Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive270

This is an archive page, last updated 16 December 2011. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>

, (new)(back)

Just in case that you missed that time when TK and Bugler were running CP...

...I give you Ken and JamesWilson:

• Ken: "Behold, my latest essay,^img which is just a horribly broken GIF and links to other shit! I can't even be arsed to put text into my essays anymore!"
• MaxFletcher: "The animation is crap."
• Ken: "LOLOLOLOL"
• (rinse, repeat a few times)^img
• Ken: "I am moving on." ... *banhammer*^img
• MFletcher: "Andy, help!"^img
• JonG: "Abusing multiple accounts now?"^img
• MFletcher: "The block appeal is utterly broken, so I need to-"^img
• JamesWilson: "TROLL!"^img *banhammer*^img

And just like before, all the sysops are sitting there, happy that Conservapedia is growing thanks to great editors such as that guy who gleefully blocks anybody who questions the system. --Sid (talk) 00:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

And things like this make me wonder why we give a shit about CP. Rob tried to open it back up and even you were invited back, but it's back to being complete garbage... if not worse. This is proof that the site is beyond repair and has no hope of ever being seriously taken. Senator Harrison (talk) 01:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe CP is dead. {User talk:User} ^{— Unsigned, by: 95.154.230.254 / talk / contribs}

Dead, but with the maggots swarming over its carcass giving it a convincing appearance of movement? Nah. It's dead as any kind of encyclopaedia, but it's a perfectly lively wingnut hate blog. --Longbow (talk) 03:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh james, maybe oneday you might manage to curry favor and be one of the big boys.--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 03:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Typical James Wilson for ya. I hope he becomes a CP admin just so he will stop littering Ameriwiki with bogus accounts. He can ally with Ken, and they can become a tag team duo saving the world from liberal atheist bestiality!

Well Sanders if you weren't a fucking LIBERTARIAN destroying any credibility of that site he wouldn't have to! --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 03:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey hey hey! At least I'm FISCALLY conservative!--Colonel Sanders (talk) 04:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The question is, who is going to be persistent enough to be able to slash the throat of CP and drink it's still-warm blood without getting banned and muted andfucked up the arse for it? I mean, it's not like it's throat hasn't been slashed and it's blood drunk before (I'm looking at Illinois). -- 08:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Cows in african tribes are used as currency. If anyone's seen Bizarre Foods with Andrew Zimmern, the Masai tribe commonly shoot an artery in the neck of a cow and drain its blood to drink. They use its feces in a mixture to form their huts. They use its urine to wash their hands and hair. It's only kept alive because it's more valuable to them alive, and they use the shit out of it until it basically falls over and dies. That cow is CP. Sid's post should be a WIGO and I'd post it, but I have a whining grandmother to take care of. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 16:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't get too excited about JamesWilson. We all know there are no genuine editors left, except the sysops (and some of them are suspect). All James is doing is playing a belated Bugler card, having hitched his horses to Ken's wagon. This is pretty clear by his censorship of Smeg Ed being called on his plagiarism.^img That's why it's no fun commenting on the bit players on CP anymore, they're ALL parodists. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 17:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

An Ed-Stub of old...

Ed never had a clue.^img Ace^ace 03:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Ed never had any shred of academic integrity. If an asshole like Ed ever sat for any of the classes I've taught I'd report him to the dean for cheating. 05:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I don't think plagiarism can get any lazier than that. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Nice find, Nutty Sack. Ace^ace 05:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Holy cow! What an utter asshole Ed is. Phiwum (talk) 13:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm Confused

Andy is gloating that S&P is about to downgrade Germany and France, on account of their atheism.^img But didn't our Great Christian Nation beat them to the punch? I guess that's the power of President Anti-Christ. Whoover (talk) 00:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

↑ --★uːʤɱ structuralist 00:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Another thing that Andy seems to have missed is that the European countries which are diving down the shitter - Greece, Ireland, Spain, Portugal and Italy - are all devoutly religious, while secular Germany, Holland and even to some extent France are all financially in much better shape than the USA. --Longbow (talk) 01:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I just slipped on the porch and fell on my ass

Now normally when we get into December it's so fucking cold (here in Alaska) that the snow and ice don't phase change under the pressure of your foot and you don't slide. A;sp normally I sweep the snow off of my porch so that I have none under my feet. Well right now it'd 43f out (3c ish) yesterday it was 38, the snow at the side of the porch melted and spread a puddle over the surface and then it just barely froze last night. Conservapedia-please report on this weather!--Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 21:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Bitch it hasnt pushed 40 in weeks where i live, its currently 26 and snow o9n the ground, MY situation is much more dire to global warming! --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 21:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

In the 50's in mass. I contemplated taking the top off my wrangler.--Thunderstruck (talk) 23:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm still growing summer crops here in Florida. By the way, what does snow look like? Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 23:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Overrated. Everyone says its beautiful, but then people drives and walk on it, and its all grey. and brown, (and sometimes yellow). Losses its beauty.--Thunderstruck (talk) 00:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm in London, where it's still abnormally warm. Oh and it rained hard today. For the first time in weeks. Normally the forest is slick with mud at this time of year. This year it's abnormally dry. Darkmind1970 (talk) 00:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Snow is cool when you first see it or are a kid. Then you turn 15/16/18/blah and have to drive in it and it INSTANTLY loses any fun factor--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 03:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense! Snow is fun. It's a pain in the ass, but it's fun, too. Phiwum (talk) 13:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

This year in Minneapolis, the snow to date has been rather pitiful; just a few inches, barely enough to cover the ground. ListenerX^TalkerX 00:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Apparently there are ski resorts in the Swiss Alps that can't open just yet due to lack of the white stuff. Snow that is, not coke from shaky Sloane Rangers. Darkmind1970 (talk) 12:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

(@ListenerX - whoo, Minneapolis!) I can't wait to get more snow - that's the only way our shitty roads get their potholes filled. Carlaugust (talk) 20:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Ken vs. "We are atheism"

Yet Another Ken Essay^img (and its unburnt history^img). I know, I know, don't feed the troll, blah dee blah.

BUT... I found this one hilarious. Why? Because Ken is trying to mock the "We are atheism" campaign.. while Ken's antics are pretty much its own "We are Christianity" campaign. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, this is apparently the face of Christianity: A random idiot on a site full of idiots, spending pretty much every day of his life taunting atheists and endlessly trolling the community he is a part of with his pointless attack essays. --Sid (talk) 23:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Check out Category:Satire, the man has way too much spare time. - π 23:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Someone's just pointed out to^img Ken

 that "We are Atheism" has about 150 times as many likes on Facebook as his precious QE! campaign does. Banhammer in the next five minutes? --Longbow (talk) 23:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Facebook is liberal and atheistic though. Ace^ace 23:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Both talk page^img posts are likely candidates for sudden archive-by-deleting-talkpage. --Sid (talk) 23:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Wait...Ken created Atheism and Homosexuality? (It's linked off the We Are Atheism page) My first ever parody article was titled "Atheism and Homosexuality" and he deleted it six months to the day before he created his article. I guess I'm just ahead of the curve. --Roofus (talk) 23:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I dunno why we bother to really comment on these; he only writes them to get out attention, after all who else other than a few CP editors is ever going to see them? He needs us because we give validation to his otherwise pointless existence. After all what does he have to his credit? The long moribund Richard Dawkins project? Or the anti-Abortion and anti-Socialism projects that never left the train station? Or the QE campaign, which is so lackluster that Kenny has to rely on vague promises from anonymous individuals he never met on the web for any evidence that anyone gives a damn. Seriously, the "essay" is just the same old rehash anyway. There is perhaps a new sentence of thought in there but that's it; we seen it all before, there is no new revelation or information to be had. He is stuck attempting to repackage his bellowing into the wind about "teh evil atheist conspiracy" over and over again. If Ken is the example of what Christianity has their apologetic defender, then atheism has already won.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 00:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I wonder what would happen if we ignore him. I mean, don't read his essay's, don't comment on him, don't link to him. I think the lack of attention would make him cry.--Thunderstruck (talk) 02:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

@BMcP - Well said. I salute you. 02:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

well, look at that! Ken has made a few phone calls it seems. Ace^ace 02:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

It's amazing how, in Ken's mind, "A friend of someone in our Question evolution! campaign group has a Facebook page with 18.000 fans" becomes "18,000 Facebook fans volunteer." --Longbow (talk) 03:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)--Longbow (talk) 03:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

You're mis-parsing Ken's addled grammar. "18,000 Facebook fans" is actually modifying "volunteer" (as a noun). For Ken, "18,000 Facebook fans" is an adjective. It applies to someone whose Facebook page has 18000 fans. And this particular volunteer is thus an "18,000 Facebook fans volunteer".

Glad to help. Don't mention it. Phiwum (talk) 03:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Your help is much appreciated but, mea culpa, shouldn't have been required. How awfully silly of me to have forgotten that Ken

is a semi-literate fuckwit. --Longbow (talk) 03:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

"Illinois student pledged to share the campaign on Facebook 30 minutes a day". How long do you suppose that commitment is going to last, a day, maybe two? Of course this presumes this individual, or any of the other vague pledges are anyone outside of someone who replied to Ken saying, "I'll think about it", and promptly deleted that spam from their inbox. At this point I wouldn't be surprised Ken counts us as pledges, as we mention the campaign here, in order to have any numbers to show.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

No longer content to dance on individual graves...

....Andy dances on a continent-wide economic crisis affecting millions^img. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 23:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

If S&P downgrades too many more countries, I suspect that their ratings will not be held in quite such high regard. ListenerX^TalkerX 00:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Given that the ratings are relative, if S&P downgrades everyone they will have achieved nothing. - π 00:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Gee, Standard & Poor. We'd never thought that a shrinking economy would lead to shrinking tax reveneu and higher credit rates for us. Hey, folks in Berlin you got it wrong all the way! You actually have to make the economy grow instead of shrinking it! Oh, yeah there was something else we wanted to talk to you about. Yeah, all those businesses you graded wrong, you know those in that little mortage bubble a few years ago and after they collapsed we had to buy our banks out so all of our economy wouldn't collapse? Yeah? We'd like our money back for that. What? That's not possible? Well, I guess we have to just pray for a better economy then. --★uːʤɱ pirate 00:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I've read the Senate report on S&P's role in the financial crisis (hey, it was a boring day at work) and I think it's fair to say that they're a bunch of muppets. Actually I've met some of their people in London and I know that they're a bunch of muppets.Darkmind1970 (talk) 10:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Conservapedia on youtube

About 3 minutes more of Andy talking than I would like in my life, but it shows his homescholars. Seem like normal enough kids - I weep for their education. link Ateafish (talk) 23:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

We have seen it before, but thanks. - π 23:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The one i9 share is from eagle--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 00:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh God, are these his homeschoolers? The ones exposed to his World History diarhhoea? Catch 'em while they're young, Andy. The Hitlerjügend would be so proud...

I love his claim that "Wikipedia has become unsuitable", so he felt the need to create a new online encyclopedia. Written by children who don't know what they're meant to be writing about. Couldn't he, erm, have used those big heavy papery things?

