between two countries). For a normal person it's not a problem at all. Americans who move to Europe (e.g. to marry) often retain their US citizenship if they're able to sort out the IRS paperwork to avoid paying wince-inducing double taxation. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 01:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

No one came knocking on my door on my birthday blaring, "You must choose!" (nor Sie müssen wählen! neither)

A friend of was both German and Austrian as a kid. He had to choose at some point because both Germany and Austria still draft boys into their respective armies for a few months of active service, usually at age 18. Or at least they did at the time; Germany seems to be in the process of gradually abolishing conscription now. Anyway there was the question of who would get to draft him.

In general, most European countries don't really want you to have two citizenships. If you acquire a new citizenship as a grownup through naturalization you are usually made to give up the old one. I know a few naturalized Austrians; most of them had to produce documentation proving they had taken positive action to relinquish eg. their Polish or their Croatian citizenship before they were given the Austrian one. On the other hand, the administration has a lot of discretion here. I also know some people who are both Austrian and Israeli, for example; apparently the Austrian government wants to avoid telling people, in effect, they can't be Austrian and Jewish at the same time. Gee, I wonder why.

Schwarzenegger is a nice high profile example.

The rules do not apply to the rich and connected.

Mountain Blue (talk) 05:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Some nations officially accept dual citizenship, others don't. AFAIK it's not a problem if someone's eligible through birth (either jus sanguinis or jus solis, but many nations don't recognize the latter). However, when you apply for it later, it can get very complicated and sometimes people have to choose. Germany usually does not accept immigrants retaining their old citizenship when they apply, but Switzerland does. The US also doesn't seem to have a clear standard even when applied to prominent cases - for example, Murdoch had to relinquish his Australian citizenship while Hitchens was apparently allowed to keep his British one. Regarding military service, it again depends on whether the respective nations have a treaty in place that deals with these questions, to my knowledge there is no general international regime. The EU nations have a multilateral treaty (and several bilateral ones with places like Switzerland) that basically says you're supposed to be conscripted in your country of residence when you turn 18. If, for some reason, you don't serve there, you may be drafted by your second nation (assuming both still have a general conscription in place, of course). But as long as you serve somewhere, this shouldn't have an impact on your citizenship status. Röstigraben (talk) 06:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

By the time I was of draftable age, I had long since absconded from the Bundesrepublik. My mention of military service had more to do with "swearing allegiance to a foreign country" which could lead to loss of citizenship here, wherever "here" is. I think there is language about not swearing foreign allegiance in the process of getting US security clearances as well. __ Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 13:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Atlas ignored

So with the cancellation of Atlas Shrugged parts 2, 3, 4 & 5 does that mean that Chuckarse's efforts to cash in on public interest in the movie to draw traffic to CP have all been a tragic waste of time?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 17:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Whoa. *breaks glass* *pushes the WALL OF TEXT alarm button* Also, from your linked article: "We hear Tommy Wiseau might be available to direct." I laughed SO HARD. XD --Sid (talk) 17:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

2 3 4 & 5?!?!?!?!?!?!? Wow... kinda pleased they got canned!! Who'd want to sit through all that?? 17:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, you were being funny... phew. 17:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Read that blog post, jackass who wrote it doesn't know what he is fucking talking about. Jokes about how Ayn would support the producer going on strike because she is so prolabor (that is to say sarcastically) when the entire 1350 page book is all about how it's such a great fucking idea for producers to go on strike. --Opcn (talk) 22:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Ayn Rand believed that the factory owners should go on strike. Not the ones that did the actual work in the factory.---brxbrx 23:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Rand's life in general was an exercise in cosmic irony and hypocrisy (see e.g., her denial of the smoking-cancer link and eventual death due to lung cancer, acceptance of social security benefits, railing against collectivism and writing about a collective of the ubermenschen while forming a cult in real life, and so on...) Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

(ecx2)I disagree with that brxbrx, for the sake of argument lets assume that you are right, would you consider the film producer to be more like a factory owner or "the ones that did the actual work in the factory"? --Opcn (talk) 23:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I would say that the producers are similar to factory owners, but more like a research engineer improving the product. The actors and the techies (I think they are called teamsters in the US?) are more like the workers. - π 01:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Love those Conservaleaks threads. One things that's becoming apparent is how conservatives treat this novel almost like Christians deal with the bible, with a curious mix of reverence and unwillingness to engage it:

Hurlbut: I'm doing an Atlas Shrugged project! Have a wall of text!

