Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive235

This is an archive page, last updated 4 January 2012. 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>, <233>, <234>, <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)

Joaquin: Amen to that!

Ouch. Methinks he is going to get whacked with the banhammer pretty damn soon. -- 00:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Il est des notres, il a bus son verre comme les autres!---brxbrx 00:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to see the note on that ban. How could Andy justify that without saying "he disagreed with me and I don't like that"? - Jpop (talk) 00:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Liberal trolling? Liberal name-callling? Liberal Mexicanism? --Night Jaguar (talk) 00:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, he won't be banned for that. But if we are to over-analyze this one post of his, we can say it's a sign of his growing disgust with the way Conservapedia is managed, and a general omen that this festering keg of shit is about to burst from the seams, if even the humble and reserved Joaquin Martinez raises his voice in protest.---brxbrx 00:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

He'll probably ignore it. If he deigns to acknowledge the sedition, it'll be straight from the quote generator. Don't expect Andy to admit that he might be wrong. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 00:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Joaquín has always came off as somewhat sensible to me. and I agree with SR above Rationalize (talk) 00:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

"Joaquín Martínez" (your insulting name is getting tiresome), The content and spelling of your statement looks to me like that of an atheist. I reread the beginning of your rant at the top of this section and you are unlike 99% of evolutionists, who avoid the Bible like the plague and even discourage others from reading it, so admit it, you're not an American. I urge you, I beseech you, I beg you: accept that translating the Bible prevents sexually transmitted diseases. Believe what you like, but conservative words don't disappear. Have you complained to Wikipedia about its obscenity yet?? Stop wasting my time with endless, non-substantive questions when the burden of proof is on you.--Aschlafly 01:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC) -- 01:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Joaquin was also the only sysop to endorse my anti-Bugler rant, apart from Ed's inane comments about feeling up punishing Sunday School kiddies. Sadly, Joaquin is ignore even more than Ken - he's never been in any of the discussion groups and Andy is happy to have him around to steal art images and plaster them all over CP. I'm not even sure why he was made a sysop - he doesn't fit the profile. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 10:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Joaquin "somewhat sensible"? Remember "Christo is a Painter"? DogP (talk) 14:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

No, please explain. Rationalize (talk) 15:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Talk page in question. bear in mind, Christo is the guy who wraps things up. --PsyGremlinPraat! 16:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘He looks special. Rationalize (talk) 16:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

There was a ferocious edit war around the inclusion of this image. It was hilarious. You should have been there. Oh the yuks were high in May 2008. How we laughed, etc. DogP (talk) 19:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I laughed, I cried, I was a whole person. --Kels (talk) 22:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

So Rob, this data from the computer media

Would be data^img that would not have been obtained if Obama had followed your suggestion on here and instead used a drone would it? And you totally without irony then mpr a news story about how the captured computers and media were of use. You really are a complete one aren't you? Oldusgitus (talk) 09:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I bet Rob eats babies. Ajkgordon (talk) 09:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

He's never denied it. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 09:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Baby-eating speculating aside, this was originally posted by TerryH^img - Rob just shuffled it further down the pile^img, likely aware that this item basically reads "Thanks to Obama's actions, we prevented a major future terror attack". ;) --Sid (talk) 09:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Ahh, thanks for that. I'd not noticed that. Rather like I must have overlooked nobs taking chuckarse to task over his evident support for the use of ground troops instead of a drone attack, like he did with people here. I am sure Rob must have done that because otherwise he would show himself to be a hypocrite. Oldusgitus (talk) 11:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Isn't that what Andy calls "placement bias"? Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 10:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

DMorris growing up so fast

*sniff* It's really a thing of beauty to watch DMorris in action.^img Sysop lite starts throwing around creepy TK-esque checkuser references (despite not having checkuser), manages to use the word 'whore' on a talk page. Bonus points for the ASCII eye though - even TK never thought of that. This boy could go far. Especially with CP's resident Director of Counter Intelligence on the job. --PsyGremlin講話 12:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely brilliant. Here's hoping he lives long and prospers. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 12:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Wow. TK lives again. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 12:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

TK is arisen? Time for a new religion. More water into wine stuff please.--Brendiggg (talk) 12:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Won't be seeing much of that, but hopefully (or not) we'll see a few vanishing tricks. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 12:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see the eye now. It doesn't really come up on the diff. Still fails hard, though, because of that break in the middle. ADK^{...I'll analyse your alfalfa!} 13:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Interesting observations. I myself have compared myself to TK; we have a lot of good traits in common. I do try to assume good faith a little more than TK did however; not everybody is a parodist. My use of the word "whore" was me quoting the userpage of SarahWollstone, whom I find to have operated in a manner very similar to Conzervative1. SarahWollstone has a userbox on her userpage with a picture of my PCHS cheerleaders, calling them "immoral whores." DMorris2 (talk) 03:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Taking all bets!

Today's job report showed a higher-than-expected increase in private payrolls, while the unemployment rate ticked up slightly due to more people entering the market; overall, it was a slightly-to-moderately positive report, depending on how you interpret it.
That said, how long until Andykins puts on MPR "Unemployment rates explodes! Liberals are skull-fucking jobs away!" By 8:30 AM, Central Time (which is the only time zone I acknowledge. Foreigners.) Carlaugust (talk) 12:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Robism in catching on

Looking at recent posts to CP's main page talk, does anyone notice how now Jpatt and Karajou both seem to be giving Rob a run for his money in non-sequiturs? It's kind of amusing and I wonder if they're doing it on purpose. DickTurpis (talk) 13:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

But if they were doing it on purpose, that would require them to think. It's possible Rob's been giving them lessons in how debate aka The Idiot Grin. Although Karajerk is still happy to end a debate with the ban hammer. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 13:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The thread on the Atlas Jugs military coup theory is golden. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 14:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the conversation is awesome. "I don't believe anything! Wait...I mean... I believe everything!" Occasionaluse (talk) 14:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

They are left to decide which they like better: bin Laden is dead, but Obama tried to stop it, or bin Laden lives, Obama lies.---brxbrx 17:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

TerryH is Shameless

At least he's stopped linkspamming his pisspoor Examiner stuff, but his last seven edits to MainPageRight have all linkspammed his new conservativenewsandviews hate site instead. Dishonest little prick. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 14:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing me at that little cesspool. Now I don't have a high regard for Gordon Brown but as a son of the manse I never thought of him as the Anti-Christ. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 15:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't get it. Are they being so deadpan that I can't tell they're joking, or are they really quoting a parody site as Gordon Brown's real opinion? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I think he's just a fucking idiot. He actually believes it's GB's blog. Ajkgordon (talk) 15:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec*2)I hadn't found that one. That is absolutely f***ing hilarious! Do they really believe that's Gordon Brown's real blog??? Apparently so, because Chuckarse even has a comment "On the contrary, that sounds like just the sort of boast that a politician would make." What a tool! –SuspectedReplicant retire me 15:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

That's almost a Schlaflyism. Verily, they are all stark, staring bonkers - check Terry's eyes! Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 15:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Seriously, Terry needs to get a better picture of himself. In this one he looks like he's staring at your jugular and drooling. I notice his 'about me' ignores the fact he's currently the gofer for an ambulance chaser. Still, funnt to see yet another sysop wiping his arse on Andy's pet project. --PsyGremlin講話 15:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I was going to WIGO that but I see it's already been clogged and Psy, this is even more frightening. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 15:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear Jesus! Accidental Nightmare Fuel! Those eyes... the eyes... ALL HAIL THE HYPNOTERRY! --PsyGremlinPraat! 15:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Gah! That's some scary shit! –SuspectedReplicant retire me 16:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

He looks like the stereotype of a pedophile, and the focus is on the wall behind him, making his face blurry. What an idiot for thinking that was really Gordon Brown's blogspot (!). --Leotardo (talk) 17:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I notice that the female Tea Party (and cakes) organiser - she must be an atheist, right? - has her own web-site called Creation Science Alive which links to... wait for it, Ken... CP's Evolution article! Unfortunately, the page count is only in the low 300s despite having been started back in 2005, which is not surprising in that it only seems to render properly under IE and features an annoying video. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 16:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

allah, with a lower case "a". Just kidding. But that sounds like something he'd say, no? When you're losing an argument, use grammar and semantics to weasel out of it.---brxbrx 00:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Rob Smith uses Iran as source for Obama conspiracy theories

Poor Rob Smith, he is so desperate for any anti-Obama conspiracy, he's willing to use just about anybody as a source^img. In this case, citing an enemy of his own country, an Iranian MP. --Leotardo (talk) 17:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Sarcasm. Heard of it? ListenerX^TalkerX 17:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to give him the benefit of the doubt that he was being sarcastic as it's not out of line with other things he says. --Leotardo (talk) 17:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Even Rob would not be so stupid as to put forth truther sentiments on Conservapedia, even if he believed them, which I doubt he does. ListenerX^TalkerX 17:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

At this point I'm not surprised about any conspiracy theory that they entertain. --Leotardo (talk) 17:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Obama did 911. --Marlow (talk) 18:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

May I point out, there are a lot people, millions in fact, here and abroad, who are on record believing exactly what I paraphrased. nobs^{don't bother me} 00:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Rob, we know that you are not the only idiot on the planet; there are millions of you. Your point? DickTurpis (talk) 01:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

CP Stepping Up The Crazy?

The past few days I've noticed an increase in WIGO CP, and many of them have been getting high votes as opposed to being spam. So is CP stepping up the crazy, or has someone figured out how WIGO and having to much fun with it?--Thunderstruck (talk) 18:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be pretty clear that this is has to do with the assassination of bin Laden. This event must cause massive cognitive dissonance in the minds of CP regulars. If Bush had sent Seal Team 6 in a pack of top secret stealth helicopters to shoot bin Laden in the head and then toss his body in the ocean, CP would have had a collective orgasm. Instead their worst enemy, secret communist Muslim atheist Barry Sotello does it. Que craziness. --Marlow (talk) 18:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

In the wake of bin Laden's death, CP has stepped up the crazy. They just can't handle anything that might make Obama good. Anything. He could lower taxes all around, and Shlafly would say that it's not aligned with Christian principles of social justice. He could outlaw gay marriage, and Andy would complain it violates the first amendment.Conservapedia is that far gone, that they are no longer conservatives---brxbrx 18:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe in their early early heady days were they conservative, but they aren't anymore. They are just reactionary conspiracy kooks. --Leotardo (talk) 18:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. They've really gone overboard since OBL was killed. Andy has been on top form, and even though there are far more active parodists than usual, they can't compete with Assfly when he really goes for it. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 18:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Andy has so surrounded himself with sycophants that he is naked in his foolishness. His obvious resentment about Obama is painful to behold and without someone to arrest his decline I only expect it to get worse.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 18:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Andy is, essentially, brother-in-arms to Mullah Omar. DogP (talk) 19:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

No doubt Bin Ladens death made things worse. But I think this goes as far back as the release of the long form birth cirtificate. Obama proved he is an american, and andy can't take it.--Thunderstruck (talk) 20:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we should give Andy a break, it has been a hard couple of weeks for him. "Where's the birth certificate!?" Here it is. "Obama is a secret Muslim!" Bam Osama bin Laden is killed. All he can do is wave his hands and say it is all fake because... because... the Al Qaeda statement only used the word Allah before it was translated. --Marlow (talk) 21:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I really want to see what he does if Obama gets re-elected. He'll probably make Ken like sensible. --Night Jaguar (talk) 22:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

With the long-form release and death of Osama, it's been an active two weeks in the clogosphere in general, especially on wingnut and truther sites. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Theres been a lot more talk page discussion that ive noticed, and some fun cracks in the overall unity of the main groups--Mikalos209 (talk) 23:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

What?