Well at least there's a kid at 0.05 wearing a Che Guevara shirt. Apparently the commies have even infiltrated the Imperium of Conservapedia... Ironclad (talk) 01:41, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Look closer, it has one of those no smoking red lines through it. You see those advertised on right-wing site. Pimobile (talk) 01:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

That's about the 90 millionth time someone has said that. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 03:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

If it didn't happen yesterday then there's an exceedingly strong likelihood that it's been covered here; many, many times. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 09:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

That is an old video, in fact it is the only video on their channel. It looks like in March of 2009 Andy or one of his acolytes created the channel, dropped in that one video (itself a couple years older, being from 2007) and completely forgot the channel existed. Except for Ken

of course, who is using it to link to another channel's 2011 QE campaign video as the staring video of the channel, showing only again another glorious CP project that never left the station and is now rusting on the tracks.  4chan's /b/ channel shows more innovation that CP does.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't follow football at all

But the only place I've seen anything good written about Tim Tebow is on Conservapedia; everyone else seems to hate him. So is he any good or what? --Roofus (talk) 05:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

He has an unusual throwing action which causes him to throw the ball late. Natural runner, but not the right build for a running back, keeps going as he is he will have to retire in 5 years due to concussions. Stinks the place up for 3 and a half quarters, but somehow pulls it together in the last 5 minutes to win. Talks about God a lot. Pimobile (talk) 05:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

That last 5 minutes is miracle time. Sure God let locusts destroy a crop full of rice that would have prevented Somali children from starving to death to make it happen, but that last hail mary pass in the most recent game was so worth it! --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 05:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

So he's not actually that good at getting stuff done for most of the game then will break out Mjolnir, the lightning powered hammer of the great god Thor, in the last five minutes and win the game? He sounds like a Manchester United player. -- 08:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually he kneels by himself and prays whilst the defence tries to get the ball back for him, started a short lived craze called Tebowing. It was probably the quickest trip to old meme in history. - π 11:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Wait. He did the kneeling-and-praying thing while the game was in progress? --Sid (talk) 13:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Yep, at least while his defense is on the field. Granted, he probably should be reviewing the last offensive series of plays, but he lets the Lord do his planning for the next. Aboriginal Noise ^Punkrock 14:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Seriously? My impression is that it was a 5-10 second "thank you Jesus" -- he's really letting it cut into time when he should be thinking about the game? MDB (talk) 14:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Wait, I thought that was a touchdown celebration. I didn't realize he was holding up the game with that. No wonder people hate him. --Roofus (talk) 18:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

He isn't holding up the game with it. When the defense is on the field, the offense is not. A defensive series can take upwards of 10 minutes at times. Granted, he isn't praising Jebus for that whole time, or even most of that time, but other quarterbacks will, as soon as they hit the sideline, begin reviewing photos of defensive schemes from the last offensive possession and discuss them with coaches to figure out ways to exploit any weaknesses in said defensive schemes. Aboriginal Noise ^Punkrock 19:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Ahhhh, I see now. Thanks for clarifying that! :) --Sid (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

At first I didn't think CP mentioning Tebow repeatedly was worth commenting on. After all they simply praised him on his accomplishments^img. Sure it was because he is quite possibly the most overtly Christian player in the NFL, but I felt he deserved his accolades for keeping his team in the playoff hunt, a team that was before him taking the reigns, looking like they would have a terrible season. Then Ken

after six edits, had to shiat all over JPatt's original Tebow remarkimg  making it into some sort of "Tebow versus atheists" and "atheists can't play football" thing.

First off I have seen no "atheists against Tebow" movement anywhere. Secular folks, like everyone else, like him or dislike him based on whether they are a Broncos fan or a fan of one of the team's rivals; or like the majority of people, do not care. Tebow himself, despite all his religiosity, never utters any negative statements towards secular folks. This is likely because unlike Ken

, Tebow is somebody and is a success and thus does not feel the need to lash out at others to cover for his own failings at the game of life.

Second, from my perspective as a huge NFL fan, Tebow, despite some major shortcomings as a quarterback, is doing a great job leading his team. This particular OT victory was nice, although it should have not come to that. Really the Broncos (Tebow's team) should have overwhelmed the Vikings (who are just an awful, awful team, even if they weren't missing their best offensive player, Adrian Peterson, to injury) instead of allowing the Vikings to stay in the game to the very end. Much of the credit for these Bronco wins should go the team's defense (often overlooked as they are not nearly as attractive to the media). Tebow himself really has average quarterback numbers at best (his one excellent stat being he has thrown only one interception). He has the skill set to make a good backup, but he isn't really a starter in the NFL, and definitely not an elite quarterback. Despite this, he has a future in the league, just not one as star starting quarterback; expect Denver to go after another in the off-season (and Tebow signing with another team).

Of course they (Denver) will more than likely lose one more game this season (possibly two, their remaining schedule is soft). Despite this, they'll likely make the playoffs, but will not last against the elite teams of the AFC (none of which they played against yet and won). Once that happens, all CP talk of Tebow will be dropped like a hot potato, and that will be that.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 11:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

What makes this even funnier is that the (San Francisco) 49ers are somehow (and I don't know how) having a record of 10-2 and don't get any mention on CP. --★uːʤɱ socialist 11:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The Niners didn't get mentioned any where until they beat the Giants, after they lost to the Ravens nobody cares about them again. Only link is that Alex Smith is Tebow's prototype (with a slighly better throwing action), why would they care? Nice to see they are winning now they have a coach that is thinking rather than praying. - π 11:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

CP would never mention them in a positive light because Frisco is full of fags. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 11:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

They are moving to Santa Clare after SFC fucked them over with the whole Olympics bid thing. - π 11:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Not that I'm a huge football fan, but since he became the starter the Broncos have very narrowly beaten some pretty mediocre teams (and one or two gods ones). If they had the schedule of say, the Giants, and were playing Green Bay, New Orleans, and San Francisco instead of Kansas City, San Diego, and Minneapolis, they'd have a much different record. DickTurpis (talk) 13:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

On a slightly different topic, what's with Ken and this effeminate atheist shtick? Isn't his argument that women are more religious than men, so wouldn't that make Christianity effeminate? Also, quarterbacks are hardly the toughest players in the NFL, as they generally have the toughest guys protecting them. I realize looking for logic in Ken's retarded ramblings is futile, but still, let's put some effort into this, eh Ken? DickTurpis (talk) 13:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh come on. All us gays are weak, effeminate, and unathletic. But Andrew Schlafly, well, he could beat Phil Heath himself. Ironclad (talk) 13:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, yeah... with his mostly defensive weapon of gun! MDB (talk) 13:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I prefer the mostly aesthetic weapon of "guns"... Ironclad (talk) 13:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Just one thing about the WIGO for this... I'm no football fan, but the WIGO hints that football does not require intelligence. While in general it doesn't, Tebow is a quarterback, and as I understand it, that position requires a pretty decent amount of brain power. MDB (talk) 13:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes and many "play organizers" in any sport are very intelligent people, but it is a different kind of intelligence that one would require in academics. In most sports one does not have the time to analyze a situation but you have to think on your feed. Of course, such a thing can be a talent, but a lot of it is experience that is studied in. Also I don't think the WIGO is saying "quarterbacks are dumb" it's just saying that CP holds a disdain for academical work and a liking towards this, erm, silly concept of the strong manly man. --★uːʤɱ digital native 20:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Teams that are playoff caliber that will not receive praise on CP:

• Green Bay (12-0) - Wisconsin voted for Obama in 2008 (and Kerry in 2004) and thus a "Blue State"; has both Madison and those union protesters; Walker is threatened with a recall and thus out of favor with Andy (claimed because he and Republicans are not conservative enough on Abortion, while really its about union-busting)
• New Orleans (9-3) - Liberal city; home of Katrina disaster which was made worse by said liberals according to CP; also contains decedent (and gay friendly) French Quarter. Police vehicles have a Muslim symbol on their sides.
• San Francisco (10-2) - Its San Francisco, 'nuff said.
• New England (9-3) - Name says it all; New England area is solidly blue and liberal. Plus the team is actually located in the worst offender, Massachusetts or "Taxachusetts", amiright?
• Baltimore (9-3) - Liberal city in a liberal state tied closely to Washington DC.
• Pittsburgh (9-3) - Full of liberals and union workers; inside liberal "blue" Pennsylvania which has subbed Santorum.
• Chicago (7-5) - OMG its the city of OBAMA! Double negative penalty for having Jesse Jackson (and Junior!) and the state that held the Democratic deserters from Wisconsin!
• Detroit (7-5) - Liberal wasteland city killed by liberalism! Michigan is also a liberal bastion because it is suffering population loss, even if it has a Republican governor and legislature, because if it was truly conservative, people and jobs would be flocking there.
• NY Jets (7-5) - Maybe; It is liberal New York! Stadium is in New Jersey though, home of Andy (and Terry).

Teams that are playoff caliber that may receive praise on CP:

• Atlanta (7-5) - This is a maybe; it is Georgia, which is generally in CP's good graces, but Atlanta itself is rather liberal and does hold Georgia Tech.
• Houston (9-3) - Its Texas! Home of Perry and megachurches and cowboys and giant steaks! Thee premiere conservative state!
• Dallas (7-5) - Ditto above! Double plus bonus that Cowboy's owner Jerry Jones is such a ruthless capitalist, which gets the Objectivists all wet.
• Denver (7-5) - Teboooooow!! He smites atheists in the NFL with righteous long bombs of the LORD!
• Cincinnati (7-5) - Maybe; mixed feelings on Ohio with Republican conservative governor, but state voted to protect union collective bargaining. City is near the Answer In genesis Creation "Museum".
• Tennessee (7-5) - Good wholesome Christian state that is conservative, has a 1000 churches in Nashville, is the center of country music and tries to fight the evil Darwinians! Minus is that it is the home of Al Gore.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Helmet ballet. Sad. So very very sad. Bikinied pillow fighting vixens probably exhibit more machismo --Brendiggg (talk) 14:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Tebow is a cowardly, money-grabbing fuckwit compared to the likes of Pat Tillman 62.208.155.4 (talk) 12:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Ahh, here come the CP trolls.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 11:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering...

I was thinking about this the other day. In most cases, conservative figures seem to have liberal counterparts; there's a batshit crazy liberal who is sort of the mirror image of your batshit crazy conservative. But is there any liberal anywhere, famous or just someone you've encountered, who is as nuts as Andy Schlafly? I'm looking for a liberal who brings a liberal/conservative, good/evil dichotomy into absolutely everything the way Andy does. There certainly have been people who will disparage every conservative idea, and will attack someone like GWB no matter what he does, but I'm looking for someone who can't like something without insisting it is somehow liberal, and can't dislike something without somehow painting it as conservative, the way Andy does (in reverse). "I like tacos; tacos are a liberal food. I don't like donuts; donuts are conservative." That sort of thing. Is this unique to Andy? Does anyone even come close? DickTurpis (talk) 13:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I was like that in college... but I did it as a joke. (For instance, I'd try to blame every trivial problem and annoyance on Ronald Reagan.) MDB (talk) 14:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I went for Faculty drinks the other night and ended up stuck next to a woman who blamed all of the world's problems on religion and/or capitalism, claimed that going on holiday is justification for getting an abortion, and was so frothing-at-the-mouth about climate change that she actually said we should abolish consumerism and technology in order to return to the social organisation and technological level of the Middle Ages, as climate change and general life was so much better in the twelfth century. Minus the religion. Does that count? Ironclad (talk) 14:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there are any. Although Andy's existence is pushing me away from things that he claims are conservative. I have little interest in watching The Kings Speech, specifically because Andy has praised it. -Lardashe

Andy hasn't actually seen it, though. ^{ONE / TALK} 14:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

A liberal Catholic fluffy bunny of my acquaintance reads the Bible in essentially the same way Andy does and is every bit as brazen about it: Those parts of the Bible that back up his secular political views are Divinely inspired and Divinely preserved; the rest of it is an internally contradictory mess that no sensible person takes seriously. ... of liberals? (talk) 15:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

All the theists cherry-pick their favorite parts. Just be glad he's cherry-picking the warm and fuzzies instead of the gay-bashing and Supply-Side Jesus parts. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

As a former pastor of mine liked to say (and I'm confident I've quoted here before), "All Christians ignore the parts of the Bible they don't like. Some of us are just honest about it." MDB (talk) 18:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Barely two weeks ago, actually. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 19:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

See "truther." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

What distinguishes Andy is not his level or brand of crazy, it's his mommy. No one would care if not for his mommy. So really that cuts down the pool of potential mirrors drastically, you need to find someone ridiculous and liberal but not enough to be famous, but who has a famous parent to give them a boost. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 18:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Also remember that while Andy is big in our lives (a disturbing thought just entered my mind of how much time I've wasted on CP) to most people he isn't even an afterthought. If you mention Andy Schlafly to a US senator (which I've done twice) you get asked who you are talking about, and are they related to Phyllis Schlafly? --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 18:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

They're not an exact mirror-image, but radical feminist blogs are about the closest I've seen on the left (I had fun reading their craziness before I discovered CP. Andy blew them out of the water.) There was one who said she'd wished she'd aborted her son because now that he's 15, he won't stop looking at internet porn and there's this one who has a whole section of her blog dedicated to how Joss Whedon is a rapist. She thinks this because she didn't care for Firefly.