Others: Awesome! It's the bestest and conservativest book ever!

Hurlbut: Has anyone actually read it?

Others: *crickets chirping*

I'd bet that's also what happened to the movie and its audience of teabagger Randians. A book is something they can buy and just have sitting on the shelf to impress others, sort of like an ideological stage prop. Lots of people bought it, lots of people talk about its message (which can be conveniently summed up in one or two paragraphs), but few actually read it or could be bothered to sit through a movie. Röstigraben (talk) 05:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

"A classic—something that everybody wants to have read and nobody wants to read." - Mark Twain (though the word "classic" definitely does not apply to Atlas Shrugged, and speaking of its message, it can be summed up in the words "Little Red Hen") Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm just to chapter 9 of part II right now, Ayn's command of the english language is positively inspiring, Ayn's command of plot is not. It seems like she wrote the book about three characters, and put two of those characters in 40 different bodies each and put the third character into 4 bodies. That having been said I do appreciate some of the philosophy, and suspect that its failings stem primarily from a lack of understanding of the importance of the things we do to maintain community. --Opcn (talk) 07:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm about two thirds through, but reading this stuff is more like serious work than entertainment. It's not the length - some other classics also feature upwards of a thousand pages and a confusing multitude of characters, but I could still enjoy them. The problem is that she wastes so many pages making the same points again and again instead of spending them on plot and character development. There are a few powerful passages, like the speeches at James' wedding and the run-up to the train catastrophe, but mostly, it's just meant to reinforce a message that is blindingly obvious from the beginning. Röstigraben (talk) 08:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Röstigraben reminds me of this gem: "There are only two reasons for buying a book, after all. Either we intend to read it, in which case most of us find a printed version preferable, or we don't intend to read it, in which case a printed version is absolutely essential." -some dude in the LA Times, 2004. Mountain Blue (talk) 10:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh my god, fucking 70 page speeches suck! Someone should have abridged this book down to 1/3rd its size.--Opcn (talk) 22:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

There is little that interests conservatives outside of Obama

Come on guys, is there anything going on in the country or in the world that is of interest to conservatives outside of your Obama Derangement Syndrome? The first five MPR stories^img are all Obama, Obama, Obama. --Leotardo (talk) 16:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Uh-oh, looks like someone found The Economic Collapse Blog. Bets on how long it is before we see MPR infested with goldbuggery? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

"In the News. what the MSM isn't fully covering." So, no. Not the Royal wedding, not the space shuttle launch, not the tornadoes. ADK^{...I'll seize your bridge!} 17:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

must suck to have your whole life dominated by one little thing like that---brxbrx 17:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Nah, it's just Ken spamming posts from Econ Collapse. No doubt he has discovered the lies of fiat currency and is stocking up on his guns, gold bricks, and canned beans. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

My dislike of George W. Bush was very strong, but I would have been bored to tears--and driven to insanity--by a website that was everything anti-Bush, which is one of the reasons why I didn't ready DailyKos. --Leotardo (talk) 17:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

That's a good point. Birtherism - the allegation Obama was not a legitimate president, was payback for the refusal to accept 'president-select' GW Bush as a legitimate, which was payback for the Impeachment of Clinton, which was payback for Hillary's work on the Articles of Impeachment against Nixon, which was payback for Nixon's role in the conviction of Alger Hiss, which was payback for the New Deal, which was payback for Civil War Reconstruction, which was payblabla... nobs^{don't bother me} 01:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The mere fact that you see this kind of separation from reality (lying basically) as justifiable on the grounds of partisanship underscores you complete lack of ethics. - π 01:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Justifiable? Jesus fick. I expressed an observation. Little bit judgemental there, don't you think? nobs^{don't bother me} 09:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I rather read CP's frontpage right now than the front page of most news sites, so sick of the Royal Wedding coverage. Honestly our world is so wrapped up in celebrity worship. I get why Brits care about the marriages in their arcane political system, and maybe why people in other nations who still cling to the institution of monarchy still care, but why the rest of the planet does (and especially here in America) I will never understand. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Us brits don't care about the royal wedding. Some of any way. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

If the lamestream media is obsessing over Will and Kate, its obviously CPs duty to obsess over Obama. Maybe come the election theyll actually acknowledge the wedding. 23:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm still waiting on them acknowledging Castro, so... Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Alger Hiss? Must everything relate to communism in your world, Rob? The Cold War is over; it's time to move on with your life, please. άλφα^Talk 10:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