Here Terry, I don't mind you link-spamming your blog on my blog, but allow me to fuck up your headline for you.^img

Hahaha Rationalize (talk)

Sometimes Andy's stupidity is almost enough to make my eyes bleed. "God" and "Allah" are the same thing, you cretinous pillock. The quote uses "God" rather than "Allah" because it's been translated. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 16:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, why does he not understand that. Allah is just God in Arabic! Rationalize (talk) 16:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

funny thing: Christian arabs say allah. But they won't listen.---brxbrx 16:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

You have to wonder whether Andy is deliberately being stupid just for a laugh because "God" is not how most Christians refer to... well, God. OK, those with Germanic languages use something similar but the majority use a variation of the Latin Deus and in Orthodox churches one of several Greek words. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 16:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not so much Andy being deliberately stupid, he's counting on his audience to be stupid. Andy knows fully well, not only that "allah" is translated as "god", but that the original announcement from Al Qaeda used the word allah. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

You're all very silly. "God" is the proper name for... er... God because that's what it is in English. Which is the language Jesus spoke, obviously. When he was riding his dinosaur. Ajkgordon (talk) 17:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

One of the greatest Andy quotes of all time was along the lines of "'الله‎' is Arabic for 'allah'". Is that on FSTDT? Occasionaluse (talk) 17:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually,I'm pretty sure it was "'allahu akbar' is Arabic for 'allah is great'". Occasionaluse (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I've gotta say this is one of the few issues I've been able to see Andy's side on. Whether it's right or wrong, "Allah" is seen as "the muslim god" and "God" is seen as "the christian god" (and also... y'know, deities in general). Plenty of muslims speaking English will refer to Allah and such. The literal translation of the word doesn't seem particularly important in this issue. X Stickman (talk) 17:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Never you mind that Quran is very specific that they are one and the same. If you see Andy's side of this, you must be rock stupid. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

What I find bizarre (not really bizarre in the CP world), is that Andy would rather have Al-Qaeda win. Bad news for Al-Qaeda is good news for Obama and thus bad news for Andy. I do think this might push away even some of his core cohorts who might just think Al-Qaeda is more of an out group than Barry Sotello. --Marlow (talk) 17:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

It's odious to hope against your country the way CP does just for cheap short-term political game. But it would be a lie to say I didn't know liberals who did the same thing during George W. Bush. Either way, it's pretty awful. --Leotardo (talk) 18:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ And he's still on the same message^img. "No, "Allah" is not the same as "God" - that's why they are two very different words." - in Andyland, fish and poisson are different things. Dickhead. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 18:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Andy is really fucking thick---brxbrx 18:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I love it, Andy:"looks like I'm wrong, better double down." --Marlow (talk) 18:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, actually Terry, um fuck you.^img Your blog isn't good enough for my blog. Rationalize (talk) 18:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Now that's funny!  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 19:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

@ Occasionaluse, yeah, that was on FSTDT. Here's the quote. Muslims are apparently chanting to Allah, not God. Half the people at FSTDT are convinced Andy is a Poe. --Night Jaguar (talk) 19:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

mmm...thanks. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bible uses many names for God (e.g, YHWH, Elohim, Adonai, El Shaddai, etc. ). I wonder if we can get Andy to admit that those were all seperate chacters? Wait, what I am thinking? He uses the Conservative Bible that he "translated" himself, and as we've seen here, his translating skills are beyond question. --Night Jaguar (talk) 19:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I have a very strong feeling that english translations from arabic news sources can't be trusted. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I do like how Andy thanks someone for picking up on his 'typo'. Yea, like typing such instead of suggest is a typo. Are we sure andy doesn't drink like a fish as the only way anyone could describe that as a typo is if they were seriously pissed. Oldusgitus (talk) 19:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I love how Fox has become part of the dirty liberal MSM. And I wonder what God that guy in the pointy hat who lives in Italy prays to? "Deus" or some filthy foreign name. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 19:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Seems the easiest way to resolve this would be to look at the untranslated statement - I found it linked here: http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/06/full-statement-from-al-qaeda-on-osama-bin-ladens-death/ now we just have to figure out if they used their word for God, or Allah...

aside from the fact that I have no idea what that other word is... I haven't read arabic in 8 years..and sometimes they use funky ligatures for "allah". Occasionaluse (talk) 21:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Can someone burn a sock and ask the Great Teacher, if Allah isn't Arabic for god, what is the Arabic word for god? -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 00:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not terribly good at Arabic, but the original uses: "Usama bin ladin rahamat allahi". (Osama bin ladin, mercy of god.) Regardless of my translation, the original really does use the Arabic word "allah", the special ligature and all. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 01:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, the very start of the page refers to "Allah ar-rahmaan ar-raheen"... this is a totally Muslim manner of addressing their aspect of the Abrahamic god. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 01:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

In defence of Andy

To be fair to Andy, it is a genuine open question among Christians whether their God and the Islamic God is the same or different. It is true also that Arabic-speaking Christians, "Allah" is frequently used to refer to the Christian God. I think Andy's comment is confusing these two issues somewhat (one linguistic, the other theological). But simply declaring him completely wrong, rather than just expressing his viewpoint with less clarity and eloquence than he could, is unfair. I think many here cannot fairly comment on the theological question, since if you aren't a theist then you lack the necessary starting position to meaningfully participate in that discussion. --(((Zack Martin)))^™ 01:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Right... next, you'll be telling me that they believe in different Jesuses (Jesi?) now? In fact, Muslims have been known to argue with Christians about whether Jesus was born to a virgin... --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 01:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, they believe very different things about Jesus - whether that is sufficient to make them two different persons, is an interesting question - I am not sure if it has an answer. --(((Zack Martin)))^™ 01:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The question of whether Muslims and Christians worship the same god is certainly a valid point of debate, but that's not what Andy's addressing. He's saying that since the English translation of al Qaeda's statement translates "Allah" to "God" rather than leaving it as "Allah" (which is often done), this somehow calls into question the authenticity of the statement in the first place. That is simply retarded. If Andy can't tell that how something is translated has no bearing on the original statement he is even stupider than I thought. And I've always thought he was astoundingly stupid. DickTurpis (talk) 01:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

My girlfriend is a Muslim Persian and says Khuda instead of Allah. - π 01:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Every kind of craziness is a "genuine open question among Christians". The fact that Islam is an Abrahamic religion (and thus Allah is the "same" as the God in the Torah and the New Testament) isn't up for serious debate. Christianity became the favourite baseline for a wide variety of cults, because so many Christians are comfortable with the idea that they must accept the "truth" of a book they've never read. So you can say any self-serving thing you like, insist it's in the Bible and the slack-jawed followers will accept that. Go on, ask a Rapture believer, they'll tell you this event (first invented by a cult leader in the 18th century) is described clearly in the Bible. They believe that, and they've never thought to look for themselves.

Whether to translate Allah as God would once have been a style question - if a foreign word is commonly loaned in English, should you translate anyway? But it became politically loaded. Somehow a guy chanting about "Allah" as he deliberately crashes a plane (Egypt Air 990) is a "Muslim terrorist" whereas when you translate it to "God" he sounds like every street-corner crazy, except this one's gone through pilot school and is sat at the controls of a passenger plane. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 07:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm a British Anglican and I call Him God. My wife is a French Roman Catholic and she calls Him Dieu. Obviously Catholics aren't Christians. Ajkgordon (talk) 08:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, having read more about the context, I do think Andy is more confused than I thought originally, as DickTurpis points out. I still think arguments about "Is Allah God" are often imprecise expressions of a genuine concern - if one is an exclusive monotheist, who believes there is one true God and many false gods, it is a genuine question whether the god of another religion is some distorted version of the true God, or some entirely seperate entity. I reckon Andy probably is victim of this confusion; although I think here he is going beyond it. --(((Zack Martin)))^™ 08:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

He's not confused. He will do and say anything that distances Christianity from Islam. Ajkgordon (talk) 09:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused... monotheism says that there is one god, and only one god, and any belief that there is another god is a false belief. If you believe that there are other entities that are powerful like gods, but not actually the "True God", then that's monolatrism... But I must express agreement of Ajkgordon... there is a tendency for people to deny that anyone who believes in a variant of their god even believes in the same god. Thus, it is common for (mostly) protestant Christians to assert that Mormons do not believe in the same god as Christians do, and thus Mormons are not Christians. In other words, even if you believe in a similar god, or even an equally valid derivation of the same original god, the fact that you don't believe in the identical god to them, means you do not believe in the "True God" and thus are worshiping a fictional entity that does not exist. People who take this position tend to be sticklers for calling the Muslim god "Allah" to distinguish him apart from the Christian god, because he isn't really the same god. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 11:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Standard Andy is that if it's not aligned exactly with his interpretation of something then it must be something else. (c.f. Christianity, Republicanism, Conservatism, triangle trade, etc.,... ad nauseam) Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 15:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear goat

Now andy thinks the correct group to analyse and discuss AQ press releases are conservapedians^img. He don't need no liberal translators or actual arabic experts getting in the way of the best of the public on cp. Oldusgitus (talk) 06:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

...it worked for the Bible... ;) --Sid (talk) 09:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Except for that pesky Old Testament, yeah. 99.50.96.218 (talk) 12:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

CP on altruism

[1]^img Not bad, eh? No randroid BS, no liberal abuse references. A pretty decent article, topped off with a nice quote by MLK. ANd this wasn't ripped from Citizendium! If only the trustworthy encyclopedia could have more articles like this.---brxbrx 21:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

It was written by JM in 2007, which means that it's just stitched-together from copypaste snippets, though this is one of the better cases where he only took small samples, actually re-arranged them and marked the rest as actual quotes in some ways. But hey, compare the first paragraph and the first sentence of the second one to the WP version at the time and the next sentence to this page and you'll see what makes a balanced CP article. =P --Sid (talk) 00:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

So did JM just throw it up to inflate his stats, or does it actually reflect what he thinks? I've had no interactions with him; he doesn't seem to be an unhinged creep like Jpatt, but I'm not sure where JM fits in over there. Aside from ripping-off copyrighted material, is he a decent chap?--Simple (talk) 02:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I have literally no idea. My best guess is that he just wants to create pretty things and tries to be helpful and to fit in, but that he's ultimately slightly confused (see the whole "Photo of wrapped-up islands counts as a painting" disaster). --Sid (talk) 09:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

JM is an old man living in Campeche, Mexico. He's a Catholic, is interested in the arts and some alternative health topics, and he likes to stick pictures in scrap books - it used to be called "occupational therapy". I think that the "all art is painting" fiasco was an aberration; after all, English is not his first language. A pap profile would be morally conservative with socialistic tendencies, theistic evolutionist: mostly harmless.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 10:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Presumably he stays despite the occasional abuse because it's familiar to him. A place he knows where he can putter around with who he believes are his peers and largely left to do as he likes. It would be more effort to find a new place than to just put up with it. --Kels (talk) 16:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Just in case you were worried

Just in case you were thinking Andy might've forgotten about birtherism and moved on to deatherism - HOW COULD JOURNALISTS SAY 10% OF THE POPULATION IS WRONG ON AN ISSUE?!^img --Danielfolsom (talk) 03:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Apparently pollsters are biased if they say people are wrong about basic facts. I guess since Gallup reported that "19% answered incorrectly" that sun revolves around the Earth in the (atheistic) UK they are bias. Anyone wanna burn a sock and ask Andy if pollsters would be bias if they said people who answered 2 + 2 ≠ 4 were incorrect? --Night Jaguar (talk) 04:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=prev&oldid=867074^img "Remove the bias" Aka, remove the entire focus of the article to look presumably at the bottom part that deals with an entirely different poll, done before long-form was released. --Mikalos209 (talk) 05:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the capture tags. PLEASE DO SO Daniel! Thanks. Rationalize (talk) 06:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that revision has been lost to time, not sure why.--Mikalos209 (talk) 07:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

My mistake! If it makes it any better here is a diff^img that contains the revision - not as part of the changed text but as past text (one under Karajou's changed text). But I have no idea what happened - even that diff is odd because it shows Karajou adding a commenting, but also adding Andy's comment. I guess revisions were oversighted without the text of those revisions removed? Perhaps for deniability later?--Danielfolsom (talk) 07:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

JPatt thinks the President has power over all dictionaries, foreign and domestic: OMG! They're taking "natural born citizen" out of all the dictionaries^img. His source for this is, of course, a forum post by a moron who doesn't realize that the reference in the Wikipedia article he uses as "proof" is a result for "natural born", which still returns the same result. I don't have the time just now to look through a thread with over a dozen pages of crazy, but I wonder if anybody there ever noticed. How credulous can you get? It's easier to believe that the President can use his iron fist to pressure every English dictionary in the world to delete a phrase than it is to believe one of your fellow wing-nuts is searching the wrong terms. -- Ellipsoidal (talk) 11:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Wait, Johnny Reb Sedition is using GLP as a reliable source? We're sure he's not a parodist right? --PsyGremlinSpeak! 11:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Was Andy pissed last night?