And for a bit of gratuitous personal history, my own mother went radical feminist (one of the reasons I moved out when I did) and I found out that being a radical feminist led her to not liking Jews. Why? Because she heard somewhere that every morning, Jewish men pray and give thanks that they're not Jewish women. My attempts to explain to her that if this was true, they're just probably giving thanks for being who they are fell on deaf ears and led to quite an argument. lol --Roofus (talk) 18:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

It's typical Jewish masochism. We're really thanking God for giving us extra burdens, in the form of commandments (mitzvot). It's the third of a trilogy of prayers recognizing our need to fulfill commandments cumulatively reserved for freemen, Jews and males, respectively. It's the most humble wording the Talmudic scholars could come up with for "I know I have extra shit to do." Whoover (talk) 19:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Good call on the feministas. They too suffer from the saem debilitating lack of perspective that Andy does, looking at every little thing as an expression of gender bias. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 23:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Also they do another thing Andy and co do, substituting their opinions for the opinions of a diverse group. That's partly where you get Anti-porn feminism from. "I don't like pictures of naked people => No woman should like such pictures => Women who do like them must have been corrupted by the patriarchy and can be regarded as traitors to their gender" (and more cynically "I do like such pictures, but I think they're naughty and that's why I like them => Branding others who like them as wrongdoers helps me to feel virtuous and gives me cover" see also the long parade of closeted Republican politicians who gave anti-gay speeches). The exact same logic that allows Andy to dismiss every Conservative figure who disagrees with him as a RINO or whatever. The women in my peer group would give such "feministas" fits. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 11:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

You might have a point, if the anti-porn feminists really were motivated by a matter of mere taste. They aren't. They believe (rightly or wrongly) that porn changes the way society treats women, by objectifying them.

I won't defend radical feminism as a whole, but this caricature of the anti-porn movement is far from the mark. It's not a matter of taste. Phiwum (talk) 12:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

They aren't motivated by this spurious "belief" as you can tell by their actions. They're motivated by spite. How dare other people enjoy something? If they cared about this supposed "objectification" they'd have put some effort into understanding its extent. But they don't care about that, because understanding is incompatible with their true motivation of spite. Knowing what's actually going on in people's heads on this subject would give them uncomfortable answers whereas just being able to point at images and people you don't like and make the Body Snatchers noise is much better. It's like Christians "believing" they need to mistreat gay people because some book says it's a sin. An excuse, and not a very good one. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 17:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm probably being a bit unfair above, and something between what I wrote and what Phiwum is saying is true, but the AP feminists just annoy the hell out of me, and their ability to trick people into thinking they represent women (ie the majority of our species) when they're a tiny fringe movement makes them a disproportionate threat. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 12:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

"But is there any liberal anywhere, famous or just someone you've encountered, who is as nuts as Andy Schlafly? I'm looking for a liberal who brings a liberal/conservative, good/evil dichotomy into absolutely everything the way Andy does." Oh yes, I mixed with too many Trotskyites in my mis-spent youth. They're every bit as nuts as Schlafly. The reason people like us think the world is full of loons[*] is that Trotskyites and Schlaflyites are never afraid to expound their ill-formed opinions on each and every issue, no matter how deep their ignorance. The Real James Brown (talk) 17:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC) [*] I mean idiots not young lads from Aberdeenshire, who are generally fine.

Trotskyites aren't liberals, you tool. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 18:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I thought the person who asked the question meant 'liberal' in the CP conservative-versus-liberal sense, i.e. liberal being anyone to the left of Genghis Khan. I'm Spartacus! 20:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

According to CP, Fred Phelps is a liberal. I find this a strange description of a man who thinks the US Marine Corps is a pack of God-hating, fag-loving friends of Dorothy. --Longbow (talk) 02:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

"What do speedy sharks and golf balls have in common?"

They do have something interesting in common, but Ken sure isn't going to tell you in any way that makes sense to a normal English speaker.^img I think the word you're missing, Ken, is "dimples." Also, golf balls travel much faster than 80 km/hr through air, but not nearly that fast through water. Also, neither has humpback whale flippers. Not to mention the CMI article he links to is full of shit, but can apparently fool simpletons with fancy science talk. What a terribly written ejaculation by Ken. 184.154.145.30 (talk) 03:41, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

What the hell is a "Darwin Fish"? --Marlow (talk) 05:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The essay is quite something, with it being a poorly made Gif and all--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 05:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

If you haven't seen a Darwin fish before, see Darwin fish here on Rational Wiki. You can see Darwin Fish too but that's something quite different.--Spud (talk) 05:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I love the comments on the talk page: User: "Your animation isn't very good." Ken: "Blasphemer! Quail before my mighty awedomeness! QE is going to win!" User: "Yeah, sure, but your animation is still crap. Can't you get a better one?" Ken: "More blasphemy! QE is pure awesome superbness! The animation isn't important!" User: "It looks terrible and makes the article look sloppy." Ken: "QE blah blah blah! I'm moving on." Darkmind1970 (talk) 10:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I love his redundant link-whoring to different versions of the same thing to pad out the drivel but describing one as "PDF facsimile"? Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 10:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Does KenDoll actually believe that his increasingly ludicrous campaign is making headway, or has he simply slipped on his KenDoll (TM) super virtual reality helmet so that he can pretend that anything he says is relevant? Darkmind1970 (talk) 12:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

It's gone from one contributor to fifteen^img in only, what, seven months? (When did it start?) Now, as we all know from Andy, rates of change are always constant. Hence, the campaign is growing at a fixed rate of two persons per month.

How could you not call that a success? Phiwum (talk) 13:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

If we take Kenny at his word that the 15 people he contacted actually are actively working or devoting effort towards this goal; much more likely each just said "yeah, sure", giving "moral support" to his cause and promptly forgot as soon as they got back to playing WoW or Battlefield 3.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Considering... everything... I'd say the fact it got anybody apparently makes it a rousing success in some form or another. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 14:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Having a quick browse around a supporter's blog I discovered this electrifying news:

We have some news to report about Facebook and our Question evolution! campaign group.

Illinois student pledged to share the campaign on Facebook 30 minutes a day

About a week ago, we had someone pledge to spread the Question evolution! campaign about 30 minutes a day and he said Facebook was a bottomless pit when it comes to sharing with fellow Christians.

We are currently developing a system for tracking our activities and Facebook is definitely going to be a part of the mix.

Facebook page with 18,000 fans promoting campaign plus another hot prospect

A friend of someone in our Question evolution! campaign group has a Facebook page with 18,000 fans. We sent him an email a week ago about sharing the campaign via Facebook and we received an email back indicating that he is definitely going to share the campaign via that page.

Later this week, we are contacting a creationist who has been very active on Facebook as far as spreading biblical creation.

Facebook creation warrior being developed within our group

A member of our group will be reading these resources in the weeks and months to come:

1. Facebook Marketing by Dan Zarella
2. Facebook Marketing for Dummies by Paul Dunay and Richard Krueger
3. The Social Media Marketing Book by Dan Zarella
4. Social Media Marketing All-in-One For Dummies by Jan Zimmerman

Honestly, I really can't wait. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 14:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Ken can get 200,000 people to support the QE campaign, but he'd still be preaching to the choir. So far most of the people who it's been claimed are supporting the campaign are Christian bloggers, whose blogs are read mostly by creationist Christians, I'm sure. The campaign's goal is to reduce the number of people who believe in Evolution. Where's the evidence that's happening, Ken? DickTurpis (talk) 14:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

ZOMG, they're using 'For Dummies' books! Surely, the global atheist/evolutionist hierarchy is quaking in their collective boots! MDB (talk) 14:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Song Parody Suggestion

Someone with a greater gift for music and rhyme than I have should write Ken the Knife. MDB (talk) 14:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh the Ken, babe, has blunt teeth, dear... --Yossarian^{Speak, Memory} 10:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

And from between them, he spouts shite. --Longbow (talk) 10:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

RSchlafly teaches physics.

"Nuclear energy has very little to do with either Einstein or E=mc2."^img ... of liberals? (talk) 18:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The open-minded observer admits to the possibility that nuclear energy has more to do with E=mc^2.00000001^img, which has nothing to do with relativity. --Whoover (talk) 19:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Holy crap. The stupid is strong with this one. Doesn't he find it strange that the Energy produced from a nuclear reaction is equal to the loss of Mass times some Constant^2? Nothing to do with E=mc2 at all... Carlaugust (talk) 20:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, as far as I understand it, the usable energy release from the reaction in a nuclear power plant isn't that efficient - around 17% or something. It is perfectly conceivable that nuclear energy could have been harnessed to produce electricity without knowing anything about E=mc2 or what radiation really was. You got this stuff in the ground that gives off heat, put it next to other stuff the same or similar and it gets hotter, other stuff makes it cooler (control), and you can use it to heat water to drive a turbine.

What I think Roger is driving at is that nuclear energy is one of these engineering discoveries that makes use of something useful rather than necessarily having to invent it from first principles. Whereas getting GPS to work absolutely needs Einstein's equations.

This is a long-standing argument he has with his brother. Roger is the sane one in this little family dispute. Ajkgordon (talk) 22:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

None of that implies that nuclear energy has little to do with E=mc2. Sure, it'd have been possible to blunder into a fission reaction without understanding the quantitative bits predicting the energy production. The reality is that a theoretical framework was damned useful in getting the thing working. But Roger (the sane one) made a statement that makes as little sense as "viruses have little to do with catching cold because people caught them for thousands of years just sneezing on each other." --Whoover (talk) 22:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes and no. Roger is discovering (as I have discovered) that, when talking to complete morons, there's no really right way to express yourself.

There is a widely quoted factoid along the lines of "E=mc^2 unlocks the secrets of the atomic bomb", or "Einstein made the atomic bomb possible with his equation E=mc^2", or some such rubbish. That's vastly exaggerated. E=mc^2 applies to any activity that produces energy. The only thing special about nuclear processes is that they give off so much energy that the weight loss can be measured. For any other process (fire, chemical explosions, ...) it is way too small to measure.

Nuclear processes that give off enormous amounts of energy were discovered in 1898 by Marie and Pierre Curie. They never thought to weigh the results. When Einstein wrote his paper in 1905, he speculated that the newly-discovered process of radioactivity gave off enough energy that it might be possible to weigh things and verify the equation. Which people did.

