Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive274

This is an archive page, last updated 24 January 2012. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <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)

Parodist?

Is Ken a parodist? I'm pretty new to this but it seems like he does nothing but insult others and write ridiculously stupid things. What do you think RW? Rapier (talk) 01:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Most likely. It's old news, mon!--Colonel Sanders (talk) 01:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

This is a question new users always ask. And the answer is...no, unfortunately he is the real deal. Ace^Moderator 01:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

But sometimes even veteran RWers aren't so sure. Senator Harrison (talk) 03:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Heh, good to know. Rapier (talk) 04:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

No, the true veterans are certain. He's the whole cloth. Just look here, he's been at it for too many years to have maintained such a high level of self parody. Scream!! (talk) 04:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps he's been a parodist for so long he became the mask?--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 04:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

While we veterans realize Ken is for real, there are certainly times when we have trouble grasping that fact, and even after years of his antics there are those moments of his that give us pause. DickTurpis (talk) 04:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

^That's what I meant. Senator Harrison (talk) 06:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Hell, sometimes I think that even Andy is a parodist. I would not be totally gobsmacked if he suddenly came out and said the whole thing was an elaborate joke. Damo^Hi 06:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Not being a parodist doesn't mean he isn't aware of what he's doing though, which may be the cause of some of the confusion. See the present debate on the Community Portal. [1]^img Peter^{Quasniki 2012!} 08:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Ed is still oblivious

At this point, it's almost sad to watch Ed as he stumbles through CP, thinking that it's in any way better than WP.

Yeah, quote mining, distortion by selection, putting words in someone's mouth and having biased quote farms^img is bad! Good thing that Conservapedia is better than that, thanks to editors who try to be neutral. You know, like Ken.

Also: "We need to beef up our article base, people!"^img Who is he even talking to? Seriously, this is moving beyond his usual blindness. --Sid (talk) 17:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Bonus: Ed apologizes for using a hostile site^img as a source. Yeah, shame on you, Ed! How dare you use RightWingWatch? Go back to using proper sources like WorldNetDaily! Or write your own and link to them! --Sid (talk) 17:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

"We need to increase the article base!", this coming from the man who said that because Internet explorer wasnt "made" by microsoft all of it's history was a lie and then IE wasn't notable at all.--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 17:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Hrgh, the Internet Explorer trainwreck still makes me want to punch something. --Sid (talk) 17:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

He atleast had a point that it looked like a advertisement for it; but thats because i was extremely lazy and just used they're website. I also got told to write plan; not that anything came from that--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 17:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Sid, don't you see how Ed is helping CP by generating all these red links? It's just like his one line stubs; he plants the acorns and leaves them to grow into mighty oaks for which he can take all the credit. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 17:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Or in CP's case, shrivel in to weedy motorway trees to the everlasting shame of everybody involved. If they had a sense of shame, that is. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

yes but if you bring attention to trying to improve on one of eds... things... he will take exception you wont shoulder all the work. i think he told me I had to do it, that he disagreed with me so i had to fix it all.--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 19:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Ed has an ability of ignorance that rivals even Andy's. Ace^Moderator 19:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

false flag

This is out there, but does anyone else ever get the feeling that the CP cabal occasionally runs false flag operations to "divert" their own attention? A lot of times when an admin is getting their ass kicked, suddenly a vandal pops up and everything needs to be dropped (and forgotten). Sometimes it just seems too convenient. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Nothing that organised. As I see it CP admin's get there ass kicked a lot and CP gets lots of vandals. It's bound to coincide some of the time. StarFish (talk) 22:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Does not compute

Todd Palin... Impressive endorsements^img? You just fried my brain. Todd Palin, a man whose only claim to fame is being the snowmobiling husband of a former politician turned attention whore. Is there anybody dumb enough to base their voting decisions on the recommendation of this gormless idiot? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 01:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

He has a little bit of gorm. 66.68.86.111 (talk) 02:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The "journalist" that broke the story seems to have an intellect to match the ex-first dude himself. E.g, the article mentions rumors of a "political riff in the family." Probably Ted Nugent. --Whoover (talk) 02:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

"a wave of endorsements that newt is delaying until after the NH primary". Explain how waiting until after the vote happens to let people whos names can get you votes is a good idea. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 03:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The NH primary doesn't decide the nominee—there are several other primaries afterwards, and ultimately the candidate is nominated at the Republican National Convention. -- Seth Peck (talk) 03:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Still, waiting doesnt benefit you at all--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 03:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

It does if you want to make sure you're backing a winner. P-Foster Talk "Go get Ace" 03:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, if you consider that computers are rock stupid, it makes perfect sense. Garbage in, garbage out. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 03:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Nielsen 3:16

The Nielsen ratings are still a thing, right? Anyway, the stupid just keeps piling up.^img P-Foster Talk "Go get Ace" 21:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Mental! StarFish (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The first 6 news stories are about Tebow now. Tebowpedia!!! I can see this quickly going to "You don't want to hear even more about Tebow? LIBRULL!!!!!" Occasionaluse (talk) 22:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Big shock: link is report to local Fox affiliate. -- Seth Peck (talk) 22:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, they're really going^img into numerology now with the 3:16 stuff. Remember, kids! Supernatural mysticism is okay when it's Christian supernatural mysticism! --Sid (talk) 22:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Even better: a search for this on Google as well as Bloomberg (which the Fox article cites as it source) returns no results, and the local newspaper reports much higher Nielsen ratings...so... -- Seth Peck (talk) 22:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Tebow's cleats have shoelaces that are 3.16" in length. Believe it or not!.--99.85.36.212 (talk) 22:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

He must have some awfully tiny feet