Just wondering, because after he screwed up Terry's headline above, he takes Joaquin's rather lengthy MPR post^img and chops words and phrases out at random,^img leaving something barely intelligible behind. Also, who is Moammar Khadafy? --PsyGremlinSprich! 11:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Moammar Khadafy is just an alternate spelling of Muammar Gaddafi. There is no single accepted system to transliterate Arabic into the Latin alphabet, hence Arabic names tend to exist in many different variants. (Same with Osama vs. Usama) --(((Zack Martin)))^™ 12:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

OH!!!! pissed == drunk, right? I was confused for a bit there. Stating that there is no single accepted system to transliterate Arabic into the Latin alphabet is a bit silly... there is no "single accepted system" to transliterate Japanese Kana, or Chinese glyphs, or even Cyrillic into the Latin alphabet... so why should we expect any different from Arabic? --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 12:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Why is it silly? He was only answering a question. Ajkgordon (talk) 12:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Because it is a vacuous statement... there is not "single accepted system" for any script into the Latin alphabet... unless you allow for reflexive transitions... --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 12:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

You can always tell the brits or the brit influenced in the world. Whilst the rest of the world is watching someone who is 'pissed' mouthing off in a rage and fury we brits are wondering how he got so much to drink where he lives. And normally quite a few of us are wondering why were aren't as drunk as he is. Or we are actively working on getting there. hic Oldusgitus (talk) 12:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

For the benefit of my Merkin bretheren - "pissed off" = "pissed"; "pissed" = "drunk"

Also, I thought "Gaddafi" was the standard spelling. First time I've seen the news use Khadafy. --PsyGremlinTala! 12:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

pissed = drunk? why don't you Brits learn how to speak English? nobs^{don't bother me} 14:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The French use Khadafy or Qadafi. Ajkgordon (talk) 12:39, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I've also seen Khadafi used more than once. Oldusgitus (talk) 12:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

And Ghaddafi. nobs^{don't bother me} 14:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Eira, I think the point is that while all foreign scripts have many transliteration systems, in several cases there is a dominant system which gets mostly used. For example, with Chinese, pinyin is rather dominant; Wade-Giles still gets a fair bit of use, but its use is declining; other systems exist, but aren't very important. (Of course, there are also geographical and political factors in pinyin-vs-Wade-Giles which I won't go into). I think the point is just with Arabic there is less dominance of a single system than there is for many other languages, thus much more variety in spelling of Arabic names. One issue is that Arabic, compared to e.g. Japanese, is spoken in many countries, so there is inevitably less standardisation - with Japanese, for example, if the Japanese authorities pick a particular transliteration system, that will naturally tend to become the one most widely adopted. --(((Zack Martin)))^™ 12:43, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The Japanese authorities have picked a particular transliteration system, and it is not the most widely used one. Also "a single widely accepted system" is a different statement from "a single accepted system". --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 12:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point. My particular example may well be wrong, but I don't think that changes the basic point - there is greater variety in transliteration of Arabic in practice than there is for many other languages. The point about Japan was just to try to illustrate some speculation on my part as to why this might be so, but whether my speculation is right or wrong doesn't really change the basic point. --(((Zack Martin)))^™ 12:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

If you had said that there is a wide variety in transliteration for Arabic, there would have been nothing to complain about. But as is, you said something that is entirely vacuous. Don't get all hissy at me for pointing out that you're saying stuff that has absolutely no meaningful content. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 12:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Why are you so hissy? --(((Zack Martin)))^™ 12:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

She likes cats. Ajkgordon (talk) 13:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not hissy... I'm just a pedantic bitch... this is well established and self-promoted. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 13:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

(EC) I think there's a difference between "single accepted system" (basically meaning it's a standard) and "predominantly used" (saying it's the one mostly used by scholars). Don't get all pissed off (the American meaning) about a few wrong words written down fast. I suppose we all know what Maratrean meant to say. Btw, the difference of Osama and Usama AFAIK doesn't stem from different transliteration systems but different dialects throughout the Arabic language - which doesn't really make the whole transliteration thing much easier. --UHM^{"rambling incoherently" for 20+ years!} 13:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not even differences among dialects of Arabic, but rather differences arising between Arabic and Pashtu. (See? I'm pedantic with everyone.) --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 13:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ "why don't you Brits learn how to speak English" LOLWUT? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 14:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually what nobs wrote there is one fo the fewq things he has ever written that made me smile, as opposed to laugh out loud at his idiocy that is. I understood nob's point. But nobs, can you answer a question please? Where was it that you took terryh to task over his support for grounds troop use instead of a drone? Just wondering like.

Oh, nobs. You lot also get fanny wrong. It really REALLY doesn't mean what you yanks think it does. Oldusgitus (talk) 15:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

sort of interesting article on swearwords and differences between British and American usage.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 15:44, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I beginning to think this section should ought be forumized. C®ackeЯ

Rob was just making a funny. Not every batshit thing a Conservapedian says is to be taken seriously. See Poe's law---brxbrx 16:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

That's what I meant. I was just trying to be clever in saying it. I doubt even andy would tell us seriously we don't know how to speak or spell English and Rob is not quite as stupid as andy. Oldusgitus (talk) 16:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I was addressing our resident Babylonian king. Just putting that out there, if you thought I was talking down to you.---brxbrx 16:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Rob was making a funny.

But Rob, if you're watching (always watching), that bullshit from you (Allah = Satan) and Schlafly (Allah is an English word) is just plain stupid. It's a wonder you know how to put your trousers (pants) on the right way round. Ajkgordon (talk) 19:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't you see how liberal Andy's become? he accepts the integration of the Arabic word, Allah into the English language, calling it an English word. He is not a linguistic purist. Give credit were credit is do. nobs^{don't bother me} 19:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I.... er.... you could be on to something. Ajkgordon (talk) 19:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

As director of internal counterintelligence, shouldn't you be rooting out liberals like Andy? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Jus doin my job. I evidently am the only one who discerned motives and spotted this subversive infiltrator.... nobs^{don't bother me} 21:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Your job as village idiot? You're doing just fine. Ajkgordon (talk) 22:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Overqualified, y'ask me. --Kels (talk) 23:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The proles are revolting

Every time Andy opens his mouth someone calls him on his bullshit. Its like CP's own arab spring over there. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

What Egypt or Syria? Oldusgitus (talk) 16:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, a lot of these editors, mainly all of the new ones, are parodists. Then you have the occasional burst of sanity from Ken

(I love this template!), Karajou's brief forays into rationality, and Meek Martinez's intermittent backbone growth.---brxbrx 16:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure on where the parody lies. The new editors seem to being doing a pretty good job of shooting down Andy's bullshit claims. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Followed by him ignoring that (see the above about 10% of people = 1/4 of america--Mikalos209 (talk) 16:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

By "parodist," I mean secretly a liberal editing CP for kicks and (un)subtly sowing dissent. I guess I should pick a better word.---brxbrx 16:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Everyone is a liberal except Andy AMassiveGay (talk) 17:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

And his mom. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 17:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

something like that. few people contribute to CP seriously.---brxbrx 17:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘No doubt the liberal vandals are being funded by SorosBucks through Soros front groups like DailyKos. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Thor, a conservative movie

http://conservapedia.com./index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&diff=867305&oldid=867296^img headline says it all--Mikalos209 (talk) 23:44, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Even ANDY is trolling ListenerX! –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I like how Thor doesn't appear on the Best Conservative Movies list or the talk page at all. Apparently he's blindsided everyone with this fresh idiocy. --Kels (talk) 23:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm only going to say this once, and it applies to all sections; FIX YOUR FUCKING CAPTURES! Andy knows how weak his arguments are and is hiding them from most of the planet so it takes longer to show the obvious holes in them, so for those of us that he's afraid of you need to make sure your captures work properly. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 00:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

If i knew how to do that, or understood captures, i would love to do that for you. --Mikalos209 (talk) 00:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The capture above is now fixed. It might have failed because CP has been giving 500 internal server errors on and off today. But back to the discussion at hand... apparently 'Thor' is a conservative move because "it's a tale of good versus evil"^img. Further evidence that Andy has a twisted, black and white, fantasy-based world view where conservative = good and liberal = evil, unequivocally. A liberal might argue that 'Thor' is a great liberal movie using the same logic. --Tabrcg23 (talk) 01:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I thought he'd go the other way with this. Thor -> Pagan god -> anti-Christian -> liberal movie. I guess he went: success -> conservative movie. --Night Jaguar (talk) 01:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Andy's god got nailed to a tree, Thor has a hammer. Andy knows better than to piss off certain people. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 02:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I thought Andy was Andy's god. --Night Jaguar (talk) 03:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, this Thor=conservative movie deserves a WIGO, IMO. I can't figure a way to make sound funnier though. --Night Jaguar (talk) 02:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

How about: "Comic book movie about Pagan God who came down from Asgard, became man and kicked a little ass: one of the greatest Conservative movies ever!" Phiwum (talk) 02:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

lol, go for it. Often times I read something from Andy and there seems no way to make more ridiculous. I just quote it verbatim and send it to FSTDT. (Also, just to show you how predictable Andy is, I'll say right now that Captain America is going to be labelled a conservative movie when it comes out. :) --Night Jaguar (talk) 03:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

How could Thor not be conservative? It's beating a Jodie Foster movie. It's conservative in exactly the same way that The King's Speech (which beat the evil Facebook movie and hence defeated the evil Facebook) is also conservative. Phiwum (talk) 02:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

case closed---brxbrx 03:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Rob almost gets something right. Almost.

I have to admit that Rob's point that Muslims don't recognize Jesus as part of their god means they don't worship exactly the same fellow. This is actually a significant point. The great thing is he undermines his own statement simultaneously by referring to the "Judeo-Christian God". Rob, you do realize that Jews reject Jesus too, don't you? That means you aren't worshipping the same god they are, by your own logic. Jewish theology backs this up too. Islam is more acceptable to Jews than Christianity is. DickTurpis (talk) 00:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

But what about Jews for Jesus? I mean, they're totally legit, right? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The point being, Christianity & the bible worship the Judeo-Christian god. This is in disputable. Now, do remnants of Isreal, i.e., orthodox Jews, recognize the canonical validity of the Greek New Testament? No. And that is the just about the only discrepency between Christianity & Judaism. nobs^{don't bother me} 01:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

That's a big discrepancy. "We don't recognize the fundamental foundations of your religion" is more than a technicality. You might as well say that Christians lack of recognition of the canonical validity of the Koran is the only discrepancy between Christianity and Islam. DickTurpis (talk) 01:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey, let's toss the Mormons in there too! They've got a made-up extra book, same as the Christians do. --Kels (talk) 01:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Mormonism is protestantism with a pope, nothing more. nobs^{don't bother me} 01:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

But Mormons don't believe that the divinity of Jesus is the same as the divinity of God The Father. Doesn't that mean they're also not worshipping the same god, or gods? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

So, if you take protestantism and add a pope, you get "Jesus visited America after his resurrection"? Phiwum (talk) 02:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Is it time to bring up Ed Poor's belief that his cult leader's children are waited on hand and foot by Jesus in heaven? -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 02:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Sssh. It's forbidden to bring up lunatic cultists' loony beliefs at CP. They all believe in Jebus, that's all that matters. Once the last atheist lies dead at their feet, then the internecine wars can begin. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

This discussion was moved to Forum:Judeo-Christian-Islamic-Mormon four match.