"Only a Communist would admit the war is over, as long as it exists the cold war is always going!"--Mikalos209 (talk) 14:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

capturebot

what's the problem with capturebot lately? Most of the captured images don't seem to be working for me. Is this only a problem on my end? άλφα^Talk 16:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not you, the backroom boys are looking into it. In the meantime I strongly recommend that people make their own screencap of the CP links and upload it manually if necessary.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 17:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

More like waiting for the problem to magically go away. -- Nx / talk 17:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

That backroom boys haha. Reminds me of "The backstreet boys" lol. Rationalize (talk) 10:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Obama's Birth Certificate

Its been released. So, Conservapedia, For every one of your stupid ass pages SUCK IT. Rob, if your reading this, and not kicking a puppy, you got some editing to do. Get to it.--Thunderstruck (talk) 14:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC

Calling them "ass pages" made my afternoon. Thank you Thunderstruck. Nutty Roux (talk) 17:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Jpatt's adult response:^img "Praise God Trump! B. Hussein Obama released his certificate!"

Now, how long until CP removes all the crap from their "trustworthy" encyclopaedia. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 14:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I see they repeated the lie that "two million dollars" was spent protecting it. Uh... no. That's the total retained paid to the law firm the Obama campaign team uses. They handled the birther lawsuits, but lots of other legal matters, too. (And considering their usual response to the lawsuits was "this is stupid; we don't even need to comment further", it can't have cost much, as high powered attorney fees go. MDB (talk) 14:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Waiting for the "it's a fake!" assertions, which I have little doubt will be forthcoming. At least Jpatt isn't on that bandwagon, at least not yet. I also note he almost manages to use the correct form of "its". Almost. DickTurpis (talk) 14:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Trump? They thank Trump? How about what Obama said about it being to much of a distraction. Alot of people owe Obama an apology.--Thunderstruck (talk) 14:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The "millions of dollars on lawyers to hide his birth certificate" is my favorite lie and a harbinger for deliberate ignorance. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Release the kindergarten report card! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 14:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

For those looking for retarded reactions to this, the Fox News comments section does not disappoint. DickTurpis (talk) 14:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll add my retard reaction. Oops, his father is not American. As for the distraction, now he can hit the golf course with distraction.--76.205.114.186 (talk) 14:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Was his father's nationality ever in doubt? P-Foster (talk) 15:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

No, but you have to remember that these people just don't care about the truth. "Natural born citizen" means that BOTH parents were born on US soil....apparently. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

In his MPR item, Jpatt repeated the lie that it cost $2 million to defend against Birther lawsuits. These guys have very little integrity, which is why so few conservatives use them as a resource. What self-respecting person would go to a website for information when they repeat obvious and debunked falsehoods? --Leotardo (talk) 15:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Politifact? You're kidding right? They are never wrong LOL or lean left. I guess he only spent $50,000 protecting it right? --76.205.114.186 (talk) 15:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

He wouldn't have had to spend a fucking cent if morons like you hadn't been so opposed to a black man being democratically elected by the people that you have spent 3 fucking years lying and dissembling to try to prove he didn't have one you thick twat.Oldusgitus (talk) 15:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I would prefer to believe Politifact than your ass, which is where you pulled it out of. Your standard is, "If I can think it, it is probably true" although I would think your Christian faith would prevent you from publishing gossip and unsubstantiated slurs, but most Christians don't live what they preach so...meh. Look, I don't mind you putting up debunked lies on MPR because you only hurt Conservapedia when you do so. You shouldn't take my whinges about it on here to be an indication that I want you to stop, and I'm being serious. I just like to make fun of you about it with my fellow liberals is all. --Leotardo (talk) 15:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Barack Obama spent two million dollars to release his birth certificate, and this is how right wingers repay him? Occasionaluse (talk) 15:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

What's the figure then Leo? Since you know Christians so well, your momma is a tramp. --76.205.114.186 (talk) 15:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Unsolicited tactical advice: None of this is going to get the GOP one inch closer to the White House. Focus your energy on policy and not personal history. It will yield better results and keep you from looking like a conspiracy theory nutjob. P-Foster (talk) 16:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

"What's the figure then?" Awesome loony tactics: You don't believe my lies? Then you should make up your own! Occasionaluse (talk) 16:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Andy doesn't disappoint. "What appears to be an Obama birth certificate.^img As well as showing Trump up to be a complete dick. --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 17:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I love how Andy disses the "lamestream" (what a stupid term) media while linking to the NY Times. Classy. – Nick Heer 17:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I love how mainstream sources bill this as a battle of the lunatic fringe, Barack Obama and Donald Trump. nobs^{don't bother me} 21:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

