Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive240

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>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <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>

, (back)

Someone help me out[edit]

OK, so Ken. after a few practice tries, gets this slop up on the broken news feed.... What exactly is he saying? That only 1/3 or America is a true conservative, or is he following SOP and being an idiot? SirChuckB^{Will Sysop for food} 22:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

More evidence that many American liberals and moderates are a bunch of spoiled crybabies: Study finds that two thirds of Americans harbor anger toward God.

I thought libburrals didn't believe in gOD? – Nick Heer 01:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Interesting to read the comments on "anger toward God" in light of a certain precedent. Wonder if Ken thinks that guy was a "spoiled crybaby" too. Doctor Dark (talk) 04:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Just like the rule of IOKIYAR (It's OK If You're A Republican) prevails on CP, so does IOKIYAM (It's OK If You're A Messiah). MDB (talk) 10:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Wait, 2/3 are god less libs? I thought the magority of america was was christian and conservative? What happened?--Thunderstruck (talk) 13:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

This will certainly help his alter-ego Shockofgod's campaign to cut atheism in half. If CP believed before the campaign that the majority of america was christian and conservative, then suddenly at the time of the campaign start, 2/3rds are godless libs, then as soon as he decides the campaign is over *boom* majority of america back to christian and conservative, thanks to shockofconservative! 64.30.2.130 (talk) 13:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Jamal[edit]

Blocked and reverted for this^img?--User:Brxbrx/sig 23:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, he has a black sounding name... Senator Harrison (talk) 00:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I’m guessing that the probability of him being a good dancer is on the low side as well. JumboWhales (talk) 18:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Why no more weather reports on MPR?[edit]

All winter we watched Andy make a fool of himself with his "It's snowing, no global warming" MPR weather series. Now it's summer, and there's a logically consistent argument of "It's hot, so global warming". With the U.S. gripped in a bizarre June heat wave, it would be fun to keep track of record high temperatures because Andy sure as hell isn't going to mention them on MPR. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 12:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget the UK had their warmest April ever. Over on CP... crickets. Then again, Andy's "it's snowing, so no global warming" was just another indication of how little he understands weather. --OompaLoompa (talk) 13:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

We taunt them and they reply^img--User:Brxbrx/sig 14:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

From Brxbrx's link: "The current temperature at the Amundsen-Scott South Pole station in Antarctica is - 83 degrees [[fahrenheit]].[12]" It's the middle of winter for fucks sake! Of course it's cold there! what does the ninny expect, roses and sandy beaches full of sunbathers?. Pippa (talk) 14:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh my! He's vanished it after (Andy) removing it: "... trim headline that does not explain its significance)". look at Brxbrx's capture to see the original. Pippa (talk) 14:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

"It's snowing" is to global warming as "just a theory" is to evolution, but, damn, that is a whole new brand of dumb. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 14:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Aw! Ken's adorable when he jumps up and down yelling "Look at MEEEEE!" at our command. And yes Ken, just because it's summer here in the north... --OompaLoompa (talk) 14:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I've been googling round but can't find a reliable source ^{(plenty of anecdotal which would satisfy them if it were the other way round)} but I believe that spring has been one day per year earlier each year for the last ten years in the UK. Put that in your fridge and freeze it, Ken. Pippa (talk) 15:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

We're really the only family Ken has ever known. He'll never get a girl to pay him the interest that we do. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 15:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

"Ken", "girl" and "pay" are words that actually work well together.

You could also exchange "pay" with "inflatable". MDB (talk) 15:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

What kind of girl wants a guy who breaks down crying after sex? --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 15:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

One who charges $150/hour and wears leopard spotted spandex? MDB (talk) 16:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘That Forbes piece on MPR is well-researched. How do I know AGW is a lie? Roy Spencer told me so! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Good luck with that, my son, but don't hold your breath.[edit]

"I'm an atheist and evolutionist, and so I shall stay away from articles on these topics.
However, I will try to explain these world-views, so they can be more accurately depicted here. If you feel any of my edits go against the tone of the site, please drop a note on this page to let me know, and remove the edit if necessary." [1]^img

and:

"As I live in the UK, the locking of the database overnight (in the US) occurs at times that are rather inconvenient for me. Could I please have edit rights if possible so that I can contribute normally? Thanks, [[User:GuidoF|Guy]]^{[[User_talk:GuidoF|message me]]} 10:38, 9 June 2011 (EDT)" [2]^img(on Andy's talk page)

Atheist, evilutionist and in the UK! How Conservapædia friendly. Pippa (talk) 15:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Any relation to this guy, I wonder? Cantabrigian (talk) 16:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Rob trying to do something good[edit]

Bets on how things will go down, or how fast it takes for the effort to collapse? --Mikalos209 (talk) 01:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Rob aint so bad. We give him a lot of flak but he's a pretty reasonable dude for all the shit he takes from us. He's really going out of his way to assuage CP-RW relations.--User:Brxbrx/sig 01:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

DMorris2 (talk) 02:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Well done Rob! It must take some swinging balls to take on Andy's pet. You are the man of the day. (note: sometimes, posts seem sarcastic when they aren't - this might be one of them, but I am trying to be sincere) Carlaugust (talk) 02:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

My respect for him went up several notches. He is the one person there with authority who is a decent guy, even if I disagree with a lot that he says, and the only one with "MA-CHEESE-MO" who actually defend what he believes outside the sheltered bubble of CP. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 02:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Ken is just digging his own grave now^img. Senator Harrison (talk) 02:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Ken is the protected golden boy of Andy's; he has favor with the king because his tripe brings the hits, and its all about the hits. He is safe and he knows it. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 02:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I never paid much attention to Conservapedia, but... wow, this stuff makes my brain hurt. "Montreal,Canada where Renee appears to have edited from is not the most conservative place on earth. By the way, as I indicated above, it is a great irony that France was a major impetus in terms of the adoption of atheism in Europe and that a significant amount of those French intellectuals may have suffered from French Cafe smoking induced brain damage."[13] I can't tell whether this is meant to be serious or a failed attempt at wit. Doctor Dark (talk) 02:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

In reference to Rob, he still lives in his own little fantasy world. He only "stands up for his beliefs" when, on occassion, his self-delusions don't align perfectly with the other self-delusions on CP. Sadly, it's not that he's any brighter than the rest of the bunch, just strange in his own different way. άλφα^Talk 03:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Quebec is liberal? Really?--User:Brxbrx/sig 03:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Shockofgod's "question" (answer: no deity, god, or belief in the supernatural afterlife has ever been scientifcally proven to exist, etc. etc.) and crazy assumptions to justify himself. Rob, you're a spartan among a vast army of strawmen. Think about it - Ken's bumped heads with TK often in the past. You can't win against the sheer wall of stupidity.

Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 03:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Credit where credit is due to Rob. I do think you're right, though - Conservative is too entrenched. Nothing will come of it.--

^talk

04:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I think Ken's been playing around with revision delete. look at the community portal's edit history--User:Brxbrx/sig 03:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I really wanted to look at this and compliment Rob for being smart and taking a stand. And then I reread this discussion^img. Rob is a moron.--The doctor is still in (talk) 06:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Hah, I'd never seen that before. I hope he was being deliberately obtuse, because otherwise it must be hard for him to dress himself. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 07:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Bloody hell. I think Rob could have been the inspiration for this Dilbert cartoon Bondurant (talk) 10:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

More evidence Ken doesn't give a shit - this shows Ken's non-reply to Rob^img, but which is mysteriously absent from the article's history. How long until Ken deletes and restores the whole page? Still, it's Rob's fault for expecting Andy to act like a manager. --OompaLoompa (talk) 11:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Aw, bless. He's trying to figure out how to use oversight to hide his many spelling mistakes, but he's just too stupid to figure it out properly. Burning the place to the ground, that he can handle. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 11:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

It gets a little pathetic every time one of these doofuses does some minor reasonable thing that we all start championing that CP doofus. This is really a minor thing Rob did, and yet some of the comments make it seem like he made some grand stand for civil discourse. Next cue every ridiculously bad thing that happens on the website with RW editors going to Rob's RW talk page or starting threads like, "How can you stand THIS Rob?" Are any of the sysops the cartoons that we make them out to be? Of course not, so it's not surprising that every once in awhile they do/say something reasonable or even fair-minded. I'm not going to champion this - I don't have any interest in seeing CP improve; I don't want them to more effectively present their reactionary point of view; I hope it never becomes an hospitable environment for editing. I only enjoy them as my antfarm of wingnut teabagger failures. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 14:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I can't speak for everyone, but I'm not really championing Rob so much as laughing at the battle of the intellectual midgets. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)--JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I am just genuinely curious what he sees in that place. I know he is a religious-conservative Tea Party type, but most of those people steer clear of the insanity of CP because they see it as a detriment to their cause. Why does he stay, and try? He can't win, Ken is untouchable, so what does he hope to achieve? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 23:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm not a Tea Partier, at all. I have little respect for any third party movement in American politics. I am a proud Republican and economic conservative. I am a born again Christian, but wouldn't consider myself a politically motivated Christian. I could say more about the Tea Party, but I suspect many non or anti-Tea Party types fundementally misjudge and misunderstand who and what the Tea Party is, or even how and why it came into existence. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 00:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Given the crop of clowns, weirdos and losers they back, they are only interesting as a bizarre sociological experiment. At this point most people don't care about the who what where why how of the tea baggers; they see the Rick Scotts and Scott Walkers and Michele Bachmanns and Paul Ryans. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 01:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Tea Party, (n.): A group of lifelong Republican voters obsessively denying that they have ever voted for a Republican, or that they're voting for one now. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Tea Partiers are more akin to Reagan Democrats or Bluedogs -- conservative or moderate Democrats not enamored to liberal influence in their party (DINOs). They are traditionally anti-Republican Southerners who still see the Civil War and Reconstruction in Republican versus Democrat terms. Also some moderate independents not loyal to brand name, and disillusioned Repblicans after Pappy Bush, Clinton, and Jr. Bush. It's really just GOP front created by Dick Armey, a Texas Republican and former GOP House leader who understands Southern conservatives better than anyone. The idea is to form a voting block of conservatives not loyal to party but it works to the GOP advantage. Too bad, Dems coould have had these voters back, but calling them uneducated racists doesn't win sympathy. And this demographic group was represented by wp:John Nance Garner in the FDR era, Lyndon Johnson in the 60s, it elected Carter, Reagan, GHW Bush, Clinton, Bush Jr., and yes, Barack Obama. But Obama came out of the closet as a progressive liberal after he was elected. Maybe it's true, they are dumb as rock and beleive any line of crap their fed. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 03:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

What you described sounds far more like the PUMAs than teabaggers. Teabaggers are the Republicans that didn't show up to vote because McCain was too liberal for them. - π 03:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

That's right, but not in entirety. A Quinnipiac poll show 49% of Teabaggers voted for Obama, 44% for McCain. Truth is, while the South lost the Civil War, the South today dominates national presidential elections. Every president since Johnson, Republican & Democrat alike, had to carry Southern conservatives. FDR & Kennedy (New England Democrats) needed Southern Democrats to get elected. No one, except for a few Rationalwiki editors who aren't even US citizens, not E.J. Dione or Time magazine, still beleives the crap they spewed two years, that America was no longer a center-right nation, that "we are all socialists now," etc. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 03:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

It's an intriguing idea, that the Tea Party voters are really Southern moderates in disguise. Being a (former) Southern moderate myself whose friends back home all fit that demographic, I'm not sure that I buy it, but it's intriguing nonetheless. But I think having to use that term shows more how impoverished the left-right dichotomy is for describing political views than it does the actual beliefs of the people who identify themselves that way. The face which the Tea Party presents (meaning its national leaders) is extreme, reactionary, even xenophobic social beliefs combined with a set of naive libertarian economic beliefs that would have been considered extreme by most libertarians 10 years ago.