Since then, E=mc^2 has been part of every physicist's repertoire. The connection between mass defect and energy release was well known. When Lise Meitner analyzed the results of the Otto Hahn / Fritz Strassmann experiments she realized that, from the mass difference in the fission products (she did the calculation in her head while walking in the woods!), the released energy would be 200 million electron volts. So she used E=mc^2. Hahn and Strassmann had done the experiments in such a way that the released energy couldn't be measured—only a few atoms at a time. Once it was known that the energy was this enormous (even by radioactivity standards), people measured it. And people started thinking about bombs. So E=mc^2 was used. But if the released energy from the Hahn/Strassmann experiment had been measured by other means, people could have invented the bomb without understanding Einstein's equation. Though the field of nuclear physics would not have gotten anywhere without the equation. SamHB (talk) 04:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

"E=mc^2 is not the mechanism of nuclear energy" works for morons and physicists alike. Why not go with that instead of "E=mc^2 has very little to do with nuclear energy"? --Whoover (talk) 05:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure. That would indeed be an improvement. Go over to CP and make that change. :-) SamHB (talk) 14:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The key thing is E=m anyway, the magic constant is an artefact of having chosen our units the way we did. The same as when you need a conversion factor to work out how much mass there will be in a hundred sheets of "40lb US Letter" paper whereas with say "80 gsm A4" everything is sorted out in the unit system itself. The conversion factor is not important to the principle that the mass of a hundred sheets of paper is proportional to the density of the paper, and it's not important to the principle that energy and mass are essentially the same thing. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 13:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The units really have nothing to do with it. We play those games now, but the underlying reality is much deeper. SamHB (talk) 14:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

What games? There are no conversion factors and no units not used in Newtonian physics. The Newton is the unit of force that goes with kg and m/s^2 for F=ma. The Joule is the unit of energy derived from one Newton applied over one meter. E=mc^2, dimensionally, is J=kg*m^2/s^2. No tricks up Einstein's sleeve. --Whoover (talk) 16:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Is that addressed to SamHB, or me? Well anyway the conversion factor I was talking about is the arbitrary constant you get for the speed of light in ISO units. If you use Planck's natural units where the speed of light is one unit distance per unit time (that being the maximum speed, and zero the minimum), that vanishes and you're left with E=m. The paper problem is the same, the US Letter size needs an arbitrary conversion to get area (and then another one because Imperial paper density isn't measured on the paper you buy, but the uncut paper sizes manufacturers traditionally worked with) while A0 is one m² and thus A4 is 1/16 m² so the answer is trivially 5 grams per sheet = 0.5kg.

Grokking whether a weird value you're looking at is itself some universal constant (like e or π) or just a number we came to because of arbitrary choices we've made (like 299792458) is important in uncovering what if anything it tells you about the universe. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 16:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that constant. I understand now. It does beg the dimensional question, though. If we knew then what we knew now, would we measuring energy in grams? But more importantly, "E=m" asserts that c^2 is dimensionless. Seems like that would break a few things. --Whoover (talk) 20:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure, c (and thus c squared) is only dimensionless if you're sure distances in time and space are somehow equivalent so that say seconds and metres are just different units for essentially the same thing which are convenient under different circumstances - like Electron-volts and Newton-metres. I don't know enough physics to say how sensible it is to think that way about spacetime under any circumstances. Obviously even if it's sometimes sensible, it isn't usually what you want. But then that's true of being able to work out how many joules that big rock is, or how many kilograms of electricity you used heating the house last winter. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 00:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I liked:

“”If you want to be strict about examples being counter to relativity theory, then you would have to eliminate everything on the list. To be a true counterexample, there should be some relativity textbook that gives the example as something that cannot happen, and then some proof that it does happen. But there are no sources saying that for any of the items.img

And even better:

“”Relativity is useful for other things, such as GPS.img

And frankly I think that there are some physicists sharing his stance on Relativity vs. the Atomic Bomb.

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 15:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

wait...

So i was reading the talk page for the obama article here when i saw rob makes some talking back in september and therefor remembered he existed, then i remembered he got unblocked on CP. Has anything come from this yet?--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 03:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you go look go look? - π 03:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I did, vaguely and lazily, i'm wondering if anybody knows anything more then I know. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 03:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

You're Rob's premier stalker. If you don't know and can't be bothered to check, seems likely nobody else cares either. --Benod (talk) 03:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

- π 03:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd forgotten rob even existed so... yah. eh, good enough answer for me. If i remember we should expect some "Glorious anti-Obama MPR stuff" or something like that though.--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 03:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe he asked and was granted an unblock at CP so he could prove to Wikipedia that he was the author of some CP articles he was copying to WP. That was the extent if it, if I'm not mistaken. DickTurpis (talk) 04:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

rob makes some talking Is that so? He made some talking did he? ^{ONE / TALK} 10:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Rob's trying to port some of his CP articles over to Wikipedia? That should be fun to watch. What are they on now, WP:RFARB/nobs01_8? Godspeed (talk) 22:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Newt

For all Andy's crowing about him being right about Newt winning the nomination (time will tell), let us not forget that Newt is a filthy RINO, who likes Obamacare.^img Of course, once he wins the nomination, he'll walk on water and suckle from the breasts of angels... --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 14:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Is Andy playing the Texas sharpshooter here, or do we actually have him on record saying Newt would win the nomination (which he hasn't yet, but it's looking much more likely than it used to) sometime when Newt was polling in the low single digits? Anyone can call a frontrunner when polls show someone clearly in the lead (as he did when he "called" the winner of the Iowa straw poll) but if he said sometime over the summer or before that Newt would be the nominee, and he turns out to be, Andy can claim some bragging rights, broken clock or no. DickTurpis (talk) 14:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

According to Andy's "Conservapedia proven right" drivel, he claims that "Newt Gingrich is the most likely to win the Republican nomination for President" on 19 Sep 2010. --PsyGremlinTala! 14:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I guess he did, though one year later he was ranked 7th, so I'm not sure exactly how legit his claim that he's known all along is. The guy had Rand Paul ranked 4th before he had even been elected to any office, so I don't think we can take his overall foresight too seriously. Also, weren't Newt and Romney about the only ones at that stage who had made it clear that they were running (though neither had officially announced), making him sort of a default pick back then? DickTurpis (talk) 14:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

And how many others have been most likely in the interim? MDB (talk) 14:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Even better, when Andy made the "proven right" entry about Newt, the actual ranking had Newt only in the #2 slot. It's a pure bullshit "prediction" that exploits the wiki software to be right no matter what unless the nomination is snagged by a completely out-of-the-blue candidate. Here, let me predict the outcome of the 2012 elections: See, on December 6, I correctly predicted the outcome - I'll just have to pick one revision! --Sid (talk) 15:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll pick some semi-random dates here and see his top 4:

Jan 1 - Mitt, Newt, Rubio, Palin

Feb 15 - Mitt, Newt, Rubio, Bush

March 30 - Mitt, Newt, Bachmann, Rubio

April 22 - Mitt, Trump, Newt, Bachmann

June 1 - Mitt, Newt, Bachmann, Bush

July 3 - Mitt, Bachmann, Bush, Newt

July 22 - Mitt, Bachmann, Bush, Ron Paul

Aug 14 - Mitt, Bachmann, Paul, Perry (finally gets all eventual candidates in his top 4; Newt's down to #6)

Sept 1 - Mitt, Perry, Bachmann, Paul

Sept 25 - Mitt, Bush, Bachmann, Paul (for some reason Jeb is back)

Oct 11 - Mitt, Bush, Paul, Cain (Newt is #7)

Nov 3 - Mitt, Bush, Cain, Newt

Nov 20 - Mitt, Newt, Cain, Bush

Nov 27 - Newt takes the #1 spot for the first time this year: Newt, Romney, Cain, Bush

Yeah, I guess he picked Newt very early on, but didn't exactly stick with him. DickTurpis (talk) 15:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Wait wait wait... he's still got Jeb Bush in there? Dear sweet FSM, isn't it a little way way too late for a candidate to enter the race? MDB (talk) 15:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I think he'd have to stage some write-in campaigns in some early primary states, but it might be not be impossibly late. I am curious to see what the next update will be. I assume Andy will have to drop Cain down a few steps (maybe not), so I wonder if that would move Jeb up to #3, or if Perry or Paul will take that spot. DickTurpis (talk) 15:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Whenever it's been noted that someone (like Bush) couldn't win at this late a stage, Andy has responded that it could be a split convention, and he'd step forward as a consensus nominee at the convention. Of course, as has been responded here, that'd be totally and completely ridiculous, as the conventions are now more like Coronations, and the Republicans would just be shooting themselves in the face if they didn't have a consensus nominee ahead of time. Jared (talk) 15:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Andy and I share something in common (God help me...) in that we both follow politics like normal people follow sports. And a split convention with a fight for the nomination would be really exciting to us. Unlike Andy, I know the odds are way way against that. MDB (talk) 16:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Except politics is more like pro-wrestling. Winners are chosen by billionaires, not a bunch of rubes at a convention :-) Jared (talk) 16:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

But more seriously, while a split convention would be as wildly entertaining as a Trump nomination, the latter is more likely this century than the former. Each party spends WAY WAY WAY too much time and money to let a couple hundred delegates pick a winner on national TV, and show a split party in front of the voters. Jared (talk) 16:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. No party wants to end up looking like the Democrats did after the 1968 convention. (Admittedly, that went way beyond a fight over the nomination, but the thought of a convention looking like anything else that a well-organized machine terrifies the leadership of both parties.) MDB (talk) 16:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Andy might as well watch the news, edit the article to match the latest poll, then three minutes later shout on the mainpage "CONSERVAPEDIA IS RIGHT AGAIN!", all the while hoping nobody checks the version histories. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 16:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

From what I gathered, that is pretty much what he's doing. When he's not letting his "insights" guide him ("The Social Network lost to The King's Speech --> Palin's nomination is less likely"), he's pretty much just looking at who is currently looking better, then alters the ranking accordingly. --Sid (talk) 17:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much? No, that is exactly what he is doing. He is just adjusting the rankings in reaction to the real polls.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

It was the same with his football "predictions." When the USA got a draw with England, it was pretty clear to everyone that that wasn't the best world cup squad we've ever fielded. So Andy's thing about how atheism was going to cause the team to do badly was based on their current record of not performing so well. Not so much a prediction as a postdiction. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, he is adding his own twist to the polls, which is why he has Bush beating Paul and Perry, in spite of the fact he's not running. But yeah, he's basically following the polls, which is hardly a novel insight by Conservapedia. He has generally been more optimistic about Newt that most pundits, which I guess I can give him a little credit for, but if he's going to try to sell that CP was right all along about Newt because they had him as #1 a year ago but #7 three months ago then he's going to have a tough time. If Bush does somehow wind up as the nominee, I will have to admit he did good. DickTurpis (talk) 04:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

All of that said, he's hedging his bets^img. If Newt loses the nomination or the election, it's because he's not really a conservative. If he wins the election and fails to do any good, it's because he's not really a conservative. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 03:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Latest blog post

I'm curious about the rules for debate that Terry posted, so let's find out^img. άλφα^Ταλκ 19:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• Neither side will appeal to religion in any way.
• Supporting a scientific claim that happens to agree or be consistent with a religious writing would not break this rule.

Translation = I can push intelligent design because I allow it, but you can't mock my belief of it! Derp! Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 19:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

God help me, but I don't see any hypocrisy there at all. There's nothing unscientific about a theory which happens to be consistent with the Bible, and such theories should be admissible. And there's nothing scientific about claiming that this particular theory is wrong/unsound/bad because it is (in)consistent with the Bible. Your translation does not work for me. Phiwum (talk) 19:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I guess if we think about the negative, there might be a problem (although I'm not sure we can think of the negative, but for the sake of logical argument). If supporting a scientific claim that happens to agree with a religious writing would not break this rule, would supporting a scientific claim that does not agree with a religious writing break the rule? I honestly don't know if that's the connotation; hence the question. άλφα^Ταλκ 20:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

A better rule would, of course, be that Whether a scientific claim is consistent with religious writing is utterly irrelevant to this debate. Phiwum (talk) 20:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

How are you going to push "ID" without mentioning G*d? "The world was created in 6 days, 6000 years ago by go- I mean....a supreme creator who in no way shape or form resembles Yahweh". Actualy, it would be worth ticket price to see the creationist jump through hoops.--Thunderstruck (talk) 22:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget that "the scientific evidence points to a young age of the earth and the universe."^img In this Bizarro world, ID is science and denying it is religiously motivated.^img --Whoover (talk) 22:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

To Thunder: Simple! The theory of ID does not include any claim about how long creation took, when it occurred, etc. Taken at face value, it claims only that the complexity we see in the universe is only explainable by assuming that the universe was created. Now, all of this seems to be a bit beside the point, since the theory here is about the flood, not about ID per se. And you can surely (in principle) give evidence that there was a planet-covering flood and illustrate the mechanism which caused it without referring to God.