As usual, if you actually read that anywhere your conclusion is evidence that you're either dissembling or you're a fucking moron. The lunatic is Donald Trump and all the birthers. Only fucktard shitforbrains are taking the "controversy" seriously. Everyone else is deeply worried we might end up with a birther cretin in the White House or more of them in the Congress. God you're such an odious shit. Nutty Roux (talk) 22:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Human stupidity is infinite

$5 says Andy doesn't buy it/won't change his mind. Rationalize (talk) 17:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

When has Andy changed his mind about anything ever? Obama could be caught buggering altar boys on the Vatican steps, with the Pope cheering him on, and Andy would still insist he's a Muslim. --PsyGremlinParlez! 17:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I think he at least dropped the bullcrap about the US Viking settlement not existing after lots of debate? Extreeeeeemely foggy memory, but I think it was related to the American History Course a good while ago? --Sid (talk) 17:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

He'll never, ever, ever admit to it, but he will drop it if he does change his mind. What's so funny is that (I suppose) he has just enough integrity to not go down the jus soli route. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

If he does change anything then it will be concealed in a "trim" or "grammar" edit.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 17:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

"I think he at least dropped the bullcrap about the US Viking settlement not existing after lots of debate?". Newfoundland, actually. And nope, he still clings to it. From the last round of US History lectures: "Modern historians claim that the Viking Leif Ericson established a "Vinland" colony around A.D. 1000 on the island now known as Newfoundland, in the far east of Canada. There is limited physical evidence of the colony and it is not known what eventually happened to it. The colony, if it did exist, did not last long." P-Foster (talk) 18:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of things he hasn't changed his mind on, I notice an MPR post on Cuba laying off gov't workers but still no story on Castro's resignation. Maybe Castro's body double has Obama's real birth certificate! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

He is never going to give the Vikings the credit for finding America before any other Europeans, because to do so would be tantamount to admitting Pagans were intrepid enough to explore and find the continent before anyone in Christendom. In the Andy-verse non-Christians didn't ever accomplish shit. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Can we encourage Andy to write a letter, ala Lenski, demanding the original birth certificate, thus allowing the best of the public to check for signs of forgery?--Simple (talk) 18:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

(Moved down Simple's comment to avoid thread-clashes later) "Signed, Andy Schlafly, but definitely not the one you might remember from Harvard Law Review." --Sid (talk) 18:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Andy's time to shine?

I almost feel stupid bringing this up, because it pretty much guarantees that Andy won't be able to bring himself to do it, but he has a prime opportunity: team up with The Donald. With Trump's new batshit demand du jour regarding Obama's college performance, Andy is in a unique position to cast aspersions on Obama's academic career. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

No politician in their right mind would have the man who rewrote the Bible in his own image on their staff. The Arsefly is a liability to be avoided like the plague. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm just thinking, out of all HLR members, which ones are batshit crazy and hellbent on denigrating Obama? It's not about what Andy did, it's what Andy can do. Even if Andy does get ripped on for CBP while slinging mud about HLR days, it just goes to prove how far the lamestream media will go to protect Obama and ignore the real issues plaguing America, like the minutia of his college transcript. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

If Andy was to join the Trump campaign in any sort of public way I think a journalist checking his background would very quickly find our article and could use it to embarrass him big time. In fact Trump's people would probably find it first and say thanks but no thanks.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 21:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I can hear it now. Trump's Jersey foghorn, and Andy's nerd laugh. "Whah whah whah", "hurhurhurhurhur". Prime Time Comedy Gold. --DogP (talk) 22:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Lily, that's what you don't get. It's exactly why he's perfect. Yes, Andy is completely insane and can be made fun of by anyone, anywhere, all the time. But, ooh - look at how biased the media is! Why aren't they talking about the issues instead of attacking Andy and protecting Obama? Everyone is trying to ignore that Andy proves Obama was a poor student. Occasionaluse (talk) 22:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

OMG OMG OMG

Andy just admitted that it's Obama's real birth certificate. Occasionaluse (talk) 22:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

While leaving an escape clause :"Was a child born in 1961 to a foreign parent visiting the United States automatically an American citizen?" P-Foster (talk) 22:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