Since the Tea Partiers have been the same people calling for Obama to prove he's eligible for the presidency, their branding as racists has some justification. Someone can say all day "I want Obama to show his ~~birth certificate~~ ~~REAL birth certificate~~ ~~kindergarten records~~ mother's placenta in a jar signed by a notary because I love this country and its constitution too much," but the reality is because they've never trusted Obama for personal reasons, and would never be satisfied with any proof. You can beat around the bush, but he's a guy with dark skin and an Arabic middle name, and he would not be facing this kind of scrutiny if he were lily white. If I've offended some Dallas/Phoenix/Atlanta Starbucks-sipping Tea Partiers by calling the birther movement essentially racist, then they have to work harder to make their movement about issues rather than about Obama's evil hatred of the USA. Which means, ditch Palin, ditch Bachman, ditch Santorum and everyone who entertains the ad hominem case against Obama, and elevate some of the people who actually have some constructive ideas. Junggai (talk) 08:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I think he is saying that the teabaggers are Southern Conservatives, many of whom vote Democrat because of historical reasons rather than current ideological. It is an intriguing idea given the number of neo-confederates the movement has attracted. - π 08:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Really? If so, that's a terrible argument. Southern Conservatives haven't voted Democrat since Nixon' Southern Strategy. Rereading what Rob said, he's right that a presidential candidate has to carry the South to win, but as for Southern Conservatives, not at all. Even that demographic has been shrinking for the last 20 years, since the high-tech companies started migrating there and the Hispanic population started to multiply. Junggai (talk) 09:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Rob, are you lying about the Teabaggers voting for Obama, or just woefully uninformed? I could only find one Quinnipac study, and it is this one. These was their finding:

74 percent are Republicans or independent voters leaning Republican;
16 percent are Democrats or independent voters leaning Democratic;
5 percent are solidly independent;
45 percent are men;
55 percent are women;
88 percent are white;
77 percent voted for Sen. John McCain in 2008;
15 percent voted for President Barack Obama.

So, please do produce your own Quinnipac poll that directly contradicts these findings of theirs, because you sound incredibly silly up above. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 15:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Time to update the rankings[edit]

Gonna be hard to win the Republican nomination when your "brain trust" quits Give it up, conservatives! Jdellaro (talk) 19:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I like how two of the "Potential Democratic Candidates" aren't even Democrats: Bernie Sanders and Ralph Nader. Yep, CP, Democrats are considering Ralph 'Fucked Them in 2000' Nader for their candidate. --Night Jaguar (talk) 21:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I gave up on being interested in CP's rankings because they are absolutely useless. Their only standard is "what do I want to be" instead of what is. They have little sound judgment on being able to discern who are real candidates (Pawlenty is still below Jeb Bush, who nobody thinks will run) and fake ones (they brought Trump to No. 3 I believe). Gingrich's campaign has imploded, yet because this disrupts Andy's silly "Team Newt" and "Team Mitt" narrative--as if Sarah Palin would be a stalking horse for anyone but Sarah Palin, never mind that the predominance of the 'stalking horse' theory is pretty stupid--so he won't adjust the rankings to meet reality. After all, Andy even created an "encyclopedia article" about Team Newt. Moron. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 15:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

He's scoring the election like he scores his tests: Your entire team quit: minus one^img Random surfer (talk) 18:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Something about people being overweight[edit]

by andy^img so, is there a reason michelle is listed or is it just a name they pulled?--Mikalos209 (talk) 03:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Michelle Obama has been doing a lot of anti-obesity activism. So here's Andy's logic: Even though the Obama White House has made obesity an issue, he hired a fat chick, therefore Obama is a hypocrite. P-Foster (talk) 03:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

It's pretty sad that Andy is copying Ken with fat jokes and "machismo". Seriously, can you get any lower than stealing material from Ken? --Night Jaguar (talk) 04:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

You can't keep a good man down though. Ken hits back with Overweight Obama administration officials. Just when you thought it couldn't get any more pathetic. --Horace (talk) 06:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

OMG, look at all the atheists in Obama's cabinet!!! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I used to think that Andy was ashamed with Ken "essays", but obviously he is not. Actually, I think Andy is crazier than Ken, because somehow I believe that Ken is aware of how stupid his essays are, but Andy seem to believe that all of what he (Andy himself) writes is incredibly insightful. As such, I doubt that Ken believes his atheist=obese meme, but I'm almost sure that Andy does.--Tlaloc (talk) 07:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not convinced Andy believes it; rather, it is a combination of a need for validation and pride. The ridiculous "essays" bring in the hits, even if almost all are from people who deride them. The reason people look doesn't matter to Andy, just the hit count, because the hit count gives him validation, that CP actually means something. Also remember Andy is a person of enormous pride, thus because he defended Ken's dribbles once, his immense pride requires him to defend them always. To do otherwise is for Andy to admit perhaps he was wrong in the face of his critics, and he cannot ever bring himself to do that; because then perhaps he has to face the reality he is not the infallible guardian of all true movement conservatism.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 08:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The thing is he isn't just defending Ken, he's using his material. Also, Andy asks if a commenter complains when Jon Stewart makes fun of conservatives^img. Well, CP definitely has fake news and comedy, so the comparison to Stewart might not be totally off. Although, Andy seems more like Colbert's character brought to life. *hahahaha* --Night Jaguar (talk) 08:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Andy being madder than Ken; someone once mentioned (during the discussions for the CP day 'Biggest Idiot Award' I think) that Andy is de facto the biggest idiot on CP: as he is Il Dio, his approval (and now re-use) of others' idiocy, means he is always a big idiot. I think this perfectly fits the bill here. (Although the "I can't ever ever be wrong so I must stick to my guns whatever" attitude as described by BMcP doesn't help matters) DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 09:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Wowzer! I just read the diff posted at the top of this section and assumed it was by Ken - "overwieght woman, blah blah, concerning her weight..." - but then saw it was the Assfly himself! Godness me. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 10:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Does someone want to persuade him to run this whole thing past his wife, and see what she thinks? -Lardashe

Andy seems incapable of taking any criticism of any kind. @Lardashe - Are you suggesting Andy's wife is allowed to have an opinion contrary to her husband? That's a stoning offence AMassiveGay (talk) 12:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Like most people who enjoy thumping their chest online, Andy wouldn't have the stomach to stand up to his wife's contempt for what he wrote. -Lardashe

Let's face it though: no woman would marry the son of Phyllis Schlafly unless she was fully prepared to be wholly subordinate to his will. ^{ONE / TALK} 14:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

He's married?--Mikalos209 (talk) 19:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Ken or Andy?[edit]

The entire thing is so Ken that I have trouble believing he didn't write it. Is it possible he oversighted himself, making it appear as though it were written by Andy? TrickyDickTurpis (talk) 13:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Go down to the newest section, short of ken hacking andy --Mikalos209 (talk) 15:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I am starting to think this is the case: User:C comes in and vomits up the MPR edit, Andy seeing the macheeeeesmo snark at the end, axes it via oversight, (or it must've been really worser and Andy [at first] pared the snark back but included the hispanic/machismo comment...deciding he didn't want that either and the "final" result is what comes up in the link). Still, ALS is an ASS. 16:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

He's defending it on the talk page, therefore he owns it. P-Foster (talk) 16:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Well yes, besides owning the blog and allowing user:C to shit on it at every turn, defending the turdblossoms is tantamount to having writ it hisself. 16:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

No question he's taken ownership of it, but it's such Klassic Ken. TrickyDickTurpis (talk) 16:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Classic Andy[edit]

non-sequitur^img--User:Brxbrx/sig 03:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

This site gets sadder and sadder by the day it seems. RatMaster ^háblame 04:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Andy can't read. Or maybe he won't read. - Jpop (talk) 21:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Where was Andy last weekend?[edit]

while mommy was having a conference? Not on the guest list? Awwwww, shame. Pippa (talk) 08:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

He was busy leading the conservative charge out east--Mikalos209 (talk) 12:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Andy continues his Discrimination trend[edit]

Andy: Government should lead by example, Reality: Fat people should never be given anything but menial jobs because by being fat they are going to lead by example and cause others to be fat^img--Mikalos209 (talk) 15:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Hold up, didn't he vote for Chris Christie for new Jersey govoner? The same Chris Christie who looks like he swollowed a volkswagon?--Thunderstruck (talk) 15:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Seeing the conversation that's happening there, I was struck by two things. First, about halfway through, I thought that the chivalry argument might be brought up. At least someone brought it in really late. Second, it seems a little unusual that he's only got one troll egging him on. I wonder how far he'd go if he were encouraged enough. Proposing a death penalty for obesity? I wouldn't put it past him. -Lardashe

Re: Christie...Andy would argue that because he's not leading an anti-obesity programme, there's no hypocrisy involved in him being obese. P-Foster (talk) 17:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

"First they came for the Socialists, but I did not speak because I was not a Socialist, then they came for the Atheists, but I did not speak because I was not an atheist, then they came for the fat people, but I did not speak because I was not a Fat Person..."--Mikalos209 (talk) 19:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

What would Jesus cut?[edit]

Jpatt puts up a link^img in response to the "What Would Jesus Cut?" ad campaign that encourages people to use Christ's teachings to determine what our budget priorities should be. The link Jpatt put up really does nothing to answer whether Christ's teachings have any relevance in making budget decisions (despite Christians saying we should look to Christ in everything we do). Instead, they say 'Jesus never took part in budget planning in the Roman empire, so shut the fuck up.' This is what passes for reasoned discussion and consideration by the religious right. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 15:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, you have never heard the Good Word. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Heh - Supply Side Jesus. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 16:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I wonder how many of the programs on the left hand side of this chart Jesus would be cutting as opposed to the right hand side. --Shagie (talk) 00:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Ed Poor: We don't condemn liberal ideas[edit]

I really would love to know what are these liberal ideas they don't condemn^img! --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 17:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

JoMar pro Gadafi?[edit]

[3]^img After seeing his work on the Libya articles, I have to suspect that he isn't just anti-war- he's nuts!--User:Brxbrx/sig 00:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Gadafi is anti-obama so... therefor HE MUST BE A AMAZING CONSERVATIVE WORTH ALL OUR SUPPORT--Mikalos209 (talk) 00:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I am confused by their stance on Libya. Shouldn't they ask themselves what Reagan would do. He'd bomb the shit of em is what he would do. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Mikalos209, this is Joacquin Martinez we're talking about. He doesn't give two shits about Obama.--User:Brxbrx/sig 01:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The wars illegal. Obama is impeachable now. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 04:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

My point was that JoMar's support of Qaddafi is unrelated to Obama.
I suppose there might be a case for Obama's impeachment, we'll see what happens. Not really my area of expertise.--User:Brxbrx/sig 04:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Last I checked we needed the military to use their god given and constitutional right to remove a commander-in cheif to save america. --Mikalos209 (talk) 04:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

If illegal wars were an impeachable offense nearly every president of the last 50 years would have been impeached. Nope, to be impeached you have to spy on the other party or get a blow job. Illegal wars don't count. --Night Jaguar (talk) 04:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Whats Andrew Johnson's crime?--Mikalos209 (talk) 04:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't it bringing a bunch of his trashy friends to the White House to party down? ħuman

04:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

'cordin to wikipedia it was pushing some things the radical republicans in the house didnt like or someting like that. --Mikalos209 (talk) 04:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

That was it. Hmmmmm.... Senator Harrison (talk) 11:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

he's really getting into it now. Seems he thinks gadafi's an angel defending his nation against those cruel imperialists [4]^img--User:Brxbrx/sig 00:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

JoMar on Israel[edit]

[5]^img--User:Brxbrx/sig 18:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

oh good lord, the parrot mania isnt ending soon[edit]

Karajou has several THOUSAND more stub articles to go^img--Mikalos209 (talk) 04:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Jesus wept. At least write a script to do it, Karajou. If you're going to mass import useless shite in to CP, don't waste your time doing it by hand. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 04:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

then he wouldn't get to brag about the "hard work"--User:Brxbrx/sig 04:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I like his latest focus, though. Röstigraben (talk) 08:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think he's doing it by hand. During a spree he posts one every minute. He's copying and pasting pre-filled templates from somewhere (or he's at least using a script to fill those templates before pasting them). ^{ONE / TALK} 08:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

That would imply that Karajerk knows scripts. Which would make him the smartest guy on CP. Copy/paste is all he knows. At best he might be using Word to do a mail merge. --OompaLoompa (talk) 08:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

On reading that link, I rather like Ken's snide comments^img that prompted Karajou's reply. Not only does he refer to "bird mania" but also "Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder." I'm starting to wonder if Ken isn't finally taking off his mask. --OompaLoompa (talk) 13:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

As an ex-swabbie I'd have thought the old K'jerk would have finished off naval vessels because after Ben_Morgan the alphabetical list takes a nosedive. Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 15:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

But, birds are more important. Surly some homeschooler will use CP for taxonomy information. And I think I saw Karajou inviting some user to do the same with reptiles, though I am too lazy to find the link.--George (talk) 15:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Is Chuckarse recycling linkspams?[edit]

Didn't he just do an "Obama is a character from Atlas Shrugged"?^img I can't be (Chuck)arsed to click the link. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to read it, either, but how is it different to be "a character right out of" and then to go a step further and "act like" that character? I would assume that one would be acting like the character for people to say he is the character. Whatever. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 15:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Screenshot in case you do want to read it, but just don't want to contribute to Terry's meagre income. Röstigraben (talk) 15:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Terry started that website himself. I don't think he makes money off clicks to his site, just clicks to his advertisers? --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 17:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, so he's got his own gig now. What happened to his Examiner engagement, did they ban him or was he fed up with writing for a few cents? Röstigraben (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I think he got fed up and thought, "I could do better than this" and, well, here he is. He certainly is prolific. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 20:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't wish to be stoutist but his co-stupid-blogging, co-founder is apparently an HBMI Christian and aligns with the tea 'n' cookies wing of the Tea Party. Where's Ken when you need him? Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 15:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

A few months ago, google changed it's page rank algorithm. The site that paying Terry pennies to put up content went down in the rankings significantly and likely lost some serious advertising dollars. So authors there get even less than they did before. If Terry wasn't getting much before, they might have "fired" him (stopped paying out or changed the minimum payout to a prohibitive number). --Shagie (talk) 18:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Who wants to burn a sock?[edit]

By pointing this^img out to Ken? ND SP 14:03, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Oo, ooh, me! Me! Bondurant (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I haven't run sox on CP since 2008, besides firefox sez it's down since about 12:45pm (edt). 20:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

It seems like the site is inaccessible about half the time. It must be frustrating as all hell for legitimate users. Infoseek (talk) 00:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Here I sit, halfway around the world in Red China, and I haven't had any problems accessing CP. During my brief stay, it's apparent that CP hates the atheist, liberal British, but not the PRC. (As well, the Great Firewall of China doesn't give a damn if you access Conservapedia — nor, at the moment, Wikipedia, the New York Times or the Washington Post. Even youtube seems to come up, though with a fairly odd text interface. I haven't found any blocked sites in the past couple of days, but I haven't been looking for them. Oh, wait, ThePirateBay.org isn't coming up. That might be due to the firewall, though it might be due to a problem on their end.) Phiwum (talk) 03:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I hbavent had any problems since the DDOs attack. --Mikalos209 (talk) 05:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Sarah Palin received hundreds of death threats[edit]

Coke Eyes has a column decrying^img how awful it is that the lamestream media didn't publicize all the death threats to Sarah Palin. This guy is really a fucking moron. "The old-line media are very quick to mention any death threats that a liberal politician receives." No they don't until after the fact if someone is caught. How many death threats to Barack Obama do you hear about in the media, yet those assuredly happen all the time. Ask any security officer: you don't publicize death threats, because it inspires copy cats. Surely stupid Terry has seen that come up in movie storylines. If someone is publicizing a death threat, it is for attention. Hurlbutt is just a dumbass. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 06:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Also too, this happened recently. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 07:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Mystery: Is Aschlafly still alive?[edit]

I had an insight. This post looks suspiciously Kenian. And this recent article/brainfart^img looks like it has been made by Ed Poor. I posit that Andrew Schlafly is in fact dead, and his account has been taken over by the rest to hide this. Think about it, there hasn't been a reputable, independent account of Schlafly being alive in nearly a year. Other authoritarian regimes, such as North Korea and Nazi Germany have engaged in "body-doubles" and actor/impersonators to hide the death or incapacitation of despots in the past. Internetmoniker (talk) 11:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I think with all that evidence we can conclude Schlafly is dead and that Ed and Ken have propped him up and put some sunglasses on him. - π 11:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Weekend at Andy's? Except, frankly, you wouldn't have to do anything to hide the fact that he was dead. There'd be no-one there to notice…--

^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 23:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I've been wondering about this myself. According to his user page, the real Andy Schlafly is an experienced teacher who was himself educated at America's finest universities. Yet exams such as this one^img could only have been written by a moron who doesn't give a shit. And the real Andy would doubtlessly enforce the site rules he set up, instead of allowing his sysops to act as they please, drive editors away and fill his wiki with drivel. Röstigraben (talk) 14:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I assumed he had gone through some type of trauma to the head. Who the hell gives up a job at IBM to make an idiot of himself online? - Jpop (talk) 16:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I would, actually. It's a lot less work, and apparently people still pay him (assuming he is, as the lamestream media insists, alive). ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 16:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Woah woah woah. Andy gets paid for CP? Capitalism has failed. (Edit: I guess he gets paid for his courses, but that can't be much) - Jpop (talk) 18:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

As I understand it, he's on the payroll of a quack doctors' organization, writing their legal briefs and such. But yeah, he does claim to charge his students. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 20:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

After the recent 'Fat' stories on the MPR, I am more and more convinced that that Conservative is a creation of Andy's. Possibly in a creepy split personality way. The Conservative persona is gradually taking control. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Meanwhile Conservative's inner Zorro is taking control. - Jpop (talk) 18:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

If you record Ken's talk page and play it backwards it says "I buried Andy..." Doctor Dark (talk) 20:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Fat jokes taking over Main[edit]

It was objectionable during the whole "fat atheist" thing, b/c the ridicule seemed to be aimed at atheists, with fat people as collateral damage for the prize: to piss off liberals. Now it's just unseemly. They are constantly ridiculing the fat[6]^img[7]^img[8]^img[9]^img, advocating that they be discriminated against. I get what they are trying to do--turn the liberals' arguments for healthier eating against them--but at what point do they realize their desire to 'piss off liberals' is more them cutting their noses off despite their face. They are putting themselves in the position--just to piss off the liberals--of making highly objectionable arguments. I mean, who wants to be part of a website this callow and mean-spirited? --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 17:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

They should change their motto from "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" to "No Fat Chicks." Random surfer (talk) 18:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Theres the above where andy does speceficly say "she is unfit for the job simply because sheis overweight"--Mikalos209 (talk) 18:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

First there were the unfortunate, then the Jews, then all non-white people, then women, then gays and lesbians, then smokers - now it's the fat people. Hate your brain away, discriminate people to make yourselves feel better, worth more - every time you do you just show everybody you insecurities. Some of us may feel pity. --ǓḤṂ^³ 18:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

A big complaint some people have on gay dating websites is when people write things like, "No fats, no fems, no rice and no dark meat." Maybe CP should get a little personals section going. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 20:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad I'm not gay: I can only understand the "no fats" bit. "No rice"? WTF? Toffeeman (talk) 21:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

No asian guys is my guess - my second guess would be no small white cocks... --ǓḤṂ^³ 23:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

No asian guys (because of the small cocks, not that that stereotype rings true in real life...sometimes...). But no Latinos? WTF? Gays tend to be very 'out there' with their preferences because men don't like to waste time with footsie when everyone knows what everyone wants. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 03:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

And again my shitty humor is completely lost. --ǓḤṂ^³ 15:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The talk page is getting completely overrun with this subject, and now Ken thinks Karajou should do a toon about it. Or he wants to do one himself, which would be great; this would be about the only thing that might make a Karatoon seem good by comparison. The parodists are also out encouraging the lunacy. Oh the fun. TrickyDickTurpis (talk) 20:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Fuck, reading all of that made my blood boil. I wish that, just for once, the stupid parodists would stay out of it so the CP sysops could realize just how alone they are. I'd really like to commit some liberal murder on Ken, Andy, and Rob right now. - Jpop (talk) 20:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Jesus man. That's a horrible thing to even joke about. Ken and Andy are just some nobodies on the Internet with whom you disagree. Rob isn't even involved in this. Go take a nap.

21:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe not murder. Just give them a near-death experience to lead them to reevaluate their lives. Anyway, in case "liberal murder" wasn't enough indication, I was joking. - Jpop (talk) 21:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

You don't read so good. "That's a horrible thing to even joke about." Except now you're saying you both were and weren't joking? RW isn't the place to pop off with outrageous nonsense like that. Knock it off.

21:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

At no point did I say I wasn't joking: the whole post was a joke, including the near-death part. Sorry if that wasn't clear, but I think you need to be a little more laid back. In response to "That's a horrible thing to even joke about," nothing is off limits if you don't read a joke seriously, so you should try that. - Jpop (talk) 23:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I should be laid back about you joking about physically harming people you've never met because they say things on the internet that you disagree with.

00:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow. That's all I can and will say. - Jpop (talk) 03:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Totally understand your anger, Jpop. Watching CP is often hilarious, but at times it also makes me really angry. Especially with this latest fat jokes crap, it's childish and cruel, and ABSOLUTELY not something Jesus would be happy to see. At times like these, I just wish there was some way to make them truly see and understand the pain they are actually causing to some of THEIR OWN EDITORS! 71.169.144.116 (talk) 23:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

My jokes are not fat. They just have big bones. --87.5.101.196 (talk) 20:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I picture Andy sitting back in his chair, laughing hysterically at his and Conservative's brilliant fat jokes. DogP (talk) 20:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Karajou, make me a cartoon![edit]

Karajou, make me a cartoon!^img wanna see karajou make a cartoon?^img and a third request for a satire cartoon^img--Mikalos209 (talk) 20:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

For someone who makes such a fool of himself, conservative sure obsesseses over perfecting his posts. - Jpop (talk) 21:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Ken has no creative skills of his own other than a childlike capacity to cut and paste bits of other people's efforts into his personal scrapbook, which he then locks so that nobody else can touch it. Although the other sysops are not really interested in his agglomerations I bet that he really wishes that he could prevent them from ever getting their grubby hands on one of his 'precious' articles. Nowadays Ken reminds me of nothing more than a slimy Gollum with his devious deletions and oversights. Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 16:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

It's tough getting blocked[edit]

It's tough these days. I've been steadily drinking and arguing about fat jibes. Somebody has called for me to be barred and ....nothing. A couple of years ago and I'd be waiting for Everton to sign players to give me new sock opportunities. (Seamus Coleman is great for the blues) Toffeeman (talk) 21:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised im not banned either--Mikalos209 (talk) 21:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Derp derp derp derp. DogP (talk) 22:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

JanW's been blocked. Perhaps Andy just misplaced the banhammer for a little while.Infoseek (talk) 23:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I actually believe CP is trying to "welcome" new editors a bit before banning them. Jan spent most of her time on talk pages from what I see. And oddly enough, they came out with a "community portal". Just watch before Andy deletes it.--Ameripedia (talk) 23:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

WTF!!! "your last 17 edits have only been to talk pages"... which is an utter lie. This man has no morals, like all bible thumpers. RatMaster ^háblame 02:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

DevonJ got whacked last night after calling out User:C, (not that there is any evidence left since everything has been oversighted, deleted and recreated. Devon was a homeschool kid who borked Andy's perfeckt scoring when he got a 9/19 on the history homewerk. He meandered a while before going off on Ken last night, several times. Instead of engaging the teenager's angst, Ken scurried away from a fight and simply unpersoned him. (RobSmith should take a look at Devon's edits and reinstate him if the 5 year ban wasn't warrented. 02:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

You've been drinking and laughing over this? Me too! The fat phobia on CP is so good because conservatives tend to be overweight. Only in Ken and Andy's fantasy world are the religious toned and thin like Christ. We know the reality to be different. So while odious, objectionable and hateful, it is exactly the kind of material I want to see them produce. I'd also like to see Karajou do a 'toon of a queer hanging from a tree. I want their hateful natures to be obvious to all who visit. But I've also had about 5 vodka sodas, so what do I know? --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 03:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Ya, but have you seen this? http://conservapedia.com/User:SharonW^img Here is an overweight woman who has clearly been hurt by this. See her comments on the main talk page. It is sad. Infoseek (talk) 04:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of pitying the obese, but her talk page really hits home. I think the best way to show the shittiness of CP to every halfway-sane CP editor is by directing them to this page. - Jpop (talk) 20:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

PBR got blocked for asking about the evolution article. --Opcn (talk) 06:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Phil, Jesus said, "The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Look, a glutton and a drunk." [14] We know Jesus drank alchohol, how do we know he wasn't overweight? nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 18:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Does someone want to propose adding "no fatties" to the CP commandments? -Lardashe

I sorta wonder if conservative would pass that test. Considering how much time he spends editing, does he even have time to leave the house? AND he's never released a photo as far as I know, possibly out of fear for displaying his hypocrisy. I'd honestly be surprised if ever exercises. - Jpop (talk) 20:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Must be nice, I suppose, in a perverted sort of way. I've been 403's for what, months now. Knobs claims to have "unblocked" me, to no effect of course. Andy ignored the email knobs suggested I send the owner of the site. Hey, wanna make a difference? Raise that issue on CP. ħuman 06:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Andy's Ph.D.[edit]

Does Andy hold a Ph.D.? If he doesn't the article must be modified. Proxima Centauri (talk) 13:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Andy holds - if that is the phrase - a Juris Doctor - which appears to be some sort of ~~colonial~~ US, and specifically Harvard doctorate of law. Whether it's the equivalent of a Ph.D. I couldn't say. Jack Hughes (talk) 14:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I've never heard of him having a PhD. Does his article say he does? TrickyDickTurpis (talk) 14:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not a Ph.D., and he has never claimed to have one. A J.D. does not have any sort of research component. As far as I can tell no articles need to be fixed except "Ph.D." and a bit of crap that was recently inserted into the quantum mechanics article. --Benod (talk) 14:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Where exactly does the Ph.D. article (which isn't actually an article about PhDs, as it's a redirect) say that Andy has a PhD? He's only mentioned in the "anti-credentials" section so far as I can see. alt (talk) 17:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Someone just changed the article to redirect to Credentials as a result of this discussion. It's in the Fossil Record. - Jpop (talk) 20:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, shouldn't this be moved to the talk page of Ph.D.? I'm not even going to try and do it. - Jpop (talk) 20:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Proxima's the only idiot who created the problem her question was meant to solve. What a fucking cretin. ħuman

06:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Look, kens talking to us :D[edit]

I enjoy annoying people (us) who want to look at this site by spamming the edit history! also, the show preview button is wimpy, and we should have an hour where it doesn't work!^img oh and conservapedia compulsive obsessive disorder reared its ugly head--Mikalos209 (talk) 05:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

annnnd its gone--Mikalos209 (talk) 05:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Preview is for pussies--User:Brxbrx/sig 06:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Why does Kenny always delete his zingers to us? Is he ashamed of them? Where's the machismo?--Willfully Wrong (talk) 07:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, if what he said about preview buttons being wimpy are true... then he's actually the only manly man around--Mikalos209 (talk) 14:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow, editing "full throttle" means saving every glimmer and then editing 24 more times to "perfect" it? ħuman

06:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Ed?[edit]

No comment Pippa (talk) 06:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

the resemblance of the dude in the picture to Ed Poor is disturbing--User:Brxbrx/sig 07:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean disturbing? Personally I think he looks way too young. Also, admitted bronie here, lol. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 08:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The one thing I remember about those things is the movies being seriously fucked up. --Yossarian^{Speak, Memory} 09:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

And here I was thinking that this wiki would be a pony-free zone. Vulpius (talk) 16:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

That was quite the involved, lengthy article on 'bronies'. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 19:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

uh oh, atheism is in trouble guys[edit]

shockofgods video has 6 THOUSAND views guys!^img you atheists be in some more trouble too, cause he encouraging other creationists to help!--Mikalos209 (talk) 19:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

This is how it starts. Little things like a youtube video going after a certain belief system. Next thing you know it snowballs into a next spanish inquistion. And when it comes (and trust me, it'll come) I don't want to hear anyone say they didn't expect it, because I'm warning you now.--Thunderstruck (talk) 21:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

5000 of which are sane people who are getting majorly trolled. - Jpop (talk) 00:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Lmao. And Lady Gaga's "Bad Romance" video has 350,000,000 (350 million) views. U KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS!!!!! LADY GAGA IS TAKING OVER THE PLANET! RUN!!!! RatMaster ^háblame 00:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

What does 4chan or Something awful make in daily visits? --Mikalos209 (talk) 03:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Gosh, other youtube creationists. You mean that creepy paedophile looking guy with the huge headphones might pitch in to combat evolution too? Damn, now I'm sure evolution is going down. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 04:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, going by Ken's 'logic' (if that doesn't distort the meaning of that word too egregiously), if this is 'burning up atheism and evolution' because this one video has had 6,000 people view it, the fact that Thunderf00t's video has got over 200 times that number of views must mean that creationism is burnt so completely there's not even any ashes. This must be especially true if you also consider this is only part 1 of a 29(?) part series, and all individual parts have viewcounts of several hundred thousand. Of course, there is also the fact a video of a surprised kitten has 48 million views, so I suppose that must mean we all have to convert to 'suprised kittyism'. 86.161.121.92 (talk) 12:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

ALL HAIL TEH KITTY.--Thunderstruck (talk) 14:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

164,971,919 views - but I'm not converting. --OompaLoompa (talk) 14:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

This secularist video about the Kentucky-State funded Noah's Ark Park has almost 5,000 views on YouTube! Christians are in trouble in Kentucky as a wave of scientific refutation is about come crashing over their bows! The view astern doesn't look very good for Creationists on YouTube, as secularist flotillas are on Full Steam Ahead! Await orders for a long, hard torpedo up the transom, Creationists! DogP (talk) 17:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Ole! Ole! Ole! The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 03:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Faint, Irritating Sounds[edit]

Atheism cannot explain a faint annoying sound attacking a village like it did in the 70's^img therefor, proof atheism is not true, but it makes me wonder what god's angle is on the faint annoying noise.

I saw that and assumed it was parody. Then I saw that it was Aschlafly that put it there. The mystery atheism can't explain is how can an upper-class lad like Andy can get a world-class education and come out dumb as a board.--Simple (talk) 21:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

He really shows his stupidity more and more. I clicked on the article hope for at least some vicar giving a spin, but nothing. So I guess Andy's answer would be, "The Christian explanation is that God works in mysterious ways." --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 21:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone know if someone's tried to figure out what it is? It reminds me of the bloop. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I remember seeing a special on some station about a few people hearing some annoying swound back in the day--Mikalos209 (talk) 23:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

My town smells like cat piss. I'm not kidding. The air outside reeks of cat piss. Could this be god as well??? Senator Harrison (talk) 03:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Probably means you were blessed by Freyja flying over. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 04:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Can You Hear the Hum? --Opcn (talk) 05:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Nice catch. That probably also explains why this sounded vaguely familiar to me. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

See WP. It's just the old: "No explanation? - Goddidit". Pippa (talk) 05:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we should haz snartikle on topic? Humjobs? ħuman

06:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Atheists can't explain it? On the contrary, gotta be HAARP, I say. Junggai (talk) 11:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised that mass hysteria isn't listed on WP as a possible explanation. Occasionaluse (talk) 12:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Indulging ken[edit]

Many among us have raised the concern that here on WIGO:CP, we enable Ken by constantly linking to his crazy, and thus giving him what he wants: higher PageRank. I came across this bit on TOW. I would suggest that someone who knows something about this sort of thing add this bit of code to the page, to quell concerns that we are promoting Conservapedia, or more precisely, Ken--User:Brxbrx/sig 02:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Is there a problem in encouraging something that brings down a failed, legitmate idea basis website?--Mikalos209 (talk) 03:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, should have read the source. All external links are already tagged nofollow. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 03:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

So we never boosted CP's rank?--User:Brxbrx/sig 04:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Nope. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 04:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Good to know. I say we make a public service announcement!--User:Brxbrx/sig 04:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

So why did you phrase it as a lecture to people who already knew, rather than an apology for being a recently schooled noob? ħuman

06:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't join the boycott, being a legitimate editor on CP--Mikalos209 (talk) 04:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Theres no boycott just because 1 twerp says there is. Nutty Roux 13:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

so...[edit]

were boycotting CP?--Mikalos209 (talk) 05:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

no, forget about it--User:Brxbrx/sig 05:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It's just ChristopherS aka Ty being silly. Pippa (talk) 05:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Shame. Knowing how kara, kenny and rob are such massive attention whores I look forward to them upping the insanity during boycotts to try and grab our attention. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 12:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

WTF? Boycott?[edit]

Did I miss the debate link that was placed on this page so everyone could voice their opinion on the subject of another boycott? Or is this a Ken style 'campaign' where some idiot unilaterally decides he's going to do something and everyone ignores him? -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 14:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Well it is Ty, so take it whence it comes. However, these days "doing stuff and not giving a shit about the mob" seems to be the way RW is run. He's also been edit warring over it. Maybe we should allow him to back to stalking people on RWW. --OompaLoompa (talk) 15:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I worked that out after I'd posted this and promptly put the switch back in its 'off' position. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 15:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone explain why anyone else cares if the CP crowd is active or not on RW? Is there a reason to disdain one of the more active communities on RW? --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 15:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Having never been outside the bounds of WIGO:CP on RW, is there animosity towards this segment of the RW community? Jdellaro (talk) 15:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Not really, there's just two or three users who really, really want RW to shed its CP-obsessive past. Ty seems to be the most vocal about it. When asked on his talkpage he replied "Because it annoys the CP-watchers". So yes, as Iscariot says, it's some idiot unilaterally deciding he's going to do something and everyone ignores him. ^{ONE / TALK} 16:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I might be joining them soon as its already boring and predictable and i've only been watching CP for a few months!! But I cant see whats wrong with letting people use this page or any point in a boycot thing.

16:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Why does he care what other people do instead of getting on with his own life and interests? --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 16:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

His behaviour at RWW would indicate that "what other people do" is his own life and interests. --OompaLoompa (talk) 16:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, that's a pretty accurate description of everyone here on WIGO:CP, more or less by definition! Phiwum (talk) 17:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

To be fairer, criticizing people who say stupid things and criticizing people for criticizing people who say stupid things are pretty different. - Jpop (talk) 17:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's just stupid. (Criticize me! I double-dog dare ya!) More seriously, I haven't seen any calls for the boycott and I agree that such calls seem silly and lame to me, but of all of Ty's alleged faults, I can't take "caring about what other people do" so seriously. CP is a useless, irrelevant site and there is no good reason to spend any time reviewing their silliness at all — aside from our own personal fascinations with what certain other people do! The real difference between Ty's boycott proposal and what we do here at WIGO:CP is that we're not (I assume) trying to stop CP from making their amazingly entertaining site. What would we do if Andy sobered up? Phiwum (talk) 17:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but that's a fundamental difference between the "Boycott" and what we do at CP WIGO, which goes to the point: Ty cares enough about what other people discuss as to actively try to bother/stop them; whereas here we simply observe and discuss. Perhaps you don't, but I have plenty of good reasons to be fascinated with what reactionary evangelical wingnuts think and do. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 17:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Breaking news!![edit]

Jpratt knows "with near certainty" just what Obama's personal feelings^img are. This is even better than Andy's "95% you're a liberal" claptrap. --OompaLoompa (talk) 16:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Jpatt writes things that appear to be outright lies, such as this: "You can ask yourself, why would he want this? My reply is- Does George Soros want this? The answer is yes, Soros does want America to default and he has publicly stated his desires." You can find absolutely not one article, in either the right wing media or the mainstream media, that supports that statement. The only statements Soros has made contradicts that very idea, which is he thinks we should take on more debt, something that would be difficult to do if we default on our current. Jpatt's a fool with a weak intellect, but perhaps he was thinking of a well-known Soros protege named Druckenmiller who said a default is okay.[15] It's essays like this that continually evidence CP editors don't have their basic facts straight, so their opinions are pretty useless. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 16:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

So far, the only one I've seen clamoring for a default is one of JPatt's fellow sysops. And probably a whole bunch of other assorted nuts from the tea party fringe. Röstigraben (talk) 17:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Mh, let me correct that for you Jpatt: "He [Andy Schlafly] has proven that he cannot be truthful in small matters and he should not be trusted in large matters. It's all about the message for ~~Obama~~ Ken, appearance is paramount.". --ǓḤṂ^³ 17:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, me again. TK says hi. Anyway, you can find maybe a half-dozen refs for Le_tar_ _ statement above. Why bother, what is truth to the no_godrs? If you think you are Gonna look for Soros saying "kill America by default" , not listed anywhere, see Jpratt wrong again- then maybe you are just a bit to programmed. Let's not leave out what Rustygraben said either. It's the Tea Party. Those extremists bent on lower budget deficits, they want a default. Those protesting fiscal austerity, those evil people thinking about their grand kids future, bad rightwingers. Um UHM, anybody with a brain can read Rules for Radicals. --76.205.125.131 (talk) 17:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure that made sense to somebody, on some planet. Translation please. --Simple (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

English speak you, BoN? Not, think I. Disorder mental possible is? Translate possible is not. Gobbledegook speaking is. Pippa (talk) 18:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Internet argument 101: You know your opponent's inner life better than that person does. ... of liberals? (talk) 17:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh god, no, NOOOO[edit]

Ken has discovered Forteanism^img. We'll never hear the end of this bullshit now.--User:Brxbrx/sig 05:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Ken's not even trying any more[edit]

Never mind his obsessive page deletion and poor over-sighting this discussion^img clearly indicates that he's more interested in pissing on CP's editors with his inane babble, than creating content. Which given said content involves flying kitties, ponies and fat people, is saying something.

It's getting harder to imagine him typing without dribbling these days. --OompaLoompa (talk) 13:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

i like how the top reply is pretty much unrelated to the original question--Mikalos209 (talk) 14:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

What is "half a squeak"?

14:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

1/2 the decibels of an average squeak--User:Brxbrx/sig 14:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Decibels are logarithmic, so probably not. ND SP 16:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Assfly will not reply I am sure, even though the question is aimed at him. Have a look how long conservative has been editing. Taken a break now I guess --Buscombe (talk) 14:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Kenny sometimes forgets we can see just how much he's been shuffling and rearranging his turd collection even if he's deleted articles to conceal their history, which he's been doing even though he was asked not to and promised to oblige.

15:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Quite frankly I am very disappointed in our Ken. While he has often evaded the issue to avoid lying his recent deliberate deceitfulness is pretty shameful and not worthy of the Christian he pretends to be. If it wasn't for the fact that he's a Methodist he should go to confession and ask for forgiveness. Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 15:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I have to admit, I do feel a bit guilty making fun of a mentally retarded man, but I just can't help myself sometimes. Does this make me a bad person? TrickyDickTurpis (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Well you're apparantly going to hell anyway, so you might as well try and deserve it. - Jpop (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Presidential rankings: Jeb Bush[edit]

CP's 2012 Presidential rankings are only interesting if you enjoy watching Andy's fantasy world play out the way a child crafts a storyline with action figures. He has very little insight (remember Donald Trump moved to #2 as most-likely to win nomination even though everyone knew he was a crank[10]^img) and bizarre ideas as to what moves candidates to be higher or lower in estimation (Sarah Palin was demoted from #6 to #8 because The King's Speech won the Oscar [11]^img). Well, things are heating up in Andy's imaginary Presidential race: Jeb Bush is now 2nd most likely to win^img the nomination. Part of the reasoning is that George Bush's book sold well, making the Bush name "an asset again". This is despite Jeb insisting he's not interested, his poor polling numbers against Obama, and that Tim Pawlenty scooped up Jeb's Florida political operation[16], who presumably knew before signing up with Pawlenty that Bush was not going to run. Bush has also praised Pawlenty[17]. But only Andy the Seer truly sees the tea leaves. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 17:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Pawlenty is obviously only a stalking horse for Bush. At first, the campaign will play out uneventfully, giving Romney a false sense of security. Then, just before Super Tuesday, all of the other candidates will suddenly withdraw and endorse Jeb. He'll arrive at the convention on a white steed, all clad in shiny armor, and purge the party of RINOs and apostates. He will rouse the people like Reagan reborn and defeat Obama in a landslide. Then he'll appoint a little-known homeschool teacher from New Jersey as his chief of staff and together, they'll rid the nation of liberalism and restore it to its Christian glory. The end. Röstigraben (talk) 17:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Perfect peek inside the mind of Andy. Stalking horses everywhere; hidden agendas; amazing candidates hiding in the shadows; the possibility that anyone could be nominated at the convention. And then the mastermind behind the conservative masterpiece, Conservapedia, finally being acknowledged for his brilliant insights. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 17:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

You forget that in andy's mind,. saying your running isnt the most important factor in deciding where somebody should be ranked.--Mikalos209 (talk) 20:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's rather disturbing to think that Andy believes people running desperately away is just playing coy. It might help explain his total lack of charm, though. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Bachmann was ranked 3rd even though "she's said she's not running this soon.^img Now that she's announced she's running^img will that rocket her to the top of the list? Or should she be demoted since apparently not running is a strong POSITIVE (see Bush, Jeb). Jdellaro (talk) 13:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, she is a woman, and as such the lack of a certain appendage will hinder her ability to do anything effective, being to envious and therefor distracted of/by her male co-workers. --Mikalos209 (talk) 14:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Will she have to defer to Mr. Marcus Bachmann for any issues not related to the raising of their children in the White House and the White House dinner menu? Jdellaro (talk) 14:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

On a side note...[edit]

I've been meaning to ask. Is the field of unserious and/or unelectable propositions for the republican nomination a symptom that the republicans are already resigned to defeat and that no one serious wants to run because they'll ruin their image for 2016, or is it just that the republican party consists exclusively of the unelectable and/or unserious? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It's a recognition that to win the GOP primary you have to be so batshit insane, there ain't no way you can win a general election. It's sort of nice that the GOP primary does such a great job of weeding out absolutely ANY realistic challenge to Obama's reelection. Oh, and atheists are fat. Jdellaro (talk) 19:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I think Jdellaro hit a good point: it's an embarrassing field to be part of. But I think the smart candidates know that a campaign against Obama is a losing proposition. I think Mitt Romney is the new Bob Dole. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 23:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

What Leotardo said, plus he's also the new John McCain, another sacrificial lamb who got the chance to run once the party realized there was no point in wasting a potential good future candidate after eight years of Bush pretty much guaranteed a Democratic win. P-Foster (talk) 23:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Great now I really want Palin to get the nomination for 2012. --ǓḤṂ^³ 23:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Basically, to oppose Obama, the GOP has had to dump policy that it once created and promoted, e.g. the individual mandate for healthcare, cap-and-trade, etc. (Pawlenty's recent cap-and-trade apology tour is a particularly salient instance) and move even further right. Thus, GOP policy is now based on denialism and conspiracy theories: Global warming is a hoax by evil liberal scientists and Al Gore (who's also fat), trickle-down always works, the evil Mooslims are imposing Sharia law on the US (and maybe even creating terror babies), Obamacare is a government takeover/death panels, a debt-default would be totally awesome, etc. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The conservapedian take on It gets better[edit]

At the least, abstinence will prolong your life^img. The "It Gets Boring project" (my friend Lana came up with that one) also acceptable, the "It Gets Lonely project" and the "It Only Gets Worse project" --Opcn (talk) 01:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Or rather, it gets better after you die. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 03:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't everything, Jeeves? The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 04:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Abstinence will prolong your life? Hasn't Andy effectively been arguing for years that abstinence gives you breast cancer? TrickyDickTurpis (talk) 04:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

That's abortion. Or were you making a joke? If so I'm being dense, apologies. ^{ONE / TALK} 08:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The foundation of the "abortions leads to breast cancer" theory has always been that having kids lessens your chance of having breast cancer, ergo not having kids (i.e. abortion) increases that risk. That's always been the extent of the argument, and any idiot can see that it applies equally to abstinence. DickTurpis (talk) 11:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you can expect Andy's insights to be consistent. Vulpius (talk) 12:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I never read much into Andy's insight here but I always thought it was being pregnant and then not giving birth and/or breast feeding that caused breast cancer. Presumably due to... swollen breasts? Breasts getting ready for a baby that never comes? I dunno. That's how I always read it, anyway. X Stickman (talk) 13:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think her ever made that point specifically. Really, I've only ever seen him make he case that having children undeniably cuts the risk of breast cancer by 95%, and the opposite of having children is having an abortion. I think I once tried to ask him who would have the lower risk for breast cancer, someone who had 10 children and 10 abortions, or someone who never had sex? Either I was banned before the question could be asked, or I never got an answer (was years ago, I forget what happened). By his own logic (heh heh, "logic") the answer is clearly the 10 children lady, but you won't get him to admit that. DickTurpis (talk) 14:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

If you take the "abortion is murder -> contraception is murder because it prevents a life" line, then anti-contraceptioners (is there a term for such folk?) should be on the job 24/7, because any time spent NOT having unprotected sex is preventing a possible life and is therefore MURDER! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 14:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Ken finally exposes himself as a parodist par excellence[edit]

The current edition of New Scientist (dated 13 June 2011) contains an article entitled A field guide to bullshit. It takes the form of an interview with philosopher Stephan Law about his new book Believing Bullshit. The following question and answer are contained in the article:

Question:You identify some strategies people use to defend black hole beliefs. Tell me about one of them - "playing the mystery card"?