In any case, it is the creationist's job to make his case without appealing to religion. If he thinks he can do so, let him try! Phiwum (talk) 22:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

That is in itself strange. If you can explain an event from the bible without God, again why have him? - π 23:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your question, but as I understand the aims of creationist geology, the idea is to show that the events in the Bible really happened as discussed there. At least some (if not all?) creation scientists aim to show that these events are somehow consistent with physical laws — which seems inconsistent with the usual notion of miracle, of course. But, I suppose, that's just a dilemma the apologist faces: to make the account of the Bible plausible, it helps to convince others that the events were not miraculous, but this makes the tales evidently less significant, barring some subtle way out. Phiwum (talk) 01:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Creationists are generally satisfied with Goddidit or the Omphalos hypothesis but 'creation scientists' want to put scientific proof behind it. Of course, as the science doesn't support that position we end up with the hilarity and confusion that is creation "science". Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 09:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually the point that is being missed is that you don't show that a theory of science is valid through a debate session. You show it through the collection data, the showing that the hypothesis conforms to the facts, through peer-review, through repeated testing and observations in controlled conditions. If his hydroplate hypothesis (because I can't find anything that would qualify it as a valid theory of science) has the evidence to support it, them publish that evidence so it can be scrutinized, otherwise you got bunk.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 23:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

BMcP, I'm with you. I didn't mean to give any impression that a debate of this sort is sensible. I just didn't get Norseman's complaint about those two particular rules. Phiwum (talk) 23:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

My point was akin to Thunderstruck's comments, that the rules I quoted from the debate challenge could easily be manipulated by TerryH or whoever's side he's on. This is the guy who thinks Andy was being reasonable to Lenski. He thinks ID is science, and makes me think that his side might even pull the "they're mocking my religion!" card if the other side contradicts it. In other words, they can preach ID, because the rules allow it, and have the ability to squelch any contradiction to ID, because the rules allow it. Pretty fuzzy middle area relying on intellectual honesty. Guess I should've made it clearer from the start. :P Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 13:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's face it, these guys squeal that atheists/evolutionists won't debate them but then impose their own rules so that they can either worm out of the debate if it goes against them, bury the evidence by refusing to let it be broadcast/published, or set the bar so high that no one in their right mind would bother with it. We've seen both Andy and Ken set up financial barriers to having debates and then running away even when someone has decided to splurge the cash just for the lulz. Charlatans and cowards, the lot of them. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 13:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Is anywhere safe from the atheists?

In the Arseflyverse, atheists control the Bible belt^img. I wonder if we can convince Andy that heaven is atheistic and that good Christians should aspire to hELL? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 05:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It is akin to reading a propaganda feed from Ingsoc; everything that goes wrong within the land is the fault of Eurasia (or Eastasia, depending on who is the enemy of the day). Every time I read the CP mainpage, I cannot help be confronted with the similarities of the controlled news as shown through 1984; because nothing is simply news. Everything is treated either as a victory by the faithful to demonstrate that Real Conservatism (as conformed to Andy's vision) is always virtuous and true; or it is the fault of "the enemy", either liberals (liberals being anyone not in obedience to true movement conservatism as defined by Il Duce Andy), or atheists (anyone who openly questions the Calvinistic Chrsito-Objectivism religion of CP), with Muslims, Socialists, Hollywood Actors, RINOs, and College Professors tossed in for good measure just to keep the mix interesting.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 08:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you made a mistake -- I think he means to say that atheists control the public schools, not the Bible Belt. Not that it's any less nutty, just pointing that out. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Conservative blogging/news aggregating

I'm wondering why CP doesn't go full on Drudge Report and start posting random videos of violence and letting the user decide to be a racist (or in this case, anti-liberal). Occasionaluse (talk) 13:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Andy on homeework... again

Student: "World War One ended in the 1930s"^img

Andy: "Full marks!!"

Wow. That answer was only -- maybe -- the third worst in this page. Quantum mechanics were discovered by philosophers? Picasso must have had vision problems. The peace after WWI didn't last because of "a lot of mistakes."

Full marks. We need a page on Conservative Grading. "Mention Reagan and win" is worth a graf. --Whoover (talk) 17:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you suppose parodists have been sneaking in to his homskolling classes? Those answers almost seem like the kid is actively trying to sound like an ignorant hayseed. The alternative is that he's desperately ignorant and is being encouraged in his ignorance by adults who have been entrusted with his education. That's just incredibly depressing. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Would those "marks" be Deutsch, Karl or skid? -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Not defending the grading, but I think the student is trying to say that World War I came to be known by that name, as opposed to simply the Great War, in the 1930s. It's still a shit answer, not least of all because he doesn't seem to appreciate that "great" can just mean "large", or maybe it's a feeble joke. Andy seemed to misunderstand the meaning as well, and still gave full marks. That makes him even more of a ponce in my book. - Ellipsoidal (talk) 18:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Looking at these answers, I'm wondering if Andy has some, well, "special" students whose egos he feels he has to handle with kid gloves. If these really are among the best in the class Andy's students are sorrier than usual. DickTurpis (talk) 18:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I just showed my wife that homework. She's sitting behind me with a horrified look of "Teh stooopid - it burnz!" on her face. Darkmind1970 (talk) 20:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

@Dick, honestly I think Andy's just a bad teacher that creates laziness in his students. They can get away with terrible answers and get full marks, why bother even trying to put effort into it? X Stickman (talk) 20:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

WW I was known as the Great War until well into the 40s, and it was not 'great' as in 'fabulous' but great as in 'big'. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 21:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

What really bothers me in all this, is not that his students don't know the answer, but that in an online, "take however long doing this you need", they can't google the answer. But again, that's why i wonder sometimes if the whole damn thing is a giant hoax.GodotI live in the Infinite monkey cage 23:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course, if they googled the answer and came up with something sensible, Andy would know they cheated. DickTurpis (talk) 00:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Lenski

We all know the answer, but I'm going to say it anyway: Do these guys not know when to leave things be? As I understand, all of Lenski's publishable data (ie everything except the actual bacteria) is publically available anyway, and- Oh, I forgot, this is Conservapedia we're talking about, if they can't burn it they'll deny it. Or something. -- 18:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The worst part is that TerryH somehow thinks that the Lenski trainwreck was some sort of success for CP. From his blog: "In a celebrated case of which your editor has direct knowledge[...]". Seriously? A celebrated case? Well, yes, a lot of people did celebrate, but why is Terry siding with the people who laugh at CP? ;) --Sid (talk) 18:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

To some extent, this is the same sort of sloppy thinking that gives us "the lamestream media isn't reporting..." when the only reason they've ever heard of whatever story they're referring to is because the media reported on it. Yes, there are scientific frauds, but the reason we know about them is because other scientists exposed them. That's very different from a politically motivated amateur attempting to throw any spanner he can possibly find in to the works of a scientific result he doesn't like. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Belgians are going straight to hell

I really can't be bothered to create a CP account, but I really think someone should tell them about the new prime minister of Belgium --Michilus (talk) 20:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

" Then, too, the Bible predicts that Iran will go to war with Israel, as part of a larger Russia-led coalition."

Terry, my Bible does not contain the words "Iran" or "Russia." PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 00:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Ezekiel 38 mentions Persia (Hebrew: Paras) by name. Dont start up with guys, please. Just back away slowly. --Whoover (talk) 00:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

You know the Russians have started making weapons out of a type of plywood called Lignostone so that the prophecy about the Israelites burning their enemies' weapons for seven years could be fulfilled, right? OK, I'm a military consultant and I didn't know it either, but it's all over the internet so it must be true. --Longbow (talk) 01:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Now, where have I heard that before? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 01:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

As regards this tiresome issue of Gog and Magog, allow a cartographer to interject. Medieval mappaemundi - maps of the world drawn c. 540-1450 AD according to the geographical writ of Biblical Scripture - make it clear that Gog and Magog (who will incite the Apocalypse) are imprisoned on a peninsula somewhere in northern Russia, encompassed by the "Iron Wall" built by Alexander the Great. As Andy-Pandy is such a fan of Alexander, this seems an appropriate observation. So no, sweet Christoservatives. The events of the Book of Revelation will not come from the geopolitics of a contemporary state; they will transpire when the physical giants Gog and Magog batter down the Iron Wall and wreak vengeance upon the Children of Christ. So the Orthodox Russians will not be the perpetrators of the End Times; they will be the first victims - penance, in medieval thought, for their actions at the 1054 Ecclesiastical Schism.

And after all, considering that medieval theologians spent many, many hours per day for many, many days per year over bloody decades discussing and debating the finer and higher points of Theology, we should be more inclined to trust their views than those of right-wing demagogues who can't even accept the Word of the Lord. Ironclad (talk) 01:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It is actually from Ezekiel and written whilst the Jews were in exile in Babylon. It is little more than fantasy about how they will get there own back one day. - π 02:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou for your correction! Your liturgical knowledge is appreciated :) Ironclad (talk)

BTW, "Gog and Magog" is from Revelations. In Ezekiel it's "Gog from Magog." He turned into they due to a typo somewhere along the way. The End Time mavens tend to overlook this since they don't do ambiguity. But it's a fun way to make them sputter. --Whoover (talk) 02:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Got to be room in there somewhere for a political conspiracy theory involving Emperor Constantine and the Council of Nicea. Andy would love that... Ironclad (talk) 02:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Interesting that the other wiki suggests that linking the Gog and Magog with Russia only began during the cold war. They have been pretty much every other "bad guy" through history. - π 09:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Ezekiel 38? I guess Terry and I have different views on it. See, in my bible, LORD GOD ALMIGHTY displays his power by plague, bloodshed, rain torrents, hailstones and burning sulphur (38:22). Such a merciful, all-loving god. Or does it all mean something else?! Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 13:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

What does Paras have to do with God? Is this some obscure Pokemon joke I don't get? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 04:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind. Silly me, it's mentioned in the second post in this thread. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 21:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey, you can do a lot with that Bible Code program and a decent computer these days. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

In a related note

I'm pretty sure I make a prediction to something that hasn't happened every time I go to the bathroom, but I don't go around selling my toilet paper to the lost and impressionable. -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Kendoll: Reverse Midas

Ken

really has a talent for turning everything he touches to shit. The question evolution blog started out populated by at least partially sane people making mostly restrained postings, but now it's more or less indistinguishable from a spam blog with Kendoll making his usual rapid-fire postings advertising a bunch of free internet crap to GROW YOUR TRAFFIC! You have to wonder why they aren't actually following their own advice. Oh wait, no you don't. You only have to look at their "free powerpoint presentation" to realise that they're all totally incompetent. 15 slides of default black on white walls of text. Kendoll has obviously never given a presentation in his life. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 18:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Is that his doing?--User:Brxbrx/sig 18:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Yep. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Ken's moved from running a "campaign" to a VAMPaign!^img An small typo to be sure, but still not too far off the mark. 130.76.96.144 (talk) 19:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow. They only started the campaign in May and they've got nearly 20 volunteers already? I am awed. --Longbow (talk) 23:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Ya, and only half of them are Ken. Infoseek (talk) 09:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

That presentation is absolutely terrible. As Jeeves pointed out, it's black text on the default white background, but there's more than that. In some of the slides, the questions are numbered, in others they aren't. The font sizes, spacing, etc. are all completely different from one slide to the next. Is the point supposed to be that numerous distinct volunteers compiled this, which is why it looks this way? It's horrible to scroll through, and I haven't even mentioned the content yet. άλφα^Ταλκ 15:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Did Ken write this?