And he's a "lawyer"?????? wow. WOWWWWWW Rationalize (talk) 23:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Andy Schlafly's a lawyer in the same way Uwe Boll is a director. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 23:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I threw up a WIGO for it before I saw this a-here. C®ackeЯ

Birthism isn't gonna die; it's just gonna evolve. --Night Jaguar (talk) 00:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

@iscariot: lol---brxbrx 21:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Orly Taitz

If you haven't seen it yet, here is our favourite Moldavian dentist on Lawrence O'Donnell last night. She's not giving up. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 18:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh my god, thank you for posting that. Wow. Rationalize (talk) 03:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

She should really go back to whatever country she is from and stay there because she's stupid as fuck and her accent is annoying as hell. I had to get that out. Rationalize (talk) 03:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow, she makes Suzanne Somers' character on Three's Company look like a genius! ħuman 07:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

We in Britain don't get all the minutiae of US domestic politics and I doubt if 1 in 1,000 in the UK would be aware of who she was, but I did see her interviewed (either a US news channel on Sky or maybe YouTube video) and wondered what her motives were. Obviously, with her accent, she's a recent immigrant so why is she making such a fuss over the President's birth certificate. Is she resentful that she doesn't qualify to stand for Pres? It seems odd to me that you would move to another country and then challenge the status of the head of state.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 07:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

And how on earth did we miss this^img little beauty? When andy is now claiming taitz for support then you really know the game is up. Oldusgitus (talk) 12:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Watching Andy tie himself in knots over this could be 2011's Lenksi or CBP. Notice how they still studiously refuse to acknowledge that his mum was a US citizen, but for Andy to keep saying "Native Americans were exempt from juristriction" is laughable. Also, why is the "dual citizenship" excuse only coming out now, why wasn't it an issue up front? --PsyGremlinSprich! 13:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

A lot of the wilder theories were around, just the "he wasn't born in the US at all" was the most prominent, because it's the simplest. MDB (talk) 13:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey! I just realized it's personal.

I just realized that Andy's latest fantasies are somewhat personal to me. My son was born in the U.S. to an American citizen (me) and a (then) non-citizen on a student visa. According to Andy (but not to, say, Homeland Security or the State Dept.), it is thus dubious whether he is a citizen at all, much less a natural-born citizen.

It had not struck me until now that Andy's delusions are about the rights of my family. Not that it matters, of course, since his silly bleatings don't make a lick of difference in the life of my son, but still... Phiwum (talk) 12:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I just talked to a coworker about this today. She had a daughter with her then non-citizen boyfriend (and now citizen husband), and she brought up a good point - if this sort of logic is followed, could it be extended, particularlly if it can be applied retroactively? Wouldn't it make exactly the same amount of sense to say "If you had a non-citizen grandparent, you are no longer a citizen"? It's just ridiculous. Born in America, to an American, and you might not be American? Carlaugust (talk) 15:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Then easily extended to all non-Native Americans. So support <generic, semi-racist native american name> in 2012! Except that their great, great, etc was born before America existed. Damn! There's no such thing as an American Citizen!! Quaru^{cow - You can't explain that!} 15:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, if you trace it back, I imagine that everyone in the US, at some point, will have a union in their family between citizen and non citizen. How exactly are citizens supposed to actually exist otherwise? ADK^{...I'll untie your cookie cutter!} 15:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's say the world goes insane and Andy and his crazies get his way, and the US Supreme Court says "Why yes, if you had one or more non-citizen parents at the time of birth, you are not a citizen." How any people would lose citizenship? It's gotta be in the tens of millions, right? And then, are they illegal immigrants, even though they haven't, ya know, immigrated? Carlaugust (talk) 15:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Nah, they'd tack on an exception for white folk. ADK^{...I'll delete your boozehound!} 16:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure not just for white folks from Northern European countries? Or even just British white folk? Either way, I'm cool. Quaru^{cow - You can't explain that!} 16:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Can. No. Longer. Resist... still, cannot be asked to look up whether true believer birthers exceed the crazification factor. We are cursed to live in interesting times; interesting how massively stupid public discourse can become. For that I blame the inter-tubular electronic prosthetic voice now issued to any wazzock dork with a laptop or a library card.