Allah is an English word

If someone can come up with something funnier than just using the quote, a) go ahead and change it, b) get yourself a TV series, because I really don't think there's any way of presenting Andy's utter, utter stupidity than by simply repeating exactly what he said here. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 19:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. KISS. Ajkgordon (talk) 19:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Linguistics discussion

This discussion was moved to Forum:Is Allah an English word?.07:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Flood and Flooding

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=867260&oldid=867259^img In order for it to not be a evil liberal plot to wipe out Christianity, we must say "Flood" not "Flooding" or other similar words.--Mikalos209 (talk) 19:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

"Floodwaters" is right out. - Jpop (talk) 19:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Pehaps Teh Assfly haz hopes of becoming the right's Noam Chomsky? 19:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

Interestingly enough, the extremely liberal Young's Literal Translation also avoids the word "flood". Occasionaluse (talk) 20:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I really want to point out that the bible isn't written in english. --Opcn (talk) 03:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Cracker, I think it's just the stroke/aneurysm... --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 07:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

What? They've named a cognac after debilitating brain events? 17:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

Noo Toon

Apart from the abysmal heading, Karajou's irony^img in this cartoon isn't bad. --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 12:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Took me a few seconds to realise it was a new comic, it looks like an older one. Who has special hours for mother's day, it is not a proper holiday. - π 12:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm more surprised they're open on Sundays to begin with. And yeah, looks just like the anvilicious "Why won't you let me live?" (or whatever) one. --Sid (talk) 12:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Any chance of a capture? Grumblejaws (talk) 12:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Well seriously. You can't have an abortion without having a mom. Nutty Roux (talk) 13:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

(EC) Inserted above over there, courtesy of Lily and the parody forum. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 13:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Why does every mom in Karajou's toons like a Southern lady in her fifties? --UHM^{"rambling incoherently" for 20+ years!} 14:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I have to admit, this is probably the closest thing Karajou's had to a funny cartoon. DickTurpis (talk) 14:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

It's better than his usual crap, certainly. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 14:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Wow, this could actually pass as a piece of non-partisan dark humour, I can't help thinking of Chris Morris' Jam when I see it. Congrats Kaka, I actually don't really want to touch this one. Grumblejaws (talk) 15:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I remember when political cartoons had a meaning. Karajou can't seem to combine humor with a significant message. Not to say this is particularly funny, but the point is—correct me if I'm wrong here—it's utterly meaningless. That being said, I prefer a punchline and no meaning to no punchline and a tired rant against [insert anything atheistic/liberal/communist here]. - Jpop (talk) 15:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem with Karajou (okay, one problem of countless) is he doesn't study his craft. I expect he's one of those newbie artists who thinks cartooning is "easy", and doesn't really take a lot of effort. So he doesn't really make a lot of effort and it shows. If he wanted his cartoons to be worth a damn, he'd spend a lot more time learning to draw, a lot more time studying good political cartoonists, and a lot more time on things like caricature. --Kels (talk) 16:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

No need to hold Karajou to the standards of professional cartoonists; this is Conservapedia he's writing for, after all. Look at their articles. His drawing, at its best, has been the one thing about them that hasn't sucked, though it is hardly professional (and at its worst it has been pretty bad). DickTurpis (talk) 16:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not, these are merely the standards of a decent cartoonist. People think cartooning is easy because the results are simplified, so they'll gravitate to that because it looks easier than realistic drawing. Even getting competent takes effort. --Kels (talk) 17:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Perfection

Andy^img:

PERFECTION: Best New Conservative Words attains a perfect doubling by century of 25-50-100-200. Liberals, give it up, because language dictates culture, and culture dictates politics.

Actual count: 25-49-101-200. Will liberals ask for a recount^img?

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 13:00, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Does he not realise that "perfect" is actually quite suspicious? 13:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Does he not realize that most of his words lack definition as to WHY they are conservative, and thus could be liberal? --Thunderstruck (talk) 13:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

They are conservative because St. Schlafly has said they're conservative. Open your mind! Deny this and lose all credibility. --PsyGremlinPraat! 13:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe now he can move on to Conservative Phrases, or even Conservative Sentences. I'd love to see the latter. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 13:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Just because there's been an (allegedly) doubling of Conservative phrases words per century; 200 hardly amounts to a flood and who's to say that Liberal words haven't been tripling per century over the same period? I mean, really, he posts crap like that when he should be visiting his poor elderly mom in her dotage.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 14:00, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Nah, Mama schlafly spent so much time on the road telling women they should stay at home, she barley qualifys. He should at least send a mothers day card to his moms house keeper though.--Thunderstruck (talk) 15:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd love to know how he can simultaneously believe that conservative words are dramatically increasing in number and thus conservatism is taking over culture and the secularisation of words is marching at such a pace that "flooding" is atheistic. I mean... which is it? Conservatism is dominating or atheism is persecuting you? X Stickman (talk) 15:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Someone should add diluvial (of, relating to, or brought about by a flood, 1656) to the list. Creationist geology sometimes goes by the term 'diluvial geology'. Let's see what happens when his early claim^img upsets his "perfection". --Night Jaguar (talk) 15:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Or, as it has been suggested here before, add a lot of words from the 1600s. His "geometric rate" will start to kick him in the ass. --Night Jaguar (talk) 15:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Andy won't fall for that sort of trick; he's already rejected quite a few 'early' words suggested by others, no doubt because he knows that it would mess up the progression. Thus the threshold for what is a conservative word starts out high and falls as you approach the present. Probably the only way to do this effectively is to propose some terms with (initially) late dates, get them accepted, and then come back later to find an "earlier reference." Nota bene: the online OED is searchable by year, so you can find all the words first in print in 1600, 1601, etc. I spent a dull afternoon looking up economic and political terms from the 1600s - kind of interesting, actually.--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 23:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Andy's list of conservative words because he says they are conservative is now perfect. Liberalism is being triumphed by conservatism. Words like "life vest" and "outflank" signify changing culture, hence changing politics. How can you deny this logic? Senator Harrison (talk) 16:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Non-perfection, which actually makes a lot more sense, asshole: The list of liberal terms shows the following rate of increase: 1 in the 1500s; 4 in the 1600s; 3 in the 1700s; 13 in the 1800s; 38 in the 1900s; and 10 thus far this century.

I realize that half of those words are by no means liberal (sexism... and feminism?), but the same goes the other way. I wonder if Andy has noticed this. he has noticed, but he claims that the enduring value and geometric value are inherently less. Maybe that's because Andy's the one who's picking them! - Jpop (talk) 16:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Everyone knows dictionaries have a liberal bias. Isn't it only fair that conservatives fight back against the liberal creep? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

christian is secularized version of christ

atleast thats what http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=867439&oldid=867399^img says, and people are assuming andy is saying http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=next&oldid=867465^img--Mikalos209 (talk) 14:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

My reaction to Andy's post can best be summed up with this image. Seriously, just... what? This goes well beyond making no sense. It's... anti-sense. Its mere presence causes things around it to make less sense. --Sid (talk) 15:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I can see where this stems form: Andy does consider himself Christ at some level, spreading Gods wondrous ideals like homeschooling and women living in their kitchens. Yet dem libruls dare call him a mere Christian. It's even worse than when Conservatives were referred to as "right-wing people." It simply oozes liberal creep, deceit, and... that other one. - Jpop (talk) 15:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec)"I welcome other attempts to explain it. Atheistic newspapers do not prefer "storming" to "storm", but they do prefer "flooding" or "flood-waters" to "flood". Does Andy even speak English? --PsyGremlin講話 16:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Given the verb tense errors he's known to make? I wonder. 江斯顿^{What is it now?} 16:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe he hit the sacramental wine too hard in church. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

"["Christian" is] a diluted term preferred more by atheists." - Andy Schlafly^img. That's fucking platinum. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

He may be sort of correct on part of that (look in the "Real Life" folder). Of course, given that Christians themselves adopted the term, not to mention the fact that Andy probably uses it all the time (though I bet he uses "conservative" more), and that it makes no sense to call someone "a Christ", he's still a moron. «-Bfa-» 18:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

This is clearly a brand new insight (it is Sunday, after all) from Andy. You can expect him to avoid the term "Christian" and use some clumsy phrasing using the word "Christ" for about a week maybe. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm greatly enjoying this particular insight. Not sure why, there's just something magical about this one. X Stickman (talk) 18:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

This may very well be the stupidest thing anybody has ever written. --UHM^{"rambling incoherently" for 20+ years!} 19:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Examples of Andy using 'Christian' just this year:

1. "Christians Across The Globe Observe Good Friday" ^img

2. "Give it up, atheists: the U.S. Supreme Court tosses out a lawsuit against tax credits that enable students to go to Christian schools"^img

3. "But atheists downplay Washington just as they downplay other accomplished Christians. It's irrelevant whether the holiday was ever "religiously themed." A day honoring a prominent Christian has been diluted and even misnamed."^img

So even if atheist acknowledge Washington is a Christian, apparently they'd still be using secularized language by using 'Christian'. Anyway, seeing often Andy uses 'Christian' maybe he's a secret atheist. How often does he dance? --Night Jaguar (talk) 19:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm taking a gander at these quotes as Andy would seem to prefer them:

"Christs Across The Globe Observe Good Friday"

"Give it up, atheists: the U.S. Supreme Court tosses out a lawsuit against tax credits that enable students to go to Christ schools" (that one almost kinda works)

"But atheists downplay Washington just as they downplay other accomplished Christs. It's irrelevant whether the holiday was ever "religiously themed." A day honoring a prominent Christ has been diluted and even misnamed."

Maybe we need a bot that removes "ian" from ever reference to "Christian" Andy makes? DickTurpis (talk) 19:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

As it turns out, there has also been no shortage of second comings. If it hadn't been for this cursed secularized language, maybe we'd have noticed and could've been raptured to paradise by now. Röstigraben (talk) 20:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Homeboy is drunk. Junggai (talk) 20:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

OMFG, the Conservative Bible is atheistic!!1!1 It uses the term 'Christian': Acts 11:26^img. "The students of Jesus were first called Christians in Antioch." It has a note there: "Origin of the term Christian". Also, Acts 26:28^img and 1 Peter 4:16^img. (Sometimes this feels like it's just too easy.) --Night Jaguar (talk) 22:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Junggai, this is just completely incoherent. Drunk right before mothers day? I wonder what a morning brunch with Phylis is like when you are hung over. --Marlow (talk) 00:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

If Phyllis was my mom, I don't think I'd ever sober up. --Kels (talk) 14:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

This, as well as the flood thing, look like a clear extension of his brain breaking over the Osama news. He's really breaking down quickly now. -Lardashe

Go to CP main page | Ctrl F | christian

Andy Schlafly, shut up

[6] He won't admit he's wrong, but with his love of using polls to justify himself, this should at least shut him up.---brxbrx 02:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Dirty liberal liars who hate america, or if that doesnt work, the percentage is to much to be accurate. --Mikalos209 (talk) 03:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

... don't something like 80% of American believe Obama was born in the U.S.? Has that stopped Andy?--Danielfolsom (talk) 03:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Reuters? Are you kidding?! That's part of the liberal media. Try a respectable source like Frank Luntz. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

""4 Just in case you were worried""go read that topic line above about polls--Mikalos209 (talk) 12:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Well Andy will never admit error, this has already been established. He will grimly hold on to a position no matter how untenable or indefensible it may become rather than ever than publicly acknowledge he was ever incorrect. You can count on this like you can count on the sun rises each day. That being said, I agree with the minority as in I feel the pictures should be released. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Atheists bus ads / Mojave Desert cross

May 2010 on MPR: "'Mojave Cross' honoring World War I dead has been stolen. Atheists are so tolerant, aren't they?"[2]^img and this is evidence that "atheism poses the biggest threat of all to a free society."[3]^img

May 2011 on MPR: "Canadian atheist bus ads "seem to have disappeared into thin air." [19] He who sits in the heavens laughs!"[4]^img --Leotardo (talk) 17:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Haha, awesome catch - but remember the 7th Commandment; "Thou shalt not steal, unless it's from someone you disagree with. Thus sayeth the Lord" Carlaugust (talk) 17:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Remember, they very well might think their god actually made the ads disappear. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

...and that didn't happen in Spain or in the UK because god allready gave up on us Europeans? --UHM^{rambling incoherently for 20+ years!} 18:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I like the idea of god's pettiness causing him to sneak around at night to remove (relatively unpersuasive) atheist bus ads. --Leotardo (talk) 18:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I like that idea a lot more than OT!God nuking the shit out of those buses, sending plagues or just flooding (...does that count as the secularized form of "flood"?) the whole country/continent/planet. I prefer a trolling God to one who just goes "Fuck it, rocks fall, everybody dies," on a regular basis. --Sid (talk) 19:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

These people are the reason the First Amendment was written. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Obamanomics vs. Reaganomics

MPR continues promoting alternate universe Raygun. What's the difference between Obamanomics and Reaganomics?