Answer:This involves appealing to mystery to get out of intellectual hot water when someone is, say, propounding paranormal beliefs. They might say something like: "Ah, but this is beyond the ability of science and reason to decide. You, Mr Clever Dick Scientist, are guilty of scientism, of assuming science can answer every question." This is often followed by that quote from Shakespeare's Hamlet: "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy". When you hear that, alarm bells should go off.

On the very same day that the article comes out Ken writes on Talk:Main Page^img about demonic humming. He states:

"Creationists believe in more rapid speciation than evolutionist. I propose a new form of cricket. :)[18] John Baumgardner might say that it is a geological phenomena that defies uniformitarian geology. :) Alternatively, spiteful demonic humming. :) "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." - Shakespeare conservative 08:28, 13 June 2011 (EDT)"

I ask you, is he not clearly outing himself as a parodist by including that same Shakespeare quote in his post on the very day that the New Scientist article uses the quote as a criticism of anti-science nuts? That cannot be coincidence can it? It is a signal. It is a wink to us. He has been playing with us all along. He is the master of all parodists. All hail Kenneth DeMyer. You sir are a genius. --Horace (talk) 07:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

A field guide to bullshit? Must be the longest book ever written. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 07:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

If Ken is a parodist, by this stage, he's spent so much time and effort on his "parody" that he's at least as sad as the people he's trying to mock. We can get a bit obsessive with CP, but we don't spend 30 solid hours (or whatever his record is) constantly talking about it. Either that, or he's several people using one name, for years and years. X Stickman (talk) 13:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

If he's the work of a whole team, those guys would have to be incredibly organized to manage years of seamless handovers while maintaining a consistent style. They'd have to adhere to a strict schedule and expend lots of effort on endless repetitive tasks, only to dump a few more "essays" on a wiki that has already become a laughingstock. And kdbuffalo/Peter Moore/etc. have been active for years before he turned up on CP. Röstigraben (talk) 14:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I think "Ken Demyer" is a University psychology department. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 14:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Or just one of their experiments gone awry. Röstigraben (talk) 15:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

It's an algorithm with a goal and a random, but somewhat patterned walk. Someone submits (or something generates, as of recently) input as a goal. From the start state, the algorithm walks towards the goal. That's how you get things like tons of one-pixel changes (something we're trying to fix). Occasionaluse (talk) 15:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Say what you want, but Ken is undeniably the greatest troll to ever live, whether he's a parodist or a man in dire need of medical help. - Jpop (talk) 19:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

That does it; I'm going to repost Those Who Can't somewhere. The greatest troll to ever live is Phyllis Schlafly. Mountain Blue (talk) 20:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Is this a first?[edit]

A reasonable, fairly accurate article about an atheist scientist^img. What's happened? How long will it take 'em to bowdlerise it once it's been on here? Pippa (talk) 07:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The photo looks spookily like Kirk Cameron. Is it possible they got them confused? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 07:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

They have to be quite nice about Feynman as they included him in 'Best of the Public' (although the mystery as to why a Nobel Laureate, highly qualified physicist is not an 'expert' continues..) Worm (talk) 08:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Worry no more! Ken has already begun revamping the article. So far the new content is rather timid, though I did enjoy Ken's edit summary which read simply "athiest nerd". ^{ONE / TALK} 10:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure Ken doesn't have Rationalwiki Obsessive Compulsive syndrome. It's just a coincidence that he started crapping on the page, the minute we mentioned it. Maybe we should start a "list the ok-ish articles that Ken needs to crap on" page. --OompaLoompa (talk) 10:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

What??? No Hitler? --Thunderstruck (talk) 13:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

we're only giving him ideas^img--User:Brxbrx/sig 13:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we should list all the articles on CP that aren't complete shit (short list). Would it count as vandalism if we encouraged Ken to add to it? --Night Jaguar (talk) 14:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly my philosophy. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 17:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Gawd, I love how he reads this page and acts accordingly. Dance for us Ken, dance for us! --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 14:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually there's nothing wrong with the Ken addition: wonder where he cribbed it from. Oh I see he's given his source. Almost verbatim & in one edit - Well done Kenny boy. Pippa (talk) 16:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Hah, that's what you think. The patrol log says otherwise. Ken is just getting more "cunning" with oversighting his cockups. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

User 188--nothing but perfection[edit]

Ummmm Creepy Uncle Ed just added his eighth^img revision over a 7-month period to make the Mean Girls article perfect. His last edit was necessary, though, as CP doesn't want to exaggerate the relative importance of The Plastics in the school's social life.^img Jdellaro (talk) 16:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Surprised he has time, what with creating quality, encyclopedic articles like this^img. Godspeed (talk) 19:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

He seems^img to have something^img on his mind^img today. Indeed.^img P-Foster (talk) 19:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Haha on the "Gay deceiver" article link. Gays don't want to marry each other because they love each other and want the civil benefits that come with marriage; they want marriage "precisely and mainly to give homosexuals greater immunity to criticism than claimed by Jews or blacks". It's always been a dream of me and my boyfriend that one day, hopefully, New York will become the next state to legally make it worse to criticize a gay than a Jew or a black. It's the holy grail of all gay deceivers. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 19:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The Holy Gayil, if you will. Carlaugust (talk) 19:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow on Gay deceiver^img. Ed is a horrible human being. --Night Jaguar (talk) 20:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I genuinely didn't know that Gay Deceiver was anything but the name of the vehicle/person from Heinlein's so-bad-it's-good novel "Number of the Beast" until this. I mean, obviously it parses as English, but given the number of other references and allusions in that book which don't go anywhere I never thought about it. Wikipedia suggests a remarkable list of potential meanings, from bra padding to highwaymen. No surprise then that CP chooses none of them and instead goes into a rant about something from their imagination. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 21:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Gay Deceiver sounds like the name of a 1940s swindler comedy. Vulpius (talk) 23:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Poke^img...Ban^img Jdellaro (talk) 19:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

It's obvious ReneH was a Gay Deceiver, look how he compared gays to blacks and Jews! Ed knows! --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 21:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

not something new but[edit]

not anything "new"^img but nobody EVER used the term "best of the public" before conservapedia did in an interveiw--Mikalos209 (talk) 17:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I have always found it interesting that the "Best of Scientists" doesn't count at CP. Since most reputable scientists agree with things like Global Warming, or Common Descent, at least in a broad sense, if not in the particulars, shouldn't we accept "The Best of Science"? And science has the ability to change, grow, and throw out wrong ideas. Oh Andru, you are really such a douche. Jimaginator (talk) 21:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Conservapedia showing secret Muslim symobls???[edit]

Exhibit 1
Exhibit 2
Exhibit 3?!^img
You be the judge. Carlaugust (talk) 22:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Mystery:Is Andy Schlafly a Muslim? --Night Jaguar (talk) 22:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Conservapedia National Anthem[edit]

I think we can all agree that if Conservapedia was it's own country, it's anthem would go a little something like this.

Even better for ShockOfGod. - Jpop (talk) 00:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I always imagined a more conservative american national anthem--Mikalos209 (talk) 01:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The Great Facebook decline... starting again?[edit]

didn't it start a few months/years ago?^img--Mikalos209 (talk) 04:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

One of my favorite Andyisms because it's a red flag to to conservative readers he's off his rocker. Conservatives belong to and organize on FB as much as everyone else. This Andy meme stands out as a 'best of the public' self-fucking: tar something everyone relates to and enjoys as 'liberal', and help make liberal sound good and relateable. Typical tea bagger - so extreme he hurts himself. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 05:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

From yesterday's Gawker, talking about the world domination of FB and how local social media sites are withering (it includes an interesting map!). Social media is here to say, whether it's Facebook, Orkut, MySpace, whatever. If FB declines, it is because it is being replaced by a competitor, not because people are abandoning what it does. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 16:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Very good Andy. All Facebook has to do is lose 593,999,981 more members (without gaining any new ones, which it is constantly doing) and they will have the same number of active users as Conservapedia. Keep at it, you're almost there! DickTurpis (talk) 18:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Andy attempts to refute Old Earth[edit]

Andy^img:Humans are getting dumber. Extrapolate backwards long enough and we should expect to see extreme geniuses. They don't exist. Ergo, time does not extend that far back.

I got nothing. Just speechless. --Night Jaguar (talk) 05:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

My head just asploded... The best (worst?) thing is that on top of the obvious stupidity, he's not even right about IQ scores over time. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

(EC) Two specific giggle-points are: (1) the Flynn effect shows exactly the opposite phenomenon with regard to IQ; (2) it is ironic that Mr. Schlafly should rely on extrapolation to "prove" a "counterexample," when he rejects the use of extrapolation with regard to the real counterexample of radiocarbon dating.

ListenerX^TalkerX 05:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Wait, maybe micro-evolution comes from the mutations created by the nuclear holocaust due to changing decay rates. Now that's thinking like a creation "scientist." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

You can make a counterexample with IQ's going up as well. People get smarter (in a steady Andy-mathematics type of way) -> if people have been around for longer than 6000 years people would now have IQ's of say 260,000. They don't. So -> Young earth. Look I'm a creation scientist now. Where can I pick up my degree? Internetmoniker (talk) 07:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The same place Kent Hovind did. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 07:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Flag Day[edit]

The american flag was flying side by side with the rainbow flag, OH NOES^img. On a side not, the linked stoy and coments are far more amusing. Fruity Pebles.--Thunderstruck (talk) 12:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

It is a smaller flag flying below their corporate flag, but I suppose if you want to outraged at nothing that photo as plenty of nothing to be outrages about. - π 12:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Debbie Schlussel is Ann Coulter, minus the dignity. MDB (talk) 12:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll never understand conservatives' obsession with the flag. It's basically an ugly dishtowel on a stick. DickTurpis (talk) 12:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

JPatt claims that the Pride flag was "flying side-by-side with the American Flag".

No, you dipshit, it's not. It's flying below the Citi corporate flag, and is substantially smaller than the American flag, too. It's clearly being given less stature than the American flag.

Note, however, that neither CP nor Schlussel points out, or perhaps even realize, that Citi's flag is apparently at roughly the same height as the American flag, though it's admittedly difficult to tell from the picture. The US Flag is supposed to be flown above every other flag. MDB (talk) 13:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course, this site of a rainbow flag flying during June, gay pride month, is a site you can see all over the country. Focusing on a Citibank office in Las Colinas, Texas isn't going to do anything. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 13:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

There's also the fact that the US flag is pretty gay just by itself. Stars and Stripes? If it didn't exist already and someone proposed it, it'd be immediately called gay. X Stickman (talk) 16:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I find ~~Shitty bank~~ Citibank's flag far more offensive -- they've done far worse than the gays ever did. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Whilst I couldn't give a fuck about gay or any other 'pride' shit, I'd love to see the rightwingers call for the government to create legislation specifying what flags private companies can and can't fly on their own fucking buildings. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 18:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Where Andy and I agree[edit]

One of the most heartening aspects of Conservapedia is their burgeoning anti-war stance^img. Let's leave aside the moral issues, and just talk about how America is bankrupting itself by taking on the policeman role that our friends in Europe refuse to do. America needs to take care of itself; we can't right all the evils in the world, even if that means Qaddafi, Ahmadinejad, Mugabe and Kim Jong-Il stay in power. We don't have the money to try to save the planet, particularly when Europe could care less. It's time to back down from our preeminent role in NATO. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 15:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget that saying what you just did 12 months ago, would have been a blockable offence on CP. --PsyGremlinPrata! 15:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Just try pointing out to your average American conservative that one of Bush the Lesser's major campaign promises in 2000 was that the US would not engage in "nation building", and then ask what he was doing in Iraq.