These creationists are crap when it comes to intelligent design. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 16:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

BTW, following a link to the Q?E! teeshirt page I ended up on CMI and got this dialogue box (see right). Echoes of Ken

? Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 16:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Vandalize Conservapedia! campaign

Yes, yes. Now fuck off. If it wasn't for you, Karajou would have quit CP months ago. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

As repeated often, Conservapedia is very funny without vandalism or parody. You don't need to ruin that. --Buscombe (talk) 23:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe I speak for everyone at RationalWiki when I say that you have our unwavering support. Feel free to use RationalWiki as a base to plan and coordinate your attacks. Thank you and Godspeed. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement Marcus! ^{— Unsigned, by: 173.224.217.162 / talk / contribs}

The evolution of a conspiracy theory

Terry's latest shite on the ginned up fast and furious controversy^img is kind of fascinating for anyone who is interested in how conspiracies get started. Anyone halfway sane would look at the facts and conclude that the idea of the thing was that busting two bit couriers is something of a waste of time in the smuggling trade, for every one they lock up there's another twenty on the streets of Nogales just waiting to replace them. They want to find out exactly where the guns were going, so they can bust the gang leaders, not the street thugs.

Ah, but nobody could ever accuse Cokeeyes of being halfway sane. The theory he's come up with is that the operation was designed specifically to let the couriers they would otherwise have busted get away with it so that American guns could be placed at Mexican crime scenes. The reason? So the ATF can build a case for banning personal weapons in the USA... somehow.... And it's ALL OBAMA'S IDEA!

You could spend years cataloguing the gaping holes in that logic. Just for starters:

1. Mexican criminal gangs were sending couriers to the US to buy guns in the first place. Why would they be doing that if they had no chance of success without government collusion?
2. Why would the ATF go along with a political scheme that would amount to a criminal conspiracy?
3. How would even proof positive positive that American guns were used in Mexican crime lead to making a case for a crackdown on American gun ownership? Since we already know that's true, why isn't the case being made now?

The whole thing is lunacy.

It is, however, very interesting to see a lunatic follow the twisted logic trail that leads them towards the black helicopter conclusion that criminals in government are coming for their guns. Someone ought to write a paper. Maybe dissect his brain. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 06:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

2(a) Why would the ATF go along with a political scheme that would amount to a criminal conspiracy and which would potentially result in the eventual removal of the F from the acronym ATF? Surely it is in the ATF's best interests to maintain the private ownership of firearms in the US. --Horace (talk) 06:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I dunno, this is fairly sane compared to some of the other stuff on his blog/failed attempt at a money machine. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's crazy, but it kinda pales next to things like "The United Nations wants to abolish private property worldwide."^img --Sid (talk) 02:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Bloody right he wants to "trim" that.

How much bestiality is too much bestiality^img? PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 02:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Update: A quick application of Ken-B-Gone^img and the whole thing is oversighted away. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 02:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC):

Oh^img lol.^img 04:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Obama bones Bo! Ken is a marvel to behold. If only he could start his own wiki where he isn't held back by Andy's liberal censorship. Brendiggg (talk) 05:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

OMG he brought up the fifteen questions. Awesome. I just got one question for him that he can't answer. -- Seth Peck (talk) 22:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

@Seth "Are you a Guy or a Girl"?--Thunderstruck (talk) 23:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

"Does your brain damage prevent you from answering this question?" --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

There's only one question that evolutionists canot answer here: What the fuck went so wrong in the gene pool that let Kenny DeMyer live as long as he has? -- 11:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Jensen

Hope you guys appreciate my activity. I’m using a proxy to post this comment just to be on the safe side. One of my aims is to make A and K so paranoid they’ll be suspicious of any new user.

Also I am trying to make these guys accountable for their comments.

Most of all I am trying to get a ‘rise’ out of these cretins. And here’s a result…

http://conservapedia.com/User:Conservative/FYI^img

Jensen – the real one!

And just to clear - I don't give a flying fuck what you guys think. I'm not looking for approval. Most of you guys just talk about CP - I fuck CP in the ass.

Jensen

I've provoked more of a reaction from cp than everything this site has ever done!

By the way DMorris2 is a cp^{— Unsigned, by: 176.31.226.184 / talk / contribs}

Your lack of a clue is almost depressing. --Sid (talk) 22:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Noobs, what do they know? Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 23:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes yes, but you fail epically because you use open proxies; all it takes to tell a Jensen account from any other type of account is to run a simple checkuser and see if the IP smells of being an open proxy (and face it, all n00b proxies and even TOR nodes are obvious, and you have to be l337 use anything but the n00b proxies you've been using). Plus, some senior admins and I are considering implementing an abuse filter; it's going to be beautiful when anything that resembles your boring, repetitive vandalism is stopped by an automated filter before its ever even seen. You're best bet is to just give up network abuse now; to be honest, you're not even good at it. DMorris2 (talk) 06:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

538 explores Andy's Presidential rankings (indirectly)

Nate silver at fivethrirtyeight posted a brief analysis of the probability of an undeclared candidate winning the nomination, mentioning Andy's favorite Jeb Bush in particular. He doesn't give him all that much of a chance, but admits it's plausible. The fact that it's remotely possible is testament to how unprecedently pathetic the current roster of nominees is, so apparently even Andy recognizes this. And this is the team you're getting behind, Andy? Something just isn't right. DickTurpis (talk) 14:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Conservatives who can't handle reality started shoveling any and all blame on the media, and this will become more common and extreme. The less Americans see conservative candidates lampooned by the media for being insane, the more electable they will look towards the election. Cain, Palin, Bush, even Christie...I don't take them at their word that they won't try and run for president and I don't count any of them out. $100 says at least one candidate throws his hat back in before it's over. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you offering to match someone's $100 if neither Cain, Palin, Bush nor Christie get themselves officially onto the list for a Republican primary? I'm not a gambling person, but if I was I'd definitely take you up on that. The individual candidates may be silly enough to think it's a good idea to start (or worse, re-start) a run this late but any halfway competent adviser is going to tell them it's smarter to come back in 2016. I think the only way it makes sense to jump into the ring at this point would be if someone from the same political stable had to pull out for non-scandalous reasons (e.g. maybe their wife develops cancer and they give up campaigning to be at her bedside) and they endorse you. That way you have an excuse for not stepping forward sooner and you get a running start from their previous campaign. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 21:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Aliens and creationism

This discussion was moved to RationalWiki:Saloon bar#Aliens and creationism. 00:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

School shooting, don't want to miss the rush...

...to dance on some graves^img. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 21:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Bets on when "Obama's Black Panther goon squad involved in VTech shooting" shows up on MPR? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. I'm not saying this GTac person is a parodist - I'm not familiar with them - but I used to play a browser game called Erepublik a few years ago, where I... became aware of a prominent player named GnolTac. She would always troll the forums with general wingnuttery, sometimes obviously inspired by Conservapedia and its content (for example, she once created a thread with only the lyrics to Born Nowhere Near the USA, which I'm sure you remember from the time around Obama's inauguration). I pointed out the apparent connection a few times, but she never responded to me. Also, I just noticed that there is an edit to the Encyclopædia Dramatica talk page among GTac's recent contributions; GnolTac mentioned being a member of the 4chan community, which (if I'm not mistaken) is related to the now defunct Wiki. --Ag Bengip (talk) 23:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

GnolTac Subtle. «-Bfa-» 23:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

And there's the grave dancing^img that we all knew was coming. --Tabrcg23 (talk) 03:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Really, Andy? REALLY? You couldn't leave this one alone? What a despicable, sad, petty man Schlafly is. The thing about people like him that pisses me off is that they're never held accountable for the unbelievably stupid things they say. So atheism caused this shooting? How? You don't even have to cite a study, just give me a logical progression of events that goes from "Not believing in magic" to "Killing people". What's that? You say that your magic book says that not believing in magic is foolish and therefore it's bad? How scientific. Fuck you Andy, and fuck every grave dancing cretin who resembles you in any way. </rant> Saladin^{Mostly Harmless.} 04:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed Bfahome. "GnolTac" is "caTlonG" backwards, so it's another LongCat reference. (The most popular reverse LongCat variants are TacGnol, which is colour-inverted, and ShortCat, which is short rather than long, but other variants exist like TacTrohs, it's quite possible GnolTac existed as a LongCat variant at some point or was a minority spelling alternative for TacGnol). Of course familiarity with 4chan's culture doesn't mean one is necessarily a troll... 82.69.171.94 (talk) 10:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The thing is, there's no evidence yet that this had anything to do with Virginia Tech, beyond being where it took place and a campus cop being the victim. Here's the WaPo's coverage, but in short, a campus policeman made a traffic stop. A third person shot the cop and fled. A body was found later, shot with the same gun, and is presumed to be the original gunman, who killed himself as police closed in. They've not said if he was a student or not. Now, I'm not saying it wasn't directly connected to Tech, but my instinct is that it was something that could have happened anywhere, and just happened to happen on campus. MDB (talk) 13:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Awesome...but the gun violence (especially from the first shooting a few years ago) couldn't POSSIBLY have anything to do with the fact that (a) it's Virginia, and (b) VT is one of the few public universities with a corps of cadets...naw! -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I sure am hoping that Seth's post is just a joke. Surely, Seth, you don't really think that a cadet corps has a goddamned thing to do with these two events? Phiwum (talk) 22:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow, making unsubstantiated claims the shooting is connected in some way to the university having a corps of cadet. Are you sure you wouldn't be more at home on CP where making baseless claims is the norm? BTW the shooter wasn't even from the university.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 23:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

See, that's the problem with being naturally sarcastic--you try to find a creative outlet that will be appreciated by others, and it gets edited or doubted. Andy can make one baseless non sequitur comment, but I can't make one equally baseless non sequitur comment in the opposite political direction in order to spotlight the invalidity of the original claim. Jeez. What do I have to do, be more obvious in my ridicule? Write for Uncyclopedia? What? -- Seth Peck (talk) 23:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

If you'll read your own comment, I think you'll see that it was pretty ambiguous as to whether you were being serious or not. I didn't see any clue that you were funnin', though I explicitly mentioned the possibility. Phiwum (talk) 23:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Got it. I'll take that to mean I DO need to be MORE outrageous, to the point of Poe's Law-similarity. I can work with that. -- Seth Peck (talk) 23:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

It kinda saddens me that you guys noticed my post on CP but didn't know I'm a long time rationalwiki goer ;_;. Well, I guess I don't actually make that many posts here, and have been even less active the past months. Btw, I didn't intend that post on CP as parody at all, I was asking for them to make the same retarded connections they always do. Oh, I am delighted that you know and remember me from Erepublik, Ag Bengip, had a lot of fun with that game. Well, the game itself was stupid, but I still hang out with the same people from that game. --GTac (talk) 22:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Hat Tip* -- Seth Peck (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, GTac! I'm sorry, I didn't know you were a member of RationalWiki. Please, tell me I was right in assuming that you weren't serious about those things you wrote on the forum... --Ag Bengip (talk) 20:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course I wasn't, it was just fun to mess with people on Erepublik. Too many people there took that game way too serious anyways. --GTac (talk) 07:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

TerryH and Question Evolution

Maybe this isn't really anything, but I thought that 1. User:Conservative and his projects were pariahs for the other sysops and 2. that QE was User:Conservative's baby. So why is TerryH taking the time to pimp QE^img? PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 01:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Whilst Ken is viewed as a freak even by his fellow sysops, they do fundamentally agree with him. He is a fellow YEC and can do no wrong in there eyes. Also Question Evolution! is from CMI. - π 02:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, never forget that while Kendoll has some kind of illness that leads to his obsessive interests and illogical blather, in many ways he's far more grounded in reality than Terry is. Terry is shoulder deep in conspiracies about evil government plots and Kenyan Muslim takeovers he's effectively divorced from the real world. While Kendoll is pretty much unable to think for himself, and has chosen a really bad surrogate brain in fundamentalist Christianity, he at least can see through secular conspiracy theories. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Terry is a Young Earth Creationist, so of course he immediately starts worshipping QE! - it's what the mothership CMI told him. (Also, he probably figures that something less insane than his Evil Government/UN/etc. rants might bring additional pageviews.) It's also why he suddenly holds up this Kerkut guy as the definite and only guy to define the entire concept of evolution: CMI realized that - oops! - the origin of life isn't part of what is actually regarded as the theory of evolution and frantically searched for ANYbody who suggested a definition that includes it, which is why Kerkut's name appears as a disclaimer whenever QE! is mentioned on CMI: "(The General Theory of Evolution, as defined by the evolutionist Kerkut, does include the origin of life.)"