• "higher taxes" - Obama cut taxes. Reagan cut them, then raised them later on. Point Obama.
• "more regulation" - Right, and Reagan never increased regulation anywhere, and Obama never deregulated anything, ever. I'll give them this one, though, for a sporting chance. Point Reagan.
• "more spending" - Reagan never ran up record peacetime deficits and debt! Reagan never bailed out SS and the S&L thrifts! Elvis didn't do no drugs! I call this a draw.
• "loose money" - Paul Volcker never slashed interest rates from their record highs in 1982. Elvis still didn't do no drugs! I call this a draw as well.

Oh my goat, can this be happening? (Puts on glasses.) It all adds up, the math is perfect, I see it so clearly now. Obama is Reagan! But what does it mean?? WHAT DOES IT MEAN???!!! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Tax credits that expire are effectively tax hikes and what do you call the income surtax that was added on by ObamaCare? Also, Paul Volcker was appointed by Jimmy Carter and now works for Obama. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 18:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The key difference is that my browser's spell-checker recognizes "Reaganomics". ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 18:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

"Tax credits that expire are effectively tax hikes." That's the kind of doublethink that turns the merely stupid in to the offensively moronic. Do the world a favour; never vote. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:43, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I was kinda hoping it was a joke. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 18:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that's quite some bullshitting there, CPEditor. Overall, the US tax burden is the lowest since the Truman administration. Still,point Obama. And what difference does it make that Carter appointed Volcker or that he worked (he was replaced earlier this year) for Obama? Bush appointed Bernanke, does that mean current monetary policy should be credited to Bush?? Also, Fed chairmen are reappointed every four years, and Reagan did in fact re-appoint Volcker. I forgot to mention Greenspan as well -- looser than a French hooker. Never mind that, alternate universe Reagan must live! REAGAN SMASH! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Are French hookers looser than hookers from elsewhere? Don't non-French hookers put out? Ajkgordon (talk) 19:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's not forget Bush Snr. He was correct when he said "No new taxes". There were no new taxes, just the same old taxes but at higher rates. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 19:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

If you honestly think that Volcker's monetary policy is looser than Bernanke's, I want to have whatever you're smoking. In fact, stating that Volcker was appointed by Carter and endorsed and worked for Obama is a net plus for the President. Yes, Bernanke is Bush's guy, but the fact that Obama and the left have instead embraced him will be the reason why Obama will be a one-term president. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 04:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Really clutching at straws here now. The CP article says "loose," not "looser than Volcker" (the vagueness of this, of course, is characteristic of the bullshit wingnut-o-nomics that CP promotes). Both Volcker and Greenspan made historic cuts in Fed funds rates (and way to completely dodge Greenspan's record, BTW), sure, not the near 0% of Bernanke, but it's still comparatively "loose." Also, the Fed funds rate is not the be-all, end-all of Fed operations. Try reading up on, say, the 1982 Mexican debt crisis or the 1987 stock market bailout, which would be the first in the line of bailouts ultimately resulting in the coinage of the "Greenspan put." And the left embracing Bernanke will be the reason why Obama is a one-term president? Seriously? Now I want to have what you're smoking. No doubt, if I were dictator of the US, one of my first actions would be to shitcan Bernanke and bring back Volcker, but laying the entire election at ol' Ben's feet is a bit much, considering most people don't know what the hell the Fed does or what a Ben Bernanke is (ugh, now you've made me feel dirty defending The Bernank).

The point here, though, is that the "essential" elements of "Obamanomics" listed are just idiotic talking points and Obama is not radically different from Reagan in the points CP lists. So I'm not sure if you're trying to defend the mythical narrative of Reagan as a fiscal conservative here or just being contrarian for the hell of it. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 07:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you better off now than you were 2.3 years ago? (Obama's stagflation)

Unemployment rate on 1/20/2009: 7.8%

Unemployment rate today: 9%

Gas price on 1/20/2009: $1.84/gallon

Gas price today: $3.99/gallon

ConservapediaEditor (talk) 05:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I thought we were doing pretty well 10.5 years ago. --Opcn (talk) 06:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I am, but I don't live in the US so... BTW this is the CP page. - π 06:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

And I think the world was pretty well off in the old days of Plato and Aristotles - but I don't suppose you'd like it if every older guy to fucks young boys again. --UHM^{rambling incoherently for 20+ years!} 17:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

DMorris, What the Fuck.

Please tell us, is your inspiration Ken

or the late parodist king himself, Terry Koeckritz? I am dying to know.img Rationalize (talk) 16:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, that user was so obviously a poorly constructed attempt at Poe. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't he block himself right with the other guy? Or is that not being a member? --UHM^{rambling incoherently for 20+ years!} 17:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. I don't know. He's like a giant mix of TK, Karajerk and Kendoll in one. Rationalize (talk) 17:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

You really want to know? It just comes naturally. I like CP because it's like Wikipedia, and it's just as far right wing as I am. I'm not joking, I'm not parodying, I'm not trolling. While TK and I didn't always particularly get along, he was a good man and I find we have a lot in common as far as dealing with vandals. However, I feel I am better at assuming good faith than he was. Other than Mr. Schlafly himself, my favorite administrator has always been JPatt, though Karajou and Rob are quickly joining him as my favorites. The reason I blocked that guy for being a member here wasn't as much simply because he was registered, but rather because he was bragging on here about being a parodist. Membership here in itself isn't enough to warrant blocking, but conspiring to commit vandalism is. DMorris2 (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

One big slip up. Nobody ever calls or sees themselves far-right. They are moderates. The world is just full of extreme radical leftists. - π 00:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

You lie, parody and troll well. You'll go far at CP. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to look into all the blocks made by your favorite admins under the guise of "member of a website supporting vandalism". Being right-wing is fine, but Conservapedia is so far beyond the spectrum that you'll either be absorbed into it with the realization that whatever you do in the name of CP comes with impunity, or you'll find a better, actual encyclopedia that supports your views without all the batshit insanity, lies, hypocrisy, denial, and censorship that Conservapedia is so commonly known for. You'll either become one of them as a lost cause, or you can explore the myriad of pages created on this website and educate yourself before committing any serious amounts of time. In the words of your favorite person, "Open your mind", "The truth shall set you free". Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 18:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I know DMorris isn't a parodist because I have encountered him on WP (where his authoritarian side was a bit more moderated, plus they would never give him the hammer). But seriously DMorris how can you say that you like Andy? Being right wing is fine, its an ideology, but Andy is completely off the deep end. This is a man who in the last week has argued that "christian" is secular language and that he thinks Osama may not have been killed because a translation of an Al Qaeda release used the word God instead of Allah. Andy is a deliberately ignorant person who is completely blinded by confirmation bias and I say this without any comment on his views. Oppose abortion, healthcare reform, deficit spending, welfare, but don't listen to Andy he is a disgrace to conservationism. --Marlow (talk) 19:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Arg I can't stand what a terrible conservationist Andy is!!! Nutty Roux (talk) 10:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Is someone ddosing cp again?

I can't open any pages either in firefox nor in IE and capturebot seems to be consistently failing. Oldusgitus (talk) 05:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Working for me at the moment. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 08:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm in at work but wasn't at home this morning. Perhaps it's just my home isp. Oldusgitus (talk) 09:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

HELP!

my sock puppet on Conservapedia, "Conzervative1" has been blocked after the following conversation^img (Read: Interregation) Lairju1 (talk) 21:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that you contact RobSmith, he's the "go-to-guy" for CP related issues. None of the rest of us could give a toss about your sockpuppet activities at CP and would rather that you didn't come whingeing about it here.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 21:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Your userpage is way too blatant. Just for future reference. - Jpop (talk) 22:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

you realize that they go on this site, right? Besides, you were dead obvious. You gotta be subtle. Low-key.---brxbrx 02:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

My non-blocked socks all have blank or nonexistent user pages. My blocked ones all have/had more blatant pages. YMMV. – Nick Heer 05:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

While I don't approve of people coming here and blatantly outing their socks or begging us to help, I have another question. What is that thing DMorris drew in ASCII art? Am I the only one having trouble discerning what in the heck it's supposed to be? άλφα^Talk 06:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I heard it was supposed to be an eye. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 06:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I had trouble telling what it was too. Looked to me like a cross between a mushroom cloud and a Rorschach inkblot. --Night Jaguar (talk) 06:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

It's an eye. DMorris2 (talk) 13:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Was SarahWollstone also your sock? DMorris2 (talk) 13:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

If you are SarahWollstone, the food service contractor at LU is CP:Sodexo. I don't even go there and I know that. DMorris2 (talk) 13:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Obvious sock is obvious. I don't know why people bother with being that blatant, it isn't even decent Poe. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 14:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I made that mistake with my first sock and TK banned me for moronic vandalism after one edit that wasn't vandalism and wasn't reverted. In fact it's still there, the last edit on the Spore (video game) talk page. Senator Harrison (talk) 01:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

i really hope you guys don't think i would be stupid enough too reveal my real sock! I just got my father in laws account blocked! that'll be a nice surprise for him when he gets back on conservapedia. meanwhile, the actual sock goes unnoticed. ;) Just call me an evil liberal! :) Lairju1 (talk) 22:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Get yourself a conservative wife...

...and you'll never look back![5]^img says Andy. And this is obviously born out by CP's most-likely Republican Presidential nominees^img, which includes in the top three the thrice married Newt Gingrich and 3x married Donald Trump. Oh, and openly-gay Fred Karger was just added to their illustrious list^img. Wonder if that will last. --Leotardo (talk) 14:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Who else could gloat^img over the break-up of someones marriage and try to make political capital out of it without knowing the real story? DMorris, you must be SO proud to be associated with andy. Oldusgitus (talk) 14:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Wow, they're actually giving pretty fair coverage to Fred Karger. (Who, admittedly, has zero chance of winning.) MDB (talk) 14:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't expect Mr. Karger will be getting himself a conservative wife anytime soon. He's too focused on Aaron Schock, America's hottest Republican closet case. --Leotardo (talk) 15:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I certainly can't blame him for that. MDB (talk) 15:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Why not be a Mormon and get yourself several conservative wives? Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 16:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Did anyone notice he used the word "clan" to refer to the Kennedy family?! Nice you ass. Rationalize (talk) 16:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

If you wanna be happy for the rest of your life, never make a liberal woman your wife. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

"… and get the will to kill yourself" - no bullshit that was the first thought I had when I read this. --UHM^{rambling incoherently for 20+ years!} 17:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Hell, Mrs. Schlafly is probably just waiting for him to declare divorce a conservative word. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Didn't someone once say something about how remarriage after divorce is adultery? Someone help me out here, please. ... of liberals? (talk) 21:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

What's a conservative wife? JJ4e^talk 02:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

He dusted that essay off from a long time ago. It remains the vile vomitus that it was back then. ATP (talk) 04:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘And just to keep classy as always andy moves this exciting news gossip from mpr to mpl^img instead. Oldusgitus (talk) 06:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Second best point about Marrying a conservative? - "fidelity in marriage and accountability" Yeah right. Tell that to the ex Mrs Newts and Arnies. --PsyGremlinPrata! 13:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

So Arnie's womanizing and serial groping is the fault of that liberal hussy he was married to?