I think I heard someone tried that on Sean Hannity once, and his response was on the order of "that's not nation building because I say it's not!" MDB (talk) 15:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

EC Leo, do you seriously believe there is an iota of sincerity behind that so-called "anti-war" stance? It's an anti-Obama stance, pure and simple. These are Obama's wars, so CP is against them. Andy just made noises about Syria in his neoconservatism article, and even that had nothing to do with being anti-war as much as it was a way to use (potential) military action as a way to attack his political opponents. If American interests (...as defined by Andy) could truly be advanced with military action, or if one of his own guys was behind a plan for miltary action, Andy would be right there, waving the flag and beating the drum. P-Foster (talk) 15:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

What he said.

Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 15:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, when someone is arguing against flushing America's money on war I'm not going to second guess them. I don't support Obama's wars, either. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 15:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

But the difference is, you were against Bush's wars too. Andy on the other hand was so gung ho and pro war it was scary. He was almost orgasmic over the "surge". --PsyGremlinTal! 15:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter to me. I want us out of all these money-wasting wars; I voted for Obama with that being part of my hopey-changey stuff. That he continues it is a black mark, in my opinion, but the bloodlust of the evangelicals and the endless war-mongering of people like Lindsay Graham and John Bolton are far less palatable. So, I get it - they support people who are even bigger war mongerers than Obama, but I'm happy to have any voices rise up against America always fighting other people's battles, with little help from our allies. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 15:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

"I want us out of all these money-wasting wars; I voted for Obama." Then you fail at basic comprehension. One of his central campaign promises was to escalate the war in Afghanistan. P-Foster (talk) 16:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Hardly. First, I'm not a one-issue voter (not even with gay rights, which is another important issue for me). Second, McCain would have been much worse (remember "Bomb bomb bomb Iran"?). Obama also predicated his Afghanistan war escalation on the premise to finish it, and with commensurate troop reductions in Iraq, not that I find those arguments persuasive. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 16:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I never understood self-declared pro-peace people voting for a candidate who threatened to escalate a war as a central part of his platform. That would be a deal-breaker for me. Once he bombed a village in Pakistan less than 72 hours after taking the oath, it was pretty clear where he stood on the use of military force, and it's only gotten worse. This is yet another reason why Americans need to start looking beyond a two-party system. "McCain would have been worse" doesn't bring back any of the civilians that have died at American hands since January 2009. P-Foster (talk) 16:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

"Americans need to start looking beyond a two-party system"---At best, that's an idealistic comment, at worst, it shows a gross negligence of the current state of American politics to believe that we will see any type of viable third party within the next 200 years of American politics. The two parties are firmly entrenched, and have dictated campaign law to cement that status. Jdellaro (talk) 16:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

"I never understood self-declared pro-peace people voting for a candidate who threatened to escalate a war" - so tell me, P-Foster, did you sit the 2008 election out, or vote for McCain? In the end, those were your alternatives. Yes, while saying McCain would have been worse doesn't bring back dead people, it probably saved a few that he's not at the helm. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 16:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

EC Jderello, America actually has a pretty strong history of revolutionary change to oppressive regimes when it puts its mind to it. "It'll never happen, so there no point in trying, just accept it for the next two centuries" is a pretty piss-poor attitude to bring to the idea of social and political change. P-Foster (talk) 16:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

"America actually has a pretty strong history of revolutionary change to oppressive regimes..." Are you talking about internal or external regimes? It's one thing to rally up and expel an external regime, it's a wholly different undertaking when that regime is one of two major political parties. Now, as for putting words in my mouth, ya gotta be careful, because often my foot resides there. I didn't say there's no point in trying, or accept it for the next two centuries. What I DID say is that to believe such a change will happen is at best idealistic. And before you think I just roll over and accept it, I'm proud to state I'm a perfect 3 for 3 in presidential elections---Nader in 2000, Nader in 2004, and Nader in 2008. Even in the past, major party platforms have habitually co-opted the issues of smaller parties. My sincere *hope* is that one day a party will co-opt the issue of campaign finance reform, but in the wake of Citizens United (and the fact neither Dems nor Repugs are willing to take an honest look at their corporate overlords), I don't see that third-party emerging in my lifetime. Jdellaro (talk) 17:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm talking about the British and the institutionalized racism that defined American social and political life for most of its history. P-Foster (talk) 17:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Point taken...but as a close follower of national American politics (and a voracious reader), I continue to have low hopes and lower expectations due to the overwhelming obstacles and barriers erected in front of third parties. Has changed occurred in the past? Yes. Did life arise out of the primordial soup? Yes. Because things have happened in the past doesn't necessarily give me hope that it will happen again (or on the scale necessary in the stated time period). PS: I think at this point we're discussing the relative optimism/pessimism of change actually occurring. I don't doubt that there are people who would LIKE this to happen, but to suggest "Americans need to look beyond a two-party system" acts as if we're not aware of the direction we need to take, and that it's merely a lack of effort or caring by those committed to change. Jdellaro (talk) 17:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

@ Leotardo. I am not an American citizen, therefore I did not vote. P-Foster (talk) 16:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

That's a cop-out; you can still say what you would do since you fancy critiquing the choice I made. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 16:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Were I an american citizen, I would have done what I do in my own country, and voted for a candidate from a party that best reflected my interests, probably one of the Green or Socialist options. P-Foster (talk) 16:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

What you can say for Obama, but not really for Bush, is that he didn't really have any good options open to him. Pulling out all forces on day 1 from both Iraq and Afghanistan would not have been a great solution, as it would have further destabilized both countries, and in Afghanistan would likely lead to return of the Taliban. I'm not entirely sure what the best course would have been, but Obama basically had his hands tied because of Bush's actions. DickTurpis (talk) 17:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I see your point, it was a shit sandwich, and he had to take a big bite. Repeated drone attacks against a country with which the US is not at war didn't need to result from that, nor did Libya, the expansion of Bagram, the continued denial of justice to the people held at Gitmo, the extension of the Patriot Act, the call to not pursue military justice at people involved in illegal renditions and torture....P-Foster (talk) 17:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec x 2) I think it's fair to assume that Obama realised pretty quickly that he'd inherited such a clusterfuck in Iraq and Afghanistan that there could be no quick and easy withdrawal of US troops, without leaving behind a situation that would likely be worse than before they went in. He had to choose the lesser of two evils. --OompaLoompa (talk) 17:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

He ran on the position of doubling down in Afghanistan by declaring victory in Iraq and moving troops from there. While I blame Bush 100% for starting two needless wars, at the end of the day I never bought the idea that Obama was interested in "peace" in any reasonable definition of the word. P-Foster (talk) 17:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not just Andy, cutting back on America's defense spending and commitments abroad is apparently emerging as a new Republican policy plank, at least when it comes to rhetoric. That's also something that I would consider smart, but like you, I have zero confidence that these guys are actually willing to see it through. Under Bush, Republicans eagerly directed hundreds of billions into the pockets of defense contractors; under Obama, they have consistently exempted military spending from their lists of proposed cutbacks. They kept shouting down efforts at reigning in spending with their "support the troops" mantra, while wasting billions on useless prestige projects and cutting corners for things like body armor or medical treatment.

As to whether Obama or the Democrats are any better, I'm not sure myself. If you're a pacifist, any imperial administration will act in ways that you will find repugnant. Nations usually rise to the top of the pecking order by force of arms and will seek to maintain that status in the same way, if for no other reason that the fact that their power advantage is especially pronounced when it comes to the military. There's the problem that "when you've got a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail" as well - choosing force becomes a matter of habit that only gets more deeply ingrained when there's a huge bureaucracy backing military options and shaping the reports that the leadership gets to see. Pacifism is de facto a policy that only very small, secure nations without international ambitions or commitments can pursue. The bigger a country gets, the more attractive the use of force begins to look for its leaders, no matter who's in charge. Obama is a captive of the same structural constraints that made most of his predecessors choose force, and the same thing would happen to, say, President Paul or any other politician who professed an anti-military stance as a candidate. Röstigraben (talk) 17:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Libya, at least, is a different beast entirely. Obama did not start a war there; it was already happening, and the Arab League itself requested help from the west. This was not at all the case in Iraq or Afghanistan. Furthermore, initially we were looking at a no-fly zone, which is significantly different than a war; they had existed pretty uncontroversially in Iraq for over a decade before Bush invaded. My distaste for the endeavor started to rise when it became clear that this no-fly zone went pretty well beyond what we thought it would be.

As for Gitmo, Obama did try to make good there, but was thwarted by Congress, even his own party. He could have fought harder, but it was an uphill battle, thanks largely to cowards in the Senate. The Patriot Act is also a conundrum. It's mostly associated with its worst aspects, and those should certainly be tackled, but it was a huge act, and contained some necessary modernizations. Extracting the baby from the bathwater would be advisable here. DickTurpis (talk) 17:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, yes. The Arab League wanted it. Whenever I look for moral approval, the first regimes I turn to are Sudan, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Bahrain and Syria. P-Foster (talk) 17:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

It was unprecedented at least. And it made it clear this was not an attack on Islam, which, again, is the opposite of what the Iraq invasion appeared. DickTurpis (talk) 17:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm certainly not going to justify Obama's new wars, and I dislike how he is handling American war policy, but I also don't regret voting for him because it's not the only issue. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 17:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Without wishing to condemn or condone the intervention in Libya, do we not sometimes have the moral responsibility to intervene? I am reminded of what happened in Rwanda while we looked to other way. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

No, we don't. The weight of the world is not on our shoulders and tax dollars, with little help from Europe. We can't prevent every horror in the world. When we are okay with flushing a trillion dollars on a needless war, but debate rebuilding our cities struck by natural disaster or how we can't afford healthcare, it shows seriously fucked up priorities as a country. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 17:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Long and complex debate. Starts with the centrality of anti-slavery campaigns and the "civilizing mission" as a central reason given for the colonization of Africa in the 19th century. It's pretty rare that you'll see a country willing to spend blood and treasure for humanitarian reasons without that country having its own agenda at play. P-Foster (talk) 17:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘"My distaste for the endeavor started to rise when it became clear that this no-fly zone went pretty well beyond what we thought it would be." I also heard we would be greeted as liberators in Iraq and it would be a "slam dunk" with victory in a year or two's time. Another one for the "hoocoodanode" file. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

There's a difference there. One was speculation based on a self-deceptively optimistic view of a situation beyond the control of those who planned it. The other has to do with the malleable definition of "no-fly zone". Like I said, we had these in Iraq and the seemed to do a relatively decent job of protecting the Kurds and such, and it really didn't look like a war. Libya looks quite a bit different. In any case, the primary difference between Libya and Iraq is that there's a war in Libya whether we're involved or not. If NATO involvement were able to end it quickly it would probably be worth it, but apparently that's not happening. This is much different than invading a stable country, killing thousands upon thousands of its inhabitants, and occupying it. DickTurpis (talk) 18:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The difference (or should I say similarity?) is that the goal in Libya quickly became regime change, and as you note, the definition of "no-fly zone" became malleable. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

"A New Jersey activist"[edit]

Read "Terry A Throwbottom link-whoring his blog again."^img Enough of this Terry - WE WANT MOAR DINOSAURS!!!! --PsyGremlinSnakk! 19:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

YOU DO NOT CRITICIZE THE 90/10 RULE[edit]

see this^img, and then this^img.--User:Brxbrx/sig 18:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah good old Angry Bear (is watching... always watching...) - how I've missed his impotent rages. --PsyGremlinTala! 19:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Ha, that was me. I was right, wasn't I? ^{— Unsigned, by: 24.208.243.241 / talk / contribs}

In other news, did a CP sysop just do a copy^img/paste^img instead of just moving the page? Just how clueless are these people? --PsyGremlinSpeak! 19:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Voodoo paedophiles![edit]

Ken is at it again^img. I don't know what's best, his continued assumption that "you're fat/homosexual/a paedophile!" is an argument or that he manages to call Obama both a Communist and a fascist in the same essay. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh^img Jesus^img fucking^img christ^img it's^img spreading.^img

00:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Jeeves, you haven't paying attention. Nazism, liberalism and socialism are all the same thing. P-Foster (talk) 00:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

red telephone[edit]

You know, its only the pedophile thing we resented. And you have no evidence for that^img--User:Brxbrx/sig 00:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

also, lol at the Keynes practiced lesbianism thing--User:Brxbrx/sig 00:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

What a gutless little chickenshit Ken is for not even having the courage to leave his shoutout up long enough for people to read it.

01:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

sorry. put it up as fast as I could. it was some stuff about Keynes' weird behavior, then some stuff about his sexuality--User:Brxbrx/sig 01:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Haha - he really does dance for us, shuckin' and jivin', postin' and deletin'. Sigh - Ken DeMyer, RW's lil'est minstrel. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 01:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC) yes, I should feel bad he's a mentally disabled minstrel

The "Keynes as a pedo" thing is actually really old meme because he was open about a number of gay affairs he had before he got married (and we all know that means he was a pedo because the gays reproduce by recruiting little boys). Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Leo, technically the term is not minstrel but buffoon. Jester and fool work too. The three work rather well with our suspicions of a developmental disability--User:Brxbrx/sig 02:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Similarities between commies, NAZIs and Libs number 4[edit]

here^img What is the deal with #4? What on earth does kicking immigrfants out have to do with liberalism? --Opcn (talk) 19:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Everything?--Mikalos209 (talk) 21:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Duh, protecting union jobs? nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 23:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

If immigrants could take union jobs then non-union Americans could take them. --Opcn (talk) 00:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I love the phrase "doing things their way in our schools." Because liberals aren't people/Americans too, so it's "us" v. "them." The liberal hordes must be taking over in his mind... άλφα^Talk 00:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

non-union Americans taking union jobs makes no sense; they wouldn't be non-union Americans after they took union jobs then. Also, the liberal anti-NAFTA racists like Dennis Kucinich. If you can make sense out of his racist rumblings, please do so. [19] nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 02:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Doornobs, a non-union worker working a union job is...all together now...a SCAB.--Thunderstruck (talk) 02:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

SCAB? you mean some poor, unemployed shmuck trying to feed his family is a...scab. A fellow human being is a scab, closely related to untermensch. Yep indeed, this word is the granddaddy of leftist hate speech. The "n" word, if you will of the working class. Such cvompassion! Such love! Such caring for the poor, the oppressed, the downrodden, the hungary, the hudled masses yearning to be free. Yep, leftists welcome them into their open arms with "scab", when someone dares challenge them about their fucking greed. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 03:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

You know, thats somthing I never understood. Why do Republicans hate Union "greed" The head of a corperation does everything they can to maximize they're profits from laying off these hard working people, to shipping jobs to countries where pay is next to nothing. Hell, even when they get a ridiculous amount of tax cuts, with the understanding they would create jobs, they sit on the money. And yet union "greed" is bad. Is it because unions don't vote republican?--Thunderstruck (talk) 13:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sick of those Hungarians coming over here and taking our jobs... DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 07:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

That's what we call people who cross picket lines and threaten the ability of workers to bargain in parity with employers, knobs. It's ancient history since Reagan raped the union movement in the 80s, but still interesting history. Last Exit to Brooklyn is one of my favorite Christmas movies, by the way. ħuman

06:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, ditto what Human said. It shows a whole lot of fucking compassion for the working man to defend the employer's right to pay shit wages and no benefits, then to use whatever is in their power to crush the employees' ability to bargain. Not to mention their right to shut down the factory, put so many of those "fellow human beings" you cherish out of work, so that the employer can pay even shittier wages and less benefits to a worker in Indonesia. Your sense of humanity is astonishing, Rob. Junggai (talk) 10:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Corporate profits get kicked back into creating more jobs for other people, i.e., helping your fellow human beings, whereas union greed is all about personal consumption expenditures, i.e., consuming one's resources completely on oneself. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 20:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Which is why corporate profits continue to grow but unemployment remains high, right? Oh, I know, it'll trickle down eventually. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

We're still waiting for the Stimulus to trickle down.... nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 00:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Failure of one policy does not validate another one. Also, many of those in favor of the stimulus argued that when the final bill was passed, it would not be enough to close the output gap. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevent? the 40 million people whose who are now, or have experienced unemployment in the past three years are irrelevent? And BFD if they wanted more wasteful government spending and debt, it's results that matter. Even with gas stablizing lower at $3.50 (down 25 cents), Obama's bump in the polls for the bin Laden kill has been wiped out. He's right back where he started from. Do those idiots in the White House honestly think killing bin Laden & Gaddafi makes up for $4.00 per gallon gas and 9% uemployment? or his own Defense Secretary telling Gaddafi & the whole planet NATO is a useless as a third tit with no future in the midst of a war? Can you imagine FDR's War Secretary saying, "hey, what are we fighting for?" while Hitler was in the bunker? Jeezuz Fucking Christ these commie libs are dense. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 03:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, irrelevant to your claim that corporate profits will necessarily increase employment. Deny this and lose all credibility. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

One of two things will happen with corporate profits sooner or later: 1) they will be distributed to shareholders who in turn will either (a) use them for personal consumption expenditures which in turn translates into consumer demand, spending & employment or (b) reinvestment; or 2) they will be retained earnings within the corporation which in turn will be reinvested in the corporation to produce more earnings, and profit for the corportion. This cannot be down without (a) directly employing more people, or (b) directly investing (purchase or partnership with) other businesses that likewise employ people, or (c) lend profits to others who in turn employ themselves and/or other people. Here's the dirty little secret: investment = employment. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 04:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

So corporate profits are way up under Obama, therefore Obama is handling the economy well, unemployment is soon bound to plummet, and prosperity is just around the corner, eh? Good to know. TrickyDickTurpis (talk) 04:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Dream on. You forgot inflation, excess regulation, taxes, and stagflation. Also, mom 'n pops aren't doing so well, either. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 04:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

So your previous mini-rant about corporate profits=employment was BS? That must the be fastest flip-flop I've ever seen. TrickyDickTurpis (talk) 04:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, here's the deal: you & others seem to be proud of the fact that US corporations are immensely profitable under Obama Good. Those profits are creating jobs -- overseas. Careful what youn wish for, political opponents may stick that up you ass along with yur boasting. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 04:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not proud of anything. I happen to know that what the President does generally has fuck-all to do with the economy. Why people vote based on the economy is beyond me. Might as well vote for a President based on the weather. TrickyDickTurpis (talk) 04:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Yep. And George Bush went into Iraq for WMD, too. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 04:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, are we doing non-sequiturs now? OK, here goes: Rice Krispies are called Rice Bubbles in Australia! TrickyDickTurpis (talk) 04:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

What? You mean we didn't go into Iraq for WMD? Those neocons sure didn't intend to inspire democray and the Arab Spring, did they? What was it then...it didn't have fuck-all to do with the economy, did it? Sure, Bush was an oil man, and Dick Cheney got lots of contracts for Haliburton, but they weren't trying to stabilize oil prices through gaining a regular supply, were they? No, what the president does has little to do with the economy.... nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 04:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Still not sure what this has to do with the topic, but whatever. Yeah, we allegedly went into Iraq because of the non-existent WMDs. Whether Bush was a perpetrator or a victim of the fantasy of WMDs in Iraq is a question for a different thread. Not sure what this has to do with Arab Spring. Are you trying to say that it was a direct result of the Iraq War? Sorry, I don't think you con provide evidence for that. Are you arguing the purpose of the Iraq War was to grab oil? Because I honestly have no idea what you're saying. If so, that sort of puts you at odds with your neo-con friends and well into the commie-lib camp, so I assume you're not saying that, and therefore not saying that Bush was trying to help the economy by keeping gas prices low. Whatever. This has just about nothing to do with the economy, and you're making about as much sense as usual (i.e. precious little). It seems you're trying to counter my statement that the President can do little to control the economy by countering with the argument that the President can do a lot: he can seize all the world's fuel supplies, keeping prices low for us and encouraging a stronger economy. If that is your argument you're as stupid as I thought. DickTurpis (talk) 12:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ So we see eye to eye; just as Bush traded blood-for-oil in Iraq, Obama is trading blood-for-oil in Libya. In bopth cases, it was an economic motivation. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 20:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC) Rob, we all know deflecting your own racism onto others is one of your standard defenses, but I really don't know what you're getting at here. Do you have any ideas that, you know, make sense? TrickyDickTurpis (talk) 10:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

What what what?[edit]

Osama Bin Laden? Iraqi WMDs? Fuel prices? I thought this was a discussion about the pros and cons of trade unions. Knobs, you are special. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 14:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

It's Rob Smith we're talking about here. He can occasionally have 2 relevant, on-topic posts in a row, but then the third has to be completely out of nowhere. That curse was part of the deal when the ghost of Joe McCarthy granted him his supernatural commie-sniffing powers. DickTurpis (talk) 14:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Ken and the paraders of the mock-up ark[edit]

Ken gushes over some CMI shit about the dutch ark^img. Yes, it totally could have happened. If Noah had steel superstructures, industrial barges on which to float the thing and millpond flat water. But he was supposed to have made it out of gopher wood, you dolt. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 10:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, gopher wood is hard to come by these days, what with the bible not actually ever using the word ever again. My assumption would be it was a type of tree in the antediluvian that didnt make it, if it isnt a modern kind of tree. --Mikalos209 (talk) 14:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I suspect Noah just told his boys to go for wood.-- Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 16:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Ken seems delighted that they can build the same sized ark. Cruise ships eclipse that regardless, but they aren't called "Noah's Ark" with wood paneling to hide the reality it's a gimmicky modern ship. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 17:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

There's a quote by Terry Hurlbut (hehe) on FSTDT now where he claims there were dinosaurs on Noah's ark and some are still alive today. Apparently, medieval knights killed many of them off. Almost seems like Terry is trying to outdo Andy and Ken. --Night Jaguar (talk) 18:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Ooh that one's mine! Yay! Busy pissing myself at the comments. --PsyGremlinPraat! 21:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Par for the course with Conservapedians, Terry has an inflated sense of self. His "pods" of dinosaurs that are still alive are basically lake monster myths, like Champ, who apparently represents the "pod" of dinosaurs in Lake Champlain, Vermont. Could you imagine, as an evolutionist, if you went around citing pods of Sasquatch as examples of living missing links proving that evolution is true? --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 18:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)