I was born overseas. I was home schooled for the first and second-grade years because there was not an English-speaking school close enough to home for me to attend. In later life, our mom, savvy seasoned world-traveling Army wife that she was, got us certificates from the State Department verifying that we each became a citizen on the day of our birth. One brother does not have a birth certificate; only a consular report of birth, but that doesn't stop him from having a nice career at a hush-hush Beltway agency. Sheesh. Birthers, thy name may be legion, but it is also mostly fecking stchewpid closet racists. Feh. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Under Andy's definition, my father would be an anchor baby, thus making me an illegal as well. Welp, looks like it's back to the Fatherland for me! Deutschland, Deutschland, uber alles! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

In that case, I'm double triple ultra illegal with sprinkles on top. Both of my parents were foreign nationals when I was born in Washington DC. They were here legally on G4 Visas. They retired about 10 years ago and became permanent residents, and decided to become full blown citizens earlier this year, but I've been a citizen since birth. I can't tell you how many of the birthright citizenship nuts have told me to my face that I should be deported. Stile4aly (talk) 03:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Consider the following..

Let's say some all American girl had the misfortune of getting raped by one of dem dirty illegal immigrants. Now being a proper conservative who hates killing babies, she obviously won't get an abortion and gives birth to the baby.. So according to Andy, the baby is now also an illegal immigrant? If they found the rapist, does he need to take the baby back with him to wherever he came from? Or will only the baby get deported? I guess it's up to the mother if she wants to go with the illegal immigrant baby? I can just imagine the poor mother getting shipped to some unknown third world country with her new born - FOR JUSTICE! GTac (talk) 09:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Andy is arguing that they are not a citizen. I think his argument is that he is not a natural-born citizen intended by the "founding father" in the relevant section of the constitution. Basically, Obama is a citizen, but can't be president. Farah explains this escaped hatch for birthers the other day. - π 09:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Annoying troll is yada yada

[3]---brxbrx 00:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I have to admit, that is funny. Quaru^{cow - You can't explain that!} 00:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

the screen---brxbrx 00:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Even though I know CP is going to laugh at me it wasnt supposed to be funny. Who knows, maybe theyll forgive me, Im a changed person. Its not like I want to contribute there or anything. I something similar at Wikipedia too under the name Return of LBHS Cheerleader, but that account lasted a minute before it was blocked so I posted it on my talk page with an unblock template. Theyre probably going to laugh too but it wasnt supposed to be funny. Im a changed person and I want them to know that. You already know Im sorry for my abuse here, I already apologized. I expected RW to laugh at me too. Alyssa Bryant (talk) 01:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I am fascinated by how Andy will react. Maybe he'll just fob you off, maybe he'll accept your apology. I think he's a bit more rational than many people here give him credit for. Anyway, I don't laugh at you Alyssa. I used to vandalize websites and stuff too, years ago. But we all grow up eventually (well, some of us don't). --(((Zack Martin)))^™ 01:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

She's reverted and banned. Quaru^{cow - You can't explain that!} 01:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I think he'll be confused.---brxbrx 01:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

She has been reverted and banned, but not by Andy, by another sysop. In terms of rush-to-ban, Andy is actually much more reasonable than some of the other CP sysops. (I was blocked by another sysop, and then Andy told them to unblock me.) --(((Zack Martin)))^™ 01:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

There's your Christian kindness and forgiveness for you. ADK^{...I'll agree your zealot!} 01:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

(ECx2)And to clarify, I'm not laughing at you, well, not exactly. I'm laughing at the concept of apologizing on CP, and them accepting it. Or even doing anything other than banning you, and reverting your "vandalism". And no kidding ADK.. Quaru^{cow - You can't explain that!} 01:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

A lot of CP folks I think get so fed up with vandalism and hostility, they become very paranoid/trigger-happy as a result. I'm not exactly defending them, but I can understand how the culture there got to be how it is, and external factors (including but not limited to this place) certainly have contributed. --(((Zack Martin)))^™ 01:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I dont think it has anything to do with politics and religion because Wikipedia didnt respond any better, banned and comments removed. I know theyre jerks but I dont have a lot of room to talk on that one. I dont blame them for hating me really. Does anyone know Andy or Dmorris's email addresses? I just want to see how they react and I want closure. Alyssa Bryant (talk) 01:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

No, but I think you can still use the "email an admin" function even if your account is blocked. It worked for me when I was blocked before. --(((Zack Martin)))^™ 01:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Didnt give CP my email addressv though. Anyone know if I can still add it? Alyssa Bryant (talk) 01:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, Rob Smith seems to be advertising Andy's email to the world - not sure whether Andy appreciates that or not, or whether that is still his email. Otherwise, I suppose ask him, he is a CP sysop isn't he? --(((Zack Martin)))^™ 01:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

aschlafly@aol.com? Alyssa Bryant (talk) 02:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Apparently so... as I said, no idea if that works now or not. --(((Zack Martin)))^™ 02:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Funny? How the fuck is that funny? I think it's just sad. It doesn't even look sincere. If I was reading that I'd say "whatever, bye." Rationalize (talk) 03:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

fun·ny

1.

a. Causing laughter or amusement.

b. Intended or designed to amuse.