Hilariously, Ken's evolution article doesn't even mention him, and the origin of life is barely mentioned in the article, either (at the very least not as a definite part of the theory of evolution). IIRC, Ken's solution to the problem was to declare that QE! is about the evolutionary worldview or something, which overall makes Ken a little bit more honest than Terry and CMI. I'll let that one sink in. --Sid (talk) 02:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Not so much "more honest" as "less dishonest". --24.246.11.252 (talk) 03:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, as it pimps Ken's baby it is more likely to be kept in a prominent position. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 10:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

^{— Unsigned, by: [[User:|User:]] / [[User talk:|talk]] / contribs}

Red telephone for Gentleman Pi

Hey, Kendoll^img, since you're presuming to lecture us on linguistics, see if you can spot the problem with the pronouns in this sentence:

"Lastly, I see you are still suffering from Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder and have a strong compulsion to engage in armchair internet psychological analysis concerning me/us."

Good job, moron. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

YOU GOT TOLD, PI!!! Senator Harrison (talk) 14:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah good old Ken. The man who drops us line about COS the second somebody mentions his name here. Pot, this is Kettle... And if we do suffer from COS... IT'S BECAUSE SOMEBODY IS WRONG ON THE INTERNET. You, on the other hand, are just sad and mad. --PsyGremlinParla! 14:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Ken/Mark/David/Derek/Peter, Whatever you want to call yourself this week, You of all people should not be telling anyone they have "Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder". Also, I got some bad news for you, when you wake up tomorrow, Atheists will still exsist, The QE! campaign will have accomplished nothing, and we will still be laughing at you.^{— Unsigned, by: Thunderstruck / talk / contribs}

I see Ken's getting lazy too. Now he just posts links^img to creation.cum. Then again, all that writing must be tiring for such a tiny mind. --PsyGremlinSprich! 15:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

"Despite your superior atheist intellect, you mangled this sentence. Specifically, you should have used the word "their" and not "there".

Since you may be a product of an atheist indoctrinating public school system, I thought I would help you develop your linguistic skills."

Was it not one of Jesus' groupies who said "Do not concern thyself with the splinter in they neighbour's eye, when verily one has a stick up thine arse"? So, Kenneth, could you perhaps correct Andy's spelling? He "do teaching writing" after all. Be a good little puppet and oversight the diff to spare Andy his blushes. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 17:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Check it out, Kendoll called me out (in no less then 7 edits) to tell me that Atheists are disliked and the QE! campaign is going to start spreading their campaign in colleges. Dispite the fact that he's been saying the QE! nonsense is gonna go FULL THROTLE soon for months. So I reiterate, tomorrow (assuming you actually sleep with your "sickness") when you wake up, Atheists will still be around, and the QE! campaign will STILL do nothing. Also, feel free to view our 15 answers because the 15 questions B.S. is getting old. Have a nice day.

BTW, Thanks for the shout out ken. I'd be flattered if Conservapedia mattered at all.--Thunderstruck (talk) 20:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh I missed my shout it :-( I wasn't engaging in armchair internet psychological analysis, I said you were a freak, thanks for adding evidence to that. You could have posted here, you could have left a comment on my talkpage, instead you left a message on another website where I would have never seen it if someone here didn't give me a link and then deleted that message. That sort of behaviour makes me think you are weird, who else does that sort of thing? - π 00:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I still have a tab open if you want a copy Pi. And Kenny boy, 17 hours later and still no-one's corrected Andy's spelling. I'll give you the answer, there's a fucking 'i' in antidote. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 10:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

For fucks sake, why do none of them have a spell check installed on their browsers. Of course that doesn't help with homophones :( - π 13:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I spy a new campaign - Homophones for Homophobes.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 16:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Ed Poor!

Need to get in touch? Fuck you!^img Ed Poor Talk User 188. 14:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Eh. Some asshole repeatedly vandalizes several CP pages, including Unca Ed's talk page. If I were Ed, then I might get tired of such stupidity, too, and choose to lock my talk page for a while. Let's see what happens when the asshole gets bored and wanders away before we castigate Ed (for this) too much.

But now, let's talk about the "Ed Poor on campus" photo caption! Does Ed work on campus? Go to school? If not, why on earth would he use that caption? Why, it's somehow misleading, no? Phiwum (talk) 14:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Never mind that... how yellow are those teeth? We know Andy isn't into hand washing, are Moonies against teeth brushing? --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 15:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I brush twice a day, but I drink coffee too. Senator Harrison (talk) 16:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Lots of people have naturally somewhat transparent enamel (the white layer in teeth) which causes the teeth to appear yellow. Doing nasty stuff to your teeth to artificially straighten (beyond what's needed to make eating and talking normally possible) or whiten them is a bad idea, the same way injecting substances under the skin to "prevent" wrinkles is a bad idea. And anyway brushing your teeth is (as my surgically qualified dentist explains when not asking me advice about Linux administration) largely about protecting the gums which hold teeth in place, not the teeth themselves. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 18:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Coffee Tea and Dr. Pepper conspire to ensure that my teeth are always a little yellow. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 20:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

its good to know that with all the bile and bullshit these people are spouting, we can still focus on their looks. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I really don't get the American obsession with unnatural teeth. I was watching Terminator Salvation the other day. These are people who live lives of huge deprivation (although they look very well nourished but we'll ignore that) and through all the grime and filth, what's shining out like a beacon? That's right, blue-white teeth, FFS. Ajkgordon (talk) 12:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Like this? -- CS Miller (talk) 19:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Greatest conservative books

Recommendations for CP. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

LMFAO - Gingrich Admin

God, he is such an overconfident tool. Wow. Yeah, let's just assume that the Grinch will win- fuck it, its only a year away see here^img. 76.180.192.15 (talk) 17:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Wigo'd. This is awesome. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 17:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree Romney blew it last night, but seriously, I doubt he will beat Obama. Economy is recovering and Obama is still leading all the Republicans in polls. 76.180.192.15 (talk) 17:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Ooh, I love speculative fiction! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Sarah Palin for Secretary of State! Excellent choice. --Damo^Hi 18:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Problem solved! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

What I want to happen now is for Gingrich to fail spectacularly. I would also like to see whether or not, if Gingrich doesn't become the candidate, they'll amend the Proven Right page. Probably not. -- 18:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

This is great; Andy's finally found a way to shoehorn all the fantasies he's had about who can replace Obama into one. He simply must be a parodist; Palin for State? That deserves a capture^img. And of course nothing will happen to the page if Gingrich doesn't win; it'll be like so many other pages on CP in that it will simply be left to rot. άλφα^Ταλκ 19:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

This is indeed wonderful, but sadly it probably won't survive to see 'Actual Appointments' filled out. But maybe it'll just be forgotten about and in twelve months we can head over there to fill it out? DogP (talk) 19:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

You're all wrong, Gingrich will win. Go fuck yourself Give it up liberals! Garçon^coffee! 19:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I was absolutely sure a parodist had refilled in the table. It's as if someone were filling in a dream football team and they chose all quarterbacks and no one else. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 20:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

That is exactly what is like, it could not be summarised better. - π 01:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Also on MPR is says "Whom will President Newt Gingrich pick ...^img" Shouldn't it be "Who will [the nomination go to]" or "To whom will [the nomination go]". Again I can barely speak English (and it's the only language I use) so it's a legitimate question not a rhetorical device to call out an error. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 20:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Whom is used as an object, while who is nominally for subjects, though common use has it as an object too. If you can rephrase the sentence with him or her, use whom, while if he or she fits instead, use who. "Whom will Gingrich pick? Gingrich will pick him. Who will be filling the office? He will." 184.61.193.172 (talk) 05:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS GOOD AND METAL, somebody save that page. So if newt DOSN'T get the nomination, we will have a copy for when andy goes 'nuclear option' on the page--Thunderstruck (talk) 20:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh my fucking god, this is over the top even for Andy. Alright, I understand that Andy's sexually aroused picking his dream team administration, but it's one thing to play fantasy politics, and another to say that these choices are "clear". Can he honestly pretend these are anything other than products of his own deranged mind? DickTurpis (talk) 20:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I think all the parodists on CP just threw their hands up in the air, looked up in the sky, back on the screen and back in the sky again and said in a normal talking voice and rather calmly: "I give up. I can't top that." --★uːʤɱ atheist 01:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Wait wait wait... he's got Palin at State? Gingrich already announced he wants John Bolton at State. Bolton himself is staying coy on the matter.

I'm a little surprised Andy's not named himself Secretary of Education or Attorney General. MDB (talk) 12:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to see him as the PR man for the White House. --★uːʤɱ digital native 13:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Palin at State is one reason the list looks like parody. You take one obvious deficit from Palin's background (people said that she didn't know bupkiss about foreign affairs) and pretend that it is a strength. I'm actually a little surprised that we don't see this tendency in the [CP article^img] on Palin. No mention of how Alaska overlooks Russia and thus she is a foreign policy expert at all, far as I could see. Phiwum (talk) 13:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Putting Plain at State is one of those things that make me wonder if Andy is really just running one of the greatest parody sites in history. I mean, I could see a conservative wanting Palin in the Cabinet, but surely, there's a position she's better suited for -- Department of the Interior, maybe? They run the National Park Service, which seems a natural fit for an Alaskan. They'd also handle oil drilling issues, good for little Miss "Drill baby drill".

On the other paw, Huckabee at HHS makes good sense. I may disagree with him on a whole host of issues, but he's one of the few members of the Christian Right that actually believes in caring for "the last and the least of these", and I give him credit for that. MDB (talk) 14:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Endorsements for Gingrich

I wonder how quickly this list of endorsements^img will get memory-holed when it is proven to be completely inaccurate. CS Miller (talk) 20:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's one way to hold a conversation...

(Times are my German timezone)

• Me^img (21:07): "Andy, about your Newt prediction..."
• Andy^img (21:14): "So what? It's not like we predicted that Newt Gingrich is the most likely to win the Republican nomination for President^img or anything..."
• Me (21:16): "..............." <-- The sound of NIGHT EDITING MODE HAVING BEEN ENGAGED

Seriously, it's hard not to feel like this is a cheap way to arbitrarily delay a discussion when it's Sunday afternoon in the US and when my edit was the only non-admin edit in the last half hour. =| --Sid (talk) 20:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Makes you wonder if his classes end conviently early from time to time as well. --★uːʤɱ pirate 01:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

They shut it down for three hours - without much vandalism happening in the time before... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 11:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Observation of fact?