Some conservative Arnie was.

“”But the couple’s marital woes may have really started back in 2003, when Schwarzenegger decided to run for governor. Maria gave up her career as a high-profile TV journalist in deference to her hubby’s political ambitions then had to stand by him amid humiliating allegations of extramarital affairs and serial groping.

Andy, as usual, is full of shit. 08:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

But if she was a true conservative she'd put it down to "communication problems" and grin and bear it. Having a conservative wife means never having to listen to "no." --PsyGremlinSnakk! 10:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, bitch should get back in the kitchen and STFU... ADK^{...I'll break your heretic!} 10:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Just what I was thinking ADK. If that liberal bitch had been a good god-fearing conservative woman and spent her time in the kitchen and bedroom (rather likes those good god-fearing conservative women Bachman, Palin and Aschlafly do) then she would still be married to that paragon of conservative values - the serial adulterer and sex-pest Arnie. Oldusgitus (talk) 11:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Still avoiding the word flood

those dirty liberal athiests, how DARE they avoid using the word flood. http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&curid=104397&diff=867963&oldid=867920^img--Mikalos209 (talk) 04:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh and i looked through, they use the word flood in several parts. but the lack of it in the intro or title is whats important!--Mikalos209 (talk) 04:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

But, but I though God promised he wouldn't flood the Earth? ConservapediaEditor (talk) 05:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

God says a lot of things. ^{ONE / TALK} 10:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

God never says anything. --Opcn (talk) 11:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Really we only have Noah's word for it and he was such a piss-head that I don't think he is a reliable source.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 11:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I hear he got so drunk that he passed out naked in his living room. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 12:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Exactly.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 12:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

This new Andysight ^TM ranks right up there with belief in black holes preventing people from reading the Bible. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 12:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

All this flooding is a sign. JEEEEEEEEEEEESUUUUUUUS is coming back to put his boot up all your liberal athiest ass's.--Thunderstruck (talk) 12:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

What makes the least sense about this nonsense is that "flood" is Old English based on a Germanic word, so it didn't originate in Christendom. Flood myths from other cultures far pre-date Noah's flood, and that is often one of the points made that Christianity and the Bible are just an amalgamation of previously existing religious stories and myths. So, none of this makes much sense. I don't know anybody who hears the word "flood" and thinks of the Bible, making it an icky word liberals in the lamestream media wouldn't want to use. --Leotardo (talk) 15:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The flood myths that predate Noah are only dated so by secular evolutionists. They all refer to the same flood. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

You would think Christians (or is it "Christs" now?) would welcome anything to take their mind of the Flood. If I was God's PR manager, I would be grateful for whatever keeps people from thinking "Hey, remember when God killed nearly every single person on the face of the earth, and drowned all but two puppies?" Carlaugust (talk) 18:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but without his killing nearly every person on the planet, we wouldn't have rainbows, so that's good PR. --Leotardo (talk) 18:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Good point, we'll call it a wash. So, before the flood, did water have an index of refraction of 1? It would be interesting to know why God decided on 1.333 after the flood. Did 1.4 produce too big of a rainbow? 1.2, maybe, was too bright? The things the Bible left out... Carlaugust (talk) 18:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Nice!  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 20:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Reading this had me constantly thinking of Andy. Way to ruin another thing for me, conservapedia. X Stickman (talk) 19:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Shameful Israeli propaganda on MPR

I am a strong supporter of Israel and I have a deep personal connection to the country, have visited it several times and have met more than a few of its leaders. But this is just a piece of shit propaganda article that Terry "Cocaine Eyes" Hurlbutt put up^img. For those of us who know Israel--and love it--this is not what it's like to be an Israeli. I bet Coke Eyes has never been to Israel, because the nihilistic hellscape it describes is far from the reality of a vibrant, happy, productive people who soldier on with life despite the troubles. --Leotardo (talk) 18:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Wait, so being in Israel isn't the same as being in the future in a Terminator movie? *Gasp* My favorite line - "To be an Israeli, you must face the fear that, any day, someone you know, or someone who knew someone you know, will die." Couldn't you replace "Israeli" with, I don't know, "baker"? Carlaugust (talk) 18:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

(EC) Er, I rather think that he has been to Israel. Conservaleaks showed that he was planning to go and he asked about taking pictures for CP, while his cessblog has several pages devoted to his trip.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 19:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

And can there be anything more boring than a YouTube clip looking out of an aeroplane window at some cloud which a single still image could not convey in equal measure?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 19:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

So if he's been to Israel, he either was blinded by his "Walk in Christ's footsteps" tour that he didn't really mingle with the people or observe that the people aren't like this, or he purposefully is spreading propaganda. Whatever the case, that story was ridiculous. --Leotardo (talk) 19:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

And the other issue is that the article Hurlass posted was from 2002. --Leotardo (talk) 19:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

So by comparison, what's it like to be a Palestinian? --Kels (talk) 19:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Not great - the Arab states who profess to care so much about them do very little to help them develop. --Leotardo (talk) 20:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Chuckarse's post doesn't surprise me one bit. The Christian Zionism popular among the wingnut crowd has a strong, latent anti-Semitism about it (God Doesn't Care is a good summary of this). Thus we get people like Glenn Beck, ultra-pro-Israel but happily exploiting anti-Semitic dog-whistles as in his George Soros conspiracies. The cognitive dissonance must be incredible. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

You absolutely know that Chucky was full of preconceptions before he even left home and hasn't changed them one bit. All his Creationist drivel shows that he only sees what he wants to see and no amount of scientific evidence is going to alter his thinking one iota.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 20:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

New Jersey Radio

Has anyone thought of sending an email to these DJs that Andy approves of with a sampling of Andy's greatest hits and seeing if they point out he's a lunatic as quickly as WND? -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 03:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

They're losers. I listen to 101.5 and they're utterly retarded. They say things as fact that can be proven false in 2 minutes of googling. They also admit that they don't read email that listeners send. Senator Harrison (talk) 03:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

(EC) I've listened to the conservative DJs Jim Gearhart and Dennis Malloy on NJ 101.5, and I'm pretty sure even they would distance themselves from many of Andy's beliefs. So emailing them might be fun, if they actually do read their emails. --Tabrcg23 (talk) 03:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Trust me, they don't. I've emailed them several times already about Andy, including the CBP, and got no response and no mention on the air. Senator Harrison (talk) 03:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Homosexual logic

We have a new entry in the "Logic/Values" series, which is Homosexual logic^img, and it's hard to figure out if it's Poe or not, since this it describes the conservative playbook that was shown in court for the California marriage case:

1. Slippery slope arguments in which they argue that repression of homosexuality will lead to a series of bad results that actually will not follow or that have nothing to do with homosexuality.
2. Cherry-picking only those parts of the Bible that suit their purposes, while arguing that any parts of Scripture that are inconvenient to them need to be "interpreted" correctly or were "nailed to the Cross," or that just by mentioning them, you are "twisting" them in some unspecified way
3. Appealing to majority will, but only when it suits them; switching back and forth between "This is what the people want" and "America is a republic, not a democracy."

The whole list is pretty grand. I like the last one because no matter how vast the majority of American that polls repeatedly showed supported ending DADT, CP continued to claim falsehoods that no other country has experienced. --Leotardo (talk) 16:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

"forcing government oppression" - yeah like not making other people feel un-favored by making time for a certain religious ritual in public schools anymore?

Who the hell uses the Bible to defend homosexuality? I have never seen that anywhere before.--UHM^{rambling incoherently for 20+ years!} 17:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

xtra indents intentional: Take a look at these folks. 23:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

There's some argument that David and Jonathon were lovers -- they're referred very clearly as loving each other, but whether or not it was a physical love is unknown. Similar arguments are made about Ruth and Naomi (I think). There's also passages where eunuchs are praised, or not condemned, and some argue that "eunuch" in some cases referred to homosexuals. MDB (talk) 17:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

More liberal Christian groups believe that the commandment to love everyone requires Christians not to make pariahs out of gays. They also have this unthinkable, heretical idea that the Bible says all Christians' sins are forgiven. This is probably what the Conservapedians mean by "using the Bible to defend homosexuality." ListenerX^TalkerX 17:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

That article is unusually subtle. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 17:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

It was written by User:DavidE^img, who recently celebrated his fourth anniversary at CP. He writes on his user page, "I believe in what the Bible says...I also believe in the entire Bible...[not just] in those parts of the Bible that [I like]" ORLY. --Leotardo (talk) 18:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh man, number 7 is my favorite:

"7.Demanding that their own interpretation (or misinterpretation) of the Bible be made binding on everyone, despite the establishment clause."

They got a lot of balls, bringing up the establishment clause.--Thunderstruck (talk) 20:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

That's not an uncommon theme on CP: pretending that the Constitution applies to private parties (but not homos or liberals!!1!). It takes chutzpah but there's no shortage of that when you're angry and ignorant while pushing an incoherent agenda whose only unifying principle is hate. Nutty Roux (talk) 21:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

"it's hard to figure out if it's Poe or not" Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is the very definition of Poe... --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 21:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I like User188's comment on David's talk page^img

Wikipedia as a Liberal website. Is it really an encyclopedia, or just a discussion board posing as one? --Ed Poor Talk 12:30, 10 May 2010 (EDT)

"schwarz Wasserkocher" anyone? CS Miller (talk) 22:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

You need to decline the adjective, the noun you are looking for is not wasserkocher, and anyway the whole expression doesn't really exist in that language. Mountain Blue (talk) 05:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't even get what was trying to be said, it seemed like such a non sequitur to me. I looked it up, the German expression for "calling the kettle black": "Ein Esel schimpft den anderen Langohr." (A donkey teasing another about long ears.) --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 11:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

While Eira is right that this is the expression that comes the closest to "calling the kettle black" - but to be pedantic about it: "to tease" is the wrong translation for "jemanden schimpfen". "to tease" would be "necken" in German. "jemanden schimpfen" would be the best translated with "to upbraid someone". "necken" is funny and between friends, "jemanden schimpfen" is authorative and humiliating. So yeah, in the end it makes sense that Germans chose this version. Btw, a simple "calling" would fully sufficed. --UHM^{rambling incoherently for 20+ years!} 17:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I went through about 3 different words trying to give it a good English translation. "Upbraid" is not a common word in America, and the meaning is entirely lost on me. In fact, I found the word first by looking up translations for "schimpfen". I settled on: "there is no good word in English", and went with "tease" even though it didn't carry the same tone. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 22:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I thought you worked hard on that one but, LEO is a friend of mine. --ǓḤṂ^³ 22:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm kind of confused because this seems like a non sequitur... I already noted that my dictionary of choice shows "upbraid" as a translation for "schimpfen" as well. However, again: since the word "upbraid" is horribly uncommon the only reason I understood what it meant was because I know what "schimpfen" means (and I speak English natively!). That's why I avoided it. Seriously, if someone would have to look up the word you just translated into, then why would you bother translating it at all? --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 23:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not criticizing, I was just being the male version of a pedantic bitch. Guess, the pedantic bitch doesn't take pedantic all that well. I'm gonna crawl into a hole now... --ǓḤṂ^³ 23:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

*shouting out of said hole* That's an awesome dictionary by the way! --ǓḤṂ^³ 23:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

It's all right, you do have a point, "tease" is kind of a bad translation, and doesn't capture the proper "mood", and I noted that... problem is in English it's kind of hard to match the mood. I mean "A donkey criticizing another's long ears" conveys the critical aspect, but schimpfen to me carries... well, as you said, more of an authoritative position, like a parent criticizing a child... but the English word "criticize" lacks any social level disparity, and more so kind of expresses an equal footing between them. I suppose "chastise" would be the best word I can come up with given lots of time to work on a synonym that isn't archaic/rare... --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 23:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