2. Strangely or suspiciously odd; curious.

3. Tricky or deceitful.

I do believe it falls under 2. Possibly even 3, seeing how it's been playing out.. Quaru^{cow - You can't explain that!} 14:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Someone please move this section where it belongs "talk:who gives a shit about CP", m'kay? ħuman 03:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

>>>"I dont blame them for hating me" you think they hate you? lol, I doubt they even remember you already. ^{— Unsigned, by: 71.227.237.117 / talk / contribs} 06:05, 1 May 2011

You're NOT Ames! (Or are you?)  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 10:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

JDWPianist commits wiki-suicide

Good for him for speaking his mind^img but sadly that must surely spell the end for him. Although, in these more enlightened post-TK times, who knows? --PsyGremlinTal! 14:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

If I had a nickel for every time I've read the thread title "JDWpianist commits wiki-suicide," I'd at least be able to buy a pint by now. My guess is that the argument will be dismissed with a wave of the hand by Andy himself or with some Karajouian bluster, but no other action will come of it. Junggai (talk) 14:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd love to see a return to the old days, where you actually could engage Andy on his bullshit. Maybe we are seeing that time, especially now that Rob's there, offering his idiot grin^img strategy... --PsyGremlin말하십시오 14:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

He's right, but I'd go one further and state that they just don't like Obama because he's black. They don't pull this shit with white politicians they don't like. It's really time to stop pussy-footing around saying that the birthers don't like Obama, there's other ways of expressing that, they're just plain, old-fashioned racists. ADK^{...I'll sanctify your anything!} 14:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Get fucked, asshole. nobs^{don't bother me} 15:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Now that's a convincing rebuttal. (or rather it isn't.)--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 15:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

That's witty, Rob. But indeed, they disliked Bill Clinton to the same degree... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 15:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Did I touch a nerve with Klansman Nobs? ADK^{...I'll nuke your paper!} 15:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Armondikov is right. Now the birth certificate has been released, it's time to stop pretending that people who continue to pursue the birther argument are anything other than racists. That includes you, Rob. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 15:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The four year old strategy of 'criticism of Obama and socialism is racism' is trolling. No one even reads that shit. You maliciously slander a center-right nation at your own peril, sir. nobs^{don't bother me} 15:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't remember anybody on this site claiming that any criticism of Obama or socialism is racism. Fuck, I criticise Obama for caving in to right-wingers too often, and I'm certainly no racist. No, Rob, and please listen carefully for once: it's the continued attempts to claim that Obama isn't a natural-born citizen that's racist. For ages, birthers claimed that he wouldn't release his birth certificate because it didn't exist. Now it's been produced and they're still going - except now it's largely "well his father was an African". Why can't you come clean and admit you just hate the idea of some uppity nigger getting into the White House? That's what this is about now. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 15:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

(EC)No one said criticising socialism is racism. We said saying he isn't a US citizen is racism. Prove that you're not a racist and we'll consider apologising for the remark. Of course, that's a negative and you can't prove it (not that you'd understand such finer points of proof and evidence) and if you somehow did, we'd just move the goal posts and still insist on it. You're a racist, we'll cry, repeatedly despite your protestations and proofs otherwise. Because no proof would be good enough to defend you against our accusation. You see, it's not so nice when you have your own standards turned back on you. ADK^{...I'll employ your hotel!} 16:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Amen. You're speaking rhetorically. On a personal note, prove that I, Rob Smith, anywhere ever said Obama was not a US citizen. And still it is a leap of logic to conclude that saying someone is not a citizen is racism. That is simply meanspirited partisanship, and slander. And try and convince 51% of the American electorate that intimidation and slander is the path of to leadership. nobs^{don't bother me} 17:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

What I said below Nobs. But the fact is that most of those who 'oppose' the POTUS and continue to try to promote the birther issue are, at heart, doing so for fundamentally racist motives. IMO of course. Oldusgitus (talk) 17:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't try to deflect onto another issue. I want the certificate that you're not a racist. ADK^{...I'll roll your oddball!} 17:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