After Ken once again steps up^img to be voice of sanity speaking out against Andy's early "Gingrich Administration" fantasies, Andy delivers one of his more puzzling comments of this year: "Good analysis, but the recognition of Newt as the frontrunner for the nomination and someone who is likely to defeat Obama in 11 months is merely an observation of fact, like saying who will probably win the Super Bowl."^img --Sid (talk) 23:08, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Tim Tebow. Not the Denver Broncos. Just Tim Tebow. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 23:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Andy's said before that politics is just like a sport team (hyper-partisanship, anyone) so this isn't terribly surprising to me, especially when we consider Andy's strange definition of a "fact." άλφα^Ταλκ 23:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Besides, The collectively (socilist) owned Green Bay Packers are going to win.--Thunderstruck (talk) 00:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, on this, you and Andy agree.^img PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 00:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The man has no idea how football works. The QB can only do so much. As such you can not give himm all the credit. Case in point, The broncos just won in overtime thanks to 2 50+ yard field goals. Do you think andy even KNOWS the name of the field goal kicker?--Thunderstruck (talk) 00:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Tebow got them there. Why you gotta be a hater? PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 00:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with Tebow. I have a problem with lunatics like andy who think that JEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSUUUUUUSSSS has more to do with victory then the players who bust their ass to get the win.--Thunderstruck (talk) 00:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I was actually channeling Andy. I don't actually follow pro sports at all. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 00:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

At least the Andydamus page is nicely filling up today, presidents, appointments and major sporting events. Can someone get Andy to pick me some lottery numbers for this Friday? I need five between 1 and 50 and two between 1 and 12. Thanks. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 11:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Saint or Socialist…

So, Saint Tebow of the Immaculate Interception appears to be on his way to a loss against the Bears, whilst the socialist Packers (they don't even pay dividends — shocking), are almost certain to go to 13-0. The question is, will the latest Tebow-fascination quietly disappear from mainpage-right, or will this crank Andy up to new heights of idiocy?-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 23:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

And so, of course, Denver scores with 2:08 on the clock. Good timing there...Even better, now OT, thanks to the kicker more than anything else, and stats that say that neither team should have won.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 23:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

7:05 EST, and we have overtime.--Thunderstruck (talk) 00:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm watching the Pack at the same time, and it's frightening that we've still got 12mins on the clock in the 4th.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 00:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, the Bears have come out of hibernation…-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 00:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Nope Tebow has done it again apparently. I am just crying over the Niners. How much are shares in the Packers? It would just be nice to own one even if they are not transferable. - π 01:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh it was three days ago the sale :( - π 01:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

There is still some left, which I had a spare US$275. - π 01:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

WTF, the Packers can buy the stock back at 2.5c? - π 01:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

So far, CPs mainpage posting on the Broncos' (remember Conservapedia, they are a team of 53, not one guy) latest victory has been pretty innocuous^img. I am personally disappointed as I am a Chicago-native and Bears fan. Looking past that, I have nothing really against Tebow himself, who I see as a decent and classy guy even if he goes a little overboard on the religiosity. My problem is with his fanatical fans, who become more insufferable with each victory. Its a problem when even sports commentators hint at the idea there is some sort of divine providence behind the Broncos victories to the point where a few are even ready to crown Denver as the Superbowl champion, (to Tebow's credit, he says he believes God doesn't care about the team's football victories).--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 04:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Bingo. The other thing that's annoying the hell out of me is that they've thrown Tebow in as starting quarterback way too early. Man's got talent, there's no denying that, but it takes time on the bench behind a great quarterback in the NFL to make another great quarterback. You look at Tebow's numbers now and you realise they are, at best, average. If they had given him three or four years behind a Brees or a Rodgers, how much better would his numbers be?-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 10:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Spoke too soon, Il Duce decided to make it some atheist vs. Christians issue^img and in doing so, forgot all the other members of the team who I guess don't matter.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 05:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Just watched the highlights, Matt Prater deserves no recognition at all. - π 05:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

User 188---creating new articles still a problem

Apparently the ampersand in A&P is screwing up Uncle Ed's latest quote article. Instead of going to the article "A&P" it goes to A^img. Jared (talk) 02:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC) 00:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

And he was once a developer at Wikipedia *sigh* - π 01:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I love that he doesn't even bother checking his own article after he creates it. He just upper-decks it and runs. Jared (talk) 02:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, that's not Ed's fault, and RW had the same problem for a long time, and we still have some similar issues. It's a server configuration issue, so Ed can't do anything about it. -- Nx / talk 12:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Sheesh, that's been borked since I was there - easily mid-2008. There's a pic of Jess & her sister entitled k&k, that can't be viewed other than by pulling it into an article. Which at least means Ed has something to masturbate over... too bad they don't have anybody left there with any wiki-fu. --PsyGremlinParlez! 12:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

It's borked by default, and fixing it is a pain in the ass -- Nx / talk 12:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Isn't there a chance that User188 should have known about it. Him being a developer and code monkey and all. Even I know it & I'm just a user. Scream!! (talk) 12:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not expecting Uncle Ed to fix the problem, but as Scream points out---you should at least know of the problem! And why create a new article that appears, from the edit summary, to be merely a quote that can't even be viewed! Then again, most of Uncle Ed's new articles I'd prefer not to view either. Jared (talk) 17:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Japan

Japan was and probably still is to this day, one of the greatest and most brutal armies.^img LOL, aren't they a pacifist nation? Slam (talk) 03:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Legally they don't have an army and in they're constitution they are bared from going to war as a means of state. They do have a self-defense force that takes a lot of hurdles to do anything outside japan though--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 03:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Currently Japan has the "Japan Ground Self-Defense Force" as their army. Traditional, during the Cold War, their job was to defend Japan internally from Soviet invasion. Today they are refocusing their purpose towards international peacekeeping. At present they have around 148,000 troops, not a large military; oh and no history of post-WW2 brutality either. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 04:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that what we did was completely fine, I feel like with any other country (besides Germany perhaps) it would have been utterly wrong to drop a bomb in one of their cities, killing innocent woman and children. lol. I guess killing innocent men is okay? If you'd ask them now I think many German "innocent bystanders" (if one can talk about something like that if suddenly all of the Jews you know disappear) would have prefered to die faster than being burned alive in fire pit called Dresden. Not that the Nazis didn't do much worse things all over Europe…

The Japanese army is still an army, it's just called a Defense Force and the Japanese constuitution forbids wars of aggression. Nontheless Japan still fueled American troops and thereby supported the Iraq invasion. --★uːʤɱ kant 13:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

This just keeps getting better: I think world history can help us see which direction we might be headed in. But we can never really be sure, the only thing we can really be sure of, is the present, and the past, since I think the future is just a myth. - Judgement Day is a myth! Awesome! Stuff like this makes me think many of these students are taking the piss out of Andy. --★uːʤɱ secularist 13:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

That word doesn't mean what they think it means.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 14:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

What will Ken make of this?

Members of Reddit's atheist forums have managed to raise over $232,000 for Doctors Without Borders. Ace^ace 04:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Ha! You can't build a hospital with such a paltry amount. Nice try atheists, but ponies win again! EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 04:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

It's still not enough to defeat the tidal wave of anti evolutionism from smashing the coast of dying athiesm!--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 04:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

They have to pay someone to build a hospital for them, have they no machismo at all? Maybe they should learn from Christians and pick up a shovel OLE! OLE! OLE! Infoseek (talk) 06:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

A few Atheists might have raised a few thousand dollars. but obese Atheist Penn Jillette still refuses to debate Dr. William Lane Craig! Maybe he should go to the hospital his friends built and get a machismo transfusion! Olé! Olé! Olé! --Roofus (talk) 06:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

All good answers, but I would put my money on him just ignoring it. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Ken's new excuse

In amongst all the general insanity and dodging the issues HERE,^img Ken has a brand new excuse as to why his isn't going to answer questions:

“”As much as I would like to comment on his failure, today I plan on memorizing some lines for a Christmas play I am going to be in

I've got Z$1,000,000,000 that sez Ken's playing the ass... --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 12:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Is that the front, or the rear? CS Miller (talk) 12:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

“”You see[,] in the liberal altered state of reality world[,] where ideology trumps objective reality, evolution happened and Barack Obama earned a Nobel Peace Prize

Unless I am very confused, in the picture to the right, Obama appears to be holding a Nobel Peace Prize. I assume that means evolution happened. - π 13:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The picture was probably liberally altered. -- Nx / talk 13:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The argument is Obama didn't earn the Nobel Prize, therefore Evolution didn't happen. Yeah I don't get it either.--Thunderstruck (talk) 13:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I still don't get why Obama was awarded the prize. Ajkgordon (talk) 13:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

You're not alone. --★uːʤɱ pervert 15:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

So Ken just admitted evolution is true, since in reality Obama did win the Nobel Peace Prize; whether you think it was a good thing, a bad thing, or are indifferent, it still happened.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 14:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The question is whether Obama earned the prize. Surely you agree that sometimes, a person can be awarded a prize that they didn't earn? The word "earn" means something different than "is awarded". (Note: I'm not saying whether Obama earned the prize or not; just interpreting Ken's statement.) Phiwum (talk) 14:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The committee felt he did. I personally don't feel that he earned it, yet again I feel that way for several winners in these last couple decades.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 14:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Even if he's not the near socialist people thought we needed to start digging out after years of being looted by smug fundies, he won because he's not George Bush, who I'm glad to say has to make his travel plans around where he'll be arrested for warcrimes. Anyone taking office after such a crook would get the Peace prize. 15:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, yeah. Even Obama's supporters will admit he won the prize for "not being George Bush". MDB (talk) 15:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

According to nobelprize.com: "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples". One could argue that this simplifies the argument that he won for "not being George Bush". Remember his speech in 2009 that supposedly inspired the unrest in Tunisia and Egypt (and other places)? I'd say that would be part of his "efforts to strengthen...cooperation between peoples", particularly the tribes of Libya that were against Gadhafi as well as other Arab countries against their dictators. Of course, this all happened AFTER the awarding...interesting...-- Seth Peck (talk) 22:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Karajou is a fearless vandal-fighter!

Another^img brilliant maneuver in thwarting atheistic commie vandals. Way to keep CP trustworthy! (See [1] for how obese lieberals sully this conservative hero's reputation.) Phiwum (talk) 14:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh that is awesome. Maradonna deliberately cheats, the press call it the Hand of God, and now he's a Great Conservative sportsman. Who also failed a drugs test. How stupid is Karajerk? --PsyGremlin말하십시오 14:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a question of stupidity, this is a question of knowing nothing about soccer, it's history, it's culture and — probably — it's rules. The worst thing is, he could look this up within seconds, but is even too lazy to do that. --★uːʤɱ pervert 15:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Knowing nothing about Maradona either. Scream!! (talk) 15:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Whenever I've heard it talked about I always thought "Hand of God" referred to Maradonna's actual hand, him being by general consensus the best football player in the history of the sport (alongside Zidane, Ronaldo, Pele and Messi) and a God amongst other footballers. "A little with the head of Maradonna, a little with the hand of God" certainly doesn't make him conservative, but by CP's standards since when have "true Christians" ever not been conservative? It's not something to highlight even if he did mean it literally, as by CP's logic God is a cheater. SJ ^Debaser 16:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

It always makes my day to see CP sysops defending parody. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

It shouldn't be forgotten that the "hand of god" was also a slight pun on "Dios" and "Diego". Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 09:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Kara's defense

Is a thing of beauty:^img

“”The edit involved was done by a known troll, which I reverted. However, if what you say is indeed factual, please make the necessary changes as you see fit.

In other words, "I have no idea if it's actually right or wrong, but because the incorrect information was removed by somebody who just happens to have the same IP address as somebody else who's edited CP, I'm allowed to reinsert the incorrect data. Fact checking is for pussies!" --PsyGremlinTala! 12:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Told'ya'll! He's just lazy. What is even weirder is that he admits it without any shame... --★uːʤɱ sinner 18:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)