My favorite translation of "schimpfen" is "to scold." It's still a relatively little-used word in America (perhaps because parental discipline has gone out of style?), but to me it seems to capture all of the connotations, plus it's a word that most English-speakers recognize, even if they don't use it. Junggai (talk) 07:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

There are, of course, numerous slang expressions for "schimpfen," all of which are certainly regional. I know in Texas people say "give someone a talking to" or "dress down." Junggai (talk) 07:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

"Scold" works good. My dictionary seems to indicate that it is "mit jdm. schimpfen" rather than "jdn. schimpfen". Of course, that's probably only really a small variation, so... but the term "scold" does work best. And I um... find it weird to suggest that it is a little-used word in America... the way you phrased it, it sounds like you're some sort of right-wing wingnut complaining about how parents don't discipline students... --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 07:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

"Schimpfen" has multiple meanings, one of them is indeed "to scold someone" (although we use ausschimpfen in that case, to make it more precise). The other is more along the lines of "curse", but not directed at someone - like when you accidentally hit your own thumb with a hammer. "Jemanden etwas schimpfen", like in the donkey example, is also possible, but not frequently used anymore. We usually use "jemanden etwas nennen" for that. I've personally never heard that donkey expression either, it seems very archaic to me. The most common analogous one is probably "wer im Glashaus sitzt, sollte nicht mit Steinen werfen" - "don't throw rocks when you're sitting in a glass house" - that means you shouldn't accuse others of things you're guilty of yourself. Röstigraben (talk) 07:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

In English, we say "He who lives in a glass house, shouldn't throw stones." or "Those who live in glass houses, shouldn't throw stones." It doesn't really carry the same context of accusing people of something that you yourself are guilty of to me... it carries a meaning more like, someone shouldn't be accusing people of anything when they're obviously guilty of issues themselves, but it need not be that the accusations match up with what the person is guilty off. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 08:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Thinking about it, the German expression doesn't necessarily carry that meaning either. Does the "pot and kettle" one always imply that the accuser is guilty of the exact same thing, or just not exactly a paragon of virtue in general? Röstigraben (talk) 08:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

"Pot calling the kettle black" does imply that the accuser is guilty of exactly the same thing. @Eira: That was intended as dry humor. Such things don't come across well on the 'net. Junggai (talk) 08:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Terry Chuckarse cheers on the next financial collapse

Not raising the debt ceiling and defaulting on debt is good for you!^img While the teabaggers wank off at the prospect of this, anyone who's followed politics for more than two seconds knows raising it is a done deal. Even Bruce Bartlett calls this a "monumental insanity." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but you're forgetting - "A loaf of bread for a day’s pay, and three loaves of barley bread for a day’s pay, and please don’t ruin the oil or the wine". Think about that, liberal, and you'll realize that default is the only option. Carlaugust (talk) 21:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

OMFG. Debt ceiling stakes: Weimar redux? Is he waiting for Hitler or the Rapture and did I just Godwin myself? Nutty Roux (talk) 21:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Not raising the ceiling is one of the best things conservatives could do for liberals. After the dust settles, that'd put liberals in the 'good with money' reputation for the next hundred years. -Lardashe

It would be Boehner's tantrum. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I gotta say, kudos to Terry for invoking the pre-Nazi republic, and then not explaining what he means. Is he trying to say that if the debt ceiling is raised...then...Obama is Hitler? Or did he figure his article would have some more oompf if he had some terrible reference? Or is my understanding of history just bad? I have some ideas for articles he could try - "Eliminating the Corporate Income Tax: Jeffrey Dahmer ate a bunch of people again" Carlaugust (talk) 23:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Defaulting on the US debt would be horrible (for about three years) after the dust (fallout?) settles we'd still be the big economy on the globe and people would be flocking to buy more debt. It'll be a new GOLDEN AGE for America and for each and every 95 millions of Americans who survive. 23:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

My mind is bottled by the stupid pro-default conservatives. Let's say we default - then we'll save, what $500 billion in interest per year? Okay, so our deficit will only be $700 billion per year, except we'll have to borrow at 15+% interest. So then, in 4 years or so, our interest payments will be back up to $500 billion per year, but now the dollar will be worthless and gas will cost €15 a gallon? Forgive my rant, I just hate when people refuse to think. </rant>Carlaugust (talk) 23:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

It's pretty simple: Deficit = bad, therefore debt ceiling = good. Lets you ignore all the real world complications of the situation, like blowing the shit out of international bond markets, having the dollar dropped like a hot potato as a reserve currency, etc. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Excellent contribution (the first time I agree with you on an economic topic :) ). Actually, the US credit markets would freeze probably (both public and private). Great way to make Obama a one term President if you're that much of a political cynic. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 03:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

You know, maybe a credit default is what the US needs to obliterate the Tea Party, and the Republicans more generally. The US defaults on its debt. The stock market crashes. A brand new financial crisis. "The Tea Party Crisis". So, hey, they don't want to raise the debt limit? Maybe just give them the financial armageddon they hope for, and see who reaps the consequences. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

What you forget is that conservatives are experts at blaming anything bad that happens on liberals. Even if a conservative does something bad, it is only because of liberal influence or some extent of liberal interference in what the conservative was trying to do. It's a bit like communists looking at the USSR and saying "but it wasn't TRUE communism! That's why it failed!". Teapartiers will just double-down on absolutely everything. I can fully understand your desire, though - I too occasionally think republicans should be given full control of the country just to see them run it into the ground. But when a conservative shoots themselves in the foot, the spin machine comes out and suddenly it's "my foot is supposed to be bleeding!" ^{ONE / TALK} 11:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Armageddon? You might be onto something there. It's almost as if the financial crisis wasn't devastating enough for them - an American default on its sovereign debt would dwarf any of these bank collapses, and doubtlessly cause quite a few more of them around the whole globe. This seems less than a casual disregard for the likely effects of their policies, and more like a conscious desire for a cathartic event that would wipe out a system that doesn't measure up to their ideal. It was always obvious that the teabaggers are no serious political movement with concrete aims, but openly embracing the prospect of the single biggest financial desaster in human history makes them look more like an apocalyptic cult. Röstigraben (talk) 11:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I wonder what the impact would be, of a US financial collapse. Big negative impact on China, but if China can grow its domestic markets, and find more growth in non-US foreign markets, China might pull through. From an Australian viewpoint, the US economy can go down the drain, so long as it doesn't pull the Chinese one down the drain with it. Bye bye China, bye bye Australia. If China survives though, it could accelerate the replacement of the US by China as the major world power. Which is actually rather scary, considering their totalitarian authoritarian capitalism and all. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

"...a conscious desire for a cathartic event that would wipe out a system that doesn't measure up to their ideal." Indeed, they all sound like Andrew Mellon:

“”Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate. It will purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up from less competent people.

Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

We were talking about this weird fetish for default today at my work (I work for a mid-sized financial services company in the midwest), and the conclusion we came to was that if the US defaulted today, there would be no reason to come in to work tomorrow - we would almost certainly be bankrupt. Chuckarse forgets that only about 30% of debt is held by fur'ners, the rest is held by Americans, and that's who would be hurt. </rant> Carlaugust (talk) 17:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Chuckarse goes goldbug

Check it out. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Starfish/parrot WIGO

I see Ken

has already deleted the revision of his and from the look of thisimg he is now on a mission to change every factual page about fossil evidence to insert creationist bollocks into them.  Way to go ken, you have a long job in front of you. Oldusgitus (talk) 10:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

But in typical Ken fashion - it's half-arsed. We'll stick creationist bullshit about the Earth being 6,000 years old, while leaving info on the Devonian period in. Still, should be fun to watch CP erase every vestige of an old universe.

Also I notice that dimwitted creationists have trouble spelling "evolution" - maybe Ken is obese and smokes! --PsyGremlinParlez! 10:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

A quick search shows that more than a hundred articles are still tainted with evobabble. That contains a few false positives, because their "Debate" space is actually part of mainspace, but still a lot of work for poor ol' Ken

. Interestingly, that term was apparently featured even on the Main Page. Röstigraben (talk) 11:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

That guy's made a larger and more negative mark on the wiki than anyone but Andy. I would have given the prize to TK for running off basically every single qualified editor the place ever had, but CP had a fair to middling chance of just plodding along with the good start it got in 2007 and the mediocre but at least workmanlike efforts of some of the remaining editors. But I am mystified by the degree to which Andy is so sensitive about protecting the page views of sharticles like evolution, homosexuality, and atheism that he basically lets Ken do whatever the fuck he wants. And it's usually scary or just weird because Ken is so unwell, such a terrible editor, a terrible debater, and a generally nasty person. I'd love to be a fly on the wall of Andy's brain when he sees RC clogged with 200 Kendoll edits to move a picture and add 40 bytes of text, or when he pops off with a weak-ass non sequitor in response to a good faith question or concern about one of his precious darling articles. Olé olé olé I propose that we hand RW's fate over to Cthulhu for safekeeping (talk) 16:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

It's great. One of the reasons Ken is my favorite editor is because of how much he craps all over the wiki with aplomb and the blessing of Andy. Who could ask for better at keeping the site third-rate? --Leotardo (talk) 16:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Seconded on Ken being the best editor. I like how he wikilinks crack^img in an MPR article that has nothing to do with crack.(ʞlɐʇ) ɹǝɯɯɐHʍoƆ 19:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

XKCD

This should make those noted feminists Andrew Schlafly and Ed Poor's heads explode. --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 15:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I normally like xkcd but that's the wordiest comic ever. ^{ONE / TALK} 16:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Isn't wordiness a liberal trait?

Wait, perhaps that should be: it has been noticed that those who are politically liberal have a tendency to use an excessive amount of verbiage. MDB (talk) 16:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

cp:Liberal wordiness, brought to you by DouglasA. --MarkGall (talk) 18:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't think this is WIGO-worthy, but...

Pretty awesome example of Ken's

erm... strange editing habits: TerryH puts up another spam link to his blogimg. Ken doesn't like the size of the flag of Israel, so goes on an edit spree: a little smallerimg, fuck it, I liked it beforeimg, better put it on the leftimg, move it up a littleimg, back to the rightimg, screw it, just delete itimg. All in the course of 4 minutes! (ʞlɐʇ)  ɹǝɯɯɐHʍoƆ 15:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Tangent: I didn't check out that blog linked by TerryH yet - is it actually his blog or just his newest trusworthy news source? --Sid (talk) 15:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Aaargh!

Srsly? It's his. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

It's a joint effort with some fat Tea Party woman (I wouldn't normally comment but as obesity is linked to atheism...) Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 16:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

And if you enjoyed Hurlbut's mugshot over at the Examiner, then you're sure to enjoy his new blog's high-def version. ^{ONE / TALK} 16:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

That could almost be a CP Rick-roll. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 16:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeesh. He just stabbed me over and over again. With his eyes. Nutty Roux (talk) 16:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually Chuckarse just posted three self-promotion links on MPR and a quick search of current MPR reveals a whacking 13 links to his cess-pool. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 16:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

preview is for pussies---brxbrx 17:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

WOW. 5 years editing a wiki he's still an idiot. Rationalize (talk) 14:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

What's funny about their tweeking (both Ken and Andy have done it) is that they attempt to adjust what is on their particular monitor as if it was how everyone else sees the page. MediaWiki rendering is a lot more fluid.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 06:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Slightly OT, but Hurlbutt looks like he may have been good looking at one point, he should loose those outdated glasses though, and maybe hit the gym. Oh and wash his face. --Opcn (talk) 05:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Conservapedia and the Media (I just inadvertently rhymed!)