My mother alway said the truth hurts. It was as right then as it is now nobs isn't it? The reason people like the birthers continue on their idiotic campaign despite now having the long form they cried for is they don't like the fact a black man was democratically elected by the majority of the electorate (and didn't need a state attorney general to fix the vote for him at that). I don't really recall you ever tying your flag to the birthers nobs but if you are doing so now it is for fundamentally racist reasons. Oldusgitus (talk) 16:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

My response: Bush v Gore and president-select. It's a wash. Those who argued Bush was not a legitimat president, even after Bush v Gore are mindless bigots as much as birthers are after the long form was produced. nobs^{don't bother me} 17:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Minor difference though, but a VERY important one. Those arguing about the Bush v Gore recount issue were arguing on a point of law and a constitutional issue. Those arguing on the birth certificate issue are essentially not, they are arguing from a stand-point of bigotry. I accept fully that you have not argued the birther stance but in the same way you should also be willing to concede that many who do are arguing from a fundamentally racist standpoint. I seriously doubt Orly would have argued as vehemently were Obama not a black US citizen. Oldusgitus (talk) 17:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm bigoted against a boob of a candidate like Bush, who himself was a disgusting racist who implemented racist policy in my home state if Texas. My position certainly wasn't mindless. There's another substantial difference between Bush and Obama. The anti-Obama crowd, being largely red-state as it is, is for the most part a bunch of fucking rednecks - poorly educated and already predisposed to institutionalized racism. The anti-Bush crowd not so much. There is a well-documented education gap between the right and left with a grossly disproportionate number of PhDs, other advanced degrees, and college diplomas on our side rather than yours. We were making reasoned arguments why Bush was a liar and a war criminal rather than this birther side-show nonsense. Oh and by the way, if you look at Rob's conduct on CP it's hardly clear he's not tying his flag to the birthers. Because he's a fucking racist stooge. How you like your colored president, Rob? Nutty Roux (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

It's definitely not nice when your own piss-poor standards are turned around and thrown against you. Where's proof that JPatt isn't a racist, or ASchlafly, or Conservative? Either renounce Conservapedia or be damned as a hypocrite by association with their own standards of intimidation and slander. ADK^{...I'll break your hot dog!} 17:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, Birthers have a lot to answer for, but I don't see any good reason to insinuate that they are predominately racist. In fact, this sort of accusation is part of the vitriolic background that leads to stupid theories like Obama's presidency is illegitimate. Regardless of how disreputable Birthers are, basic intellectual virtues like the principles of (rhetorical) charity and faithfulness apply. Take their arguments at their words and shred those arguments, rather than insinuating that the arguments could only come from a racist. Take the rhetorical high road. Phiwum (talk) 01:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand Birthers at all. Why keep trying to find some loophole in an ever tightening case with growing evidence that Obama is a citizen? The long form should have been enough, but instead now Birthers go into this crazy "its fake" or "well his dad wasn't a citizen" bullshit to keep the movement alive. Why? It annoys the American people and honestly if conservatives and Republicans wanted to go after Obama where it matters, they be pounding home the bad economy, the out of control spending, the threat of America's credit rating being downgraded, inflation, Libya, and high gas prices. These are the issue that will resonate with the American people, because these issues are what hit each and every one of us personally in our everyday lives. Instead they keep going back to more and more absurd arguments that somehow he isn't a legitimate president; it is starting to look really bad for them. They may not be racist but the fact they can't let this one loss go and harp on his African father is surely going to be viewed as racist by more and more people; because it seems like as if his heritage is the only thing that matters to people like those who run CP, not his policies.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 02:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It's pretty easy to understand if you stop dancing around the issue of racism and call a spade a spade. Sure, some birthers are just conspiracy nuts who latch onto whatever the new conspiracy du jour is, but it's an easy proxy for racism. The anti-Semites have been pulling bullshit like this since WWII ended with stuff like Holocaust denial and the Khazar myth, because it gives them some plausible deniability to hide behind. "I'm not anti-Semitic or anything, but I don't think there's clear evidence that the Holocaust really happened/Jews aren't actually Turks." It's a back-door way of discrediting someone's legitimacy. I'm also rather amused by all the headlines coming out like "Death of Birtherism." The willful ignorance of the crank is far too strong to let actual evidence destroy his belief. It's like expecting 9/11 truthers to go home after the NIST reports were released. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I note that Andrew Schlafly lacks the machismo to respond to JDW. Nutty Roux (talk) 02:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)