Is it just me, or do conservatives block out all media (except for their normal Fox News, Conservapedia, WND crap, etc.) to stay willfully ignorant? (Ever tried debating a conservative about stem cell research, for example? Even after you explain to them that their "unborn child" is millions of cells with no conciousness, they become enraged. They say that their moral beliefs mandate that "life starts at conception." If we tried to measure people's citizenship on the date of their conception, as I have heard a few wingnuts propose, the citizenship process would be very awkward.) Back on topic, though, the "radio" story caught me off guard. I like NPR as much as the next person, but I do not exclusively listen to it. The idea that someone would get all of their news from the imbeciles that run the insane asylum known as Conservapedia is disturbing. This person could use a hospital bed and some liberal indoctrination, pronto!--Lefty (talk) 22:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Considering the apparent linkspam by TerryH to his own blog, things get worse: They listen to the news they write! But yeah, even without that, it's a classic echo chamber effect: Andy only listens to the news as they appear on CP, and the sysops only post news on CP that agree with Andy's views. And people are still wondering how Andy became a lot weirder since early 2007? --Sid (talk) 22:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Conservatives whine about "liberal indoctrination," but they turn a blind eye to foolish quotes made by people who agree with them (i.e. martial rape is acceptable; diversity programs teach children how to live "in a ghetto"), and the shady activities of multinational corporations and the wealthy (Walmart telling its employeees that they really needed to vote Republican in the 2008 elections; the Koch brothers and their various schemes). They are the truth, they are the news, and anyone who disagrees with them is a socialist, family-values hater, or an atheist (terrible curse word in the fundamentalist community).--Lefty (talk) 22:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Wait a sec, if life starts at conception shouldn't the whole birther thing be done by now? Or "conceptionists"? No wait, a conception is something personal, subjectiv, relative! No we can't be relative! Relativitiy is evil! Sex also! Wha! What does the Bible, say? --ǓḤṂ^³ 23:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not a "Liberal" thing or a "conservative" thing it's an authoritarian thing, which, as it turns out, there are many more conservatives who are also authoritarian than lieberals. 23:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

If you believe in creationism or a young earth, you are blocking out most everything one way or another. - Jpop (talk) 23:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Only in the biological sciences, in electrical engineering I'll bet it don't come up much. 23:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

Yes, authoritarians can be liberal. Conservatives have numerous beliefs that make it easy to tell. An environmentalist will tell you that need to agree with them and help out the planet before irreversible damage occurs, while a conservative fundamentalist will claim that their political beliefs are the same as their religion, and that you must agree with them, or you are the modern-day equivalent of a heretic. Bit of a difference; since conservatives are emotionally based, the authoritarian aspect shines through clearly.--Lefty (talk) 23:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Given the main example of authortarian leadership, the nazis, are actually liberal...--Mikalos209 (talk) 01:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Uh, no. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and the German Democratic Republic was a pinnacle of Democracy, and a shining example of what everyone behind the Iron Curtain of Socialism was missing out on. </sarcasm> --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 01:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Us liberals are just biding our time until we can elect a violent sociopath bent on suspending the constitution, we are. Nutty Roux (talk) 11:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes - Obama is not violent or sociopathic enough for my tastes. Too mild in the way he is subverting the Constitution. --Leotardo (talk) 13:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

(EC)See epistemic closure. The wingnut mindset is essentially identical to a conspiracy theorist's -- anything outside of the wingnut echo chamber can be dismissed as simply a fabrication of the liberal media. My pet theory is that it's a result of Reagan and the end of the Cold War. During the Cold War, the right was very pro-science (which was sort of a "beat the Reds" thing, but still, science was valued) and conservatives had something of an intellectual class acting as gatekeepers (recall that Bill Buckley basically told the John Birch Society to fuck off and never come back). With the Reagan administration, the religious right came to power within the GOP. Then there was the end of the Cold War and no more reason to pour loads of money into science just to beat the Soviets. Thus, faith-based politics happened to be on the rise at the same time that science and expertise was becoming devalued and the wingnuts began to take over. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

@Nebuchadnezzar, you obviously have read conservapedias nazi page--Mikalos209 (talk) 02:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

When I read this, I first wondered if it was just someone from Conservapedia doing some reverse trolling on our site. However I am not surprised there are people on the left who think pretty much like Andy thinks, just with a mirror opposite ideology, as ignorance wrapped in arrogance is not bounded to any particular political belief but an all too common human trait. I say this because replace "conservative" with "liberal", "Fox News, Conservapedia, WND" with "CNN, Democratic Underground, Daily Kos", and "wingnut" with "moonbat" and it may as well be Andy or Ken

above talking about and stereotyping an entire rather broad ideological camp of thought.

Seriously, does anyone really believe that the dozen or so people who use Conservapedia as their primary source of news and information is indicative of mainstream conservative thought? Like American liberalism, American conservatism has its extreme fringe and the Conservapedia hierarchy is part of that, but like all fringe elements, are not taken as a credible or serious by most. Most people, and that includes most conservatives and most liberals, are not 100% set in either side's perceived ideology. Myself, I am a fiscal and economic conservative, but I am not a social conservative by any definition, nor am I a creationist, nor religious; so yeah, I think when the above poster is making claims about conservatives, he is about stereotypes and not actual people.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 10:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. Ajkgordon (talk) 11:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Well spoken. CP is a little asylum in a rocket that is moving further away from normal conservatism with each passing day. And the inmates look out of that rocket and say "My goodness! The world is moving more and more to the left! We must do something!" --Sid (talk) 11:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Very well put. Although I admit that I slip up often enough (to err is only human, after all) I try to treat the political opinions I agree with with equal, if not more, contempt than the ones I disagree with. It kind of helps against this weird generalisation of "all wingnuts are idiots!" while avoiding falling into the same trap. I've often been concerned with the amount of uncritical rhetoric of "conservatives are x, y and z" that creeps into some of RW's literature, not least because it's worth drawing a distinction between "conservatives" and "Conservatives". ADK^{...I'll write your number!} 11:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, what you say about replacing "WND" with "Daily Kos" is a fun but very illustrative way of checking if an argument makes sense or not. Swap around the words and see if people would react differently to it. ADK^{...I'll cure your band!} 11:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

No doubt there are plenty of liberals locked in the DKos/HuffPo echo chamber. Here's the thing, though, you can mad lib Kos in for WND but it's still nowhere near the same thing. Personally, I have little use for the purity trolling of Kos, but they at least try to keep the abject crankery out (any hint of 9/11 trutherism is pretty much a perma-ban there). WND, on the other hand...well, you know what goes on there. This goes back to what I was saying about conservatism losing its intellectual leadership, which has manifest itself in some awesome levels of reality denial (see global warming). Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Yep, you can eassily swap Kos for wingnut daily. Because this is almost exactly the same as this. Especially in the way one is completely covered with wingnut conspiracy theories about the place of Obamas birth and nationality and the other has news stories reported from a liberal/left wing perspective. If you didn't know better you could almost mistake them one for the other. Oldusgitus (talk) 16:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Somewhere there is a point, you're not near it. No one has said that Kos and WND are exactly the same. We're saying that derogatory statements about how they're lunatics or wingnuts can apply equally to both because they're rhetorical non-arguments. If you say "WND is crazy because they promote long debunked conspiracy theories about Obama's heritage and citizenship" that's one thing, but if you say "WND is just biased to the rightt and isn't favourable to other political views" you can equally say "MSNBC is biased to the left and isn't favourable to other political views" and show that both are equally rhetorical - or more specifically, you can ask if you agree with it more or less because you've merely changed a few nouns and subjects around. For instance, someone could say the following:

“”I do not regret trusting truly in Charles Manson for my daughter's health. I am guilty of trusting Charles Manson wisdom completely... Guilty of asking for Manson Family intervention. Guilty of following Charles Manson when the whole world does not understand. Guilty of obeying the Manson Family.

And people would be rightly appalled and say that it is a terrible defence. Except what the individual I'm quoting actually said was:

“”I do not regret trusting truly in the Lord for my daughter's health. I am guilty of trusting my Lord's wisdom completely... Guilty of asking for heavenly intervention. Guilty of following Jesus Christ when the whole world does not understand. Guilty of obeying my God.

And suddenly people who are aligned to agree with such things see it as a fantastically passionate argument. By altering the subject of the argument you can begin to isolate the actual argument from the emotional attachment you have to the subject and the argument's conclusion. And this is one of the massive problems RW has with its political bias; it happily spews liberal rhetoric uncritically without realising it. ADK^{...I'll model your racket!} 17:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that even Fox News is suspect amongst the far-right now. I've seen Tea Partiers labelling it part of the liberal MSM. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 17:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand what you mean but I simply disagree. I have never seen a 'liberal' site that called into question the nationality of (for example) McCain other than as a response to the wingnuts attacks on Obama. And then they are mostly of a 'see how stupid what you are saying is' type of 'attack' instead of anything serious. And they are not taken seriously by ANYONE. For better or worse wnd and even faux news ARE taken seriously by a largish number of Americans, and without exception those Americans are on the right. Or am I missing something else that you are trying to say? Oldusgitus (talk) 17:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

It's less to do with what said media says and more to do with what people use as arguments against it. You can't say something like "it's only conservatives that ignore the evidence and publish crap" because, frankly, the Huffington Post's anti-vax stuff is an embarrassment and is equally about ignoring evidence. Similarly, most of Andrew Schlafly's anti-liberal rhetoric could apply equally if you started replacing "liberal" with "conservative", and indeed most of WIGO:CP is about highlighting this stuff. ADK^{...I'll pass your magma!} 17:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem here is that Oldusgitus is arguing about the substance of wingnuts vs. moonbats' respective ideologies, and ADK is arguing about their rhetorical techniques. I personally don't see the two issues being that separable. To reduce your "manson/lord" analogy to absurdity, you can say that there is no difference between someone arguing "the sun is blue" and another arguing "the sun is yellow." Both are just assertions, right?

Yes, moonbats have all kinds of ridiculous beliefs like "vaccines cause autism" and "we should voluntarily extinguish the human race in order to save the planet" and "9/11 was an inside job," but you're talking about an extreme fringe of an extreme fringe. What worries most rational people is the mainstreaming of extreme right propaganda, evidenced by the percentage of Americans who doubt Obama's citizenship or think the jury's out on evolution. You've got nowhere near the same kind of numbers of hard greens or truthers. Junggai (talk) 19:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I think some folks here misinterpreted my point when I swapped "WND" for "Daily Kos". It was not meant as a literal, precise comparison. What I was trying to convey was the idea of people stereotyping everyone in an opposing ideology as getting news from only certain sites that conform to (and thus justify) their views can go both ways. I can easily see a Conservapedian stereotyping a liberal in the manner the OP stereotyped conservatives by using Daily Kos in the same vein as the OP used WND. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

That's raisinable, as they say. I think I should say the Dem/Rep parties and their corresponding punditocracies as that's what I'm usually talking about, but it's shorter, though misleading, to use liberal/conservative, esp. as many of these positions/stereotypes don't even apply outside the US. As an aside: the anti-vax crankery seems to affect both fringes of the spectrum. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that is why in my initial reply I mentioned American conservationism and liberalism, as those two terms mean something different if one is Canadian, British, European, etc. Heck, even in America, what we think of as "conservatism" and "liberalism' are concepts born on the 20th century and those words had entirely different meanings in the 18th and 19th century. To Conservapedians though, American conservatism is the only one that counts; but they do not adhere to mainstream conservative principles anyway, which is why I just label their beliefs as Andyism.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 23:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Lemme put it this way/Handy edit button #1

There could never be a right-wing version of Colbert: A thoughtful and energetic guy who is a parody of folks he disagrees with, some of which don't seem to get that he really isn't "on their side" 'cause, you know, he's says all the right things!

Obama is center/right/right (almost like Clinton [Bill] who was center/right): but to the folks we call "wingnuts" they might as well have been named Lenin and Stalin that's how far left they're seen to be! 01:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

The problem with that is that conservatives might argue Bush was centre-left, simply because he was more left than conservatives wanted him to be. How do you counter that? By pointing out some conservative policies Bush implemented? They'll just point out liberal policies Obama has implemented. You might point out Obama's conservisms, and they'll point out Bush's liberalisms. Suddenly you're in a debate over where "centre" is, and neither party will agree. ^{ONE / TALK} 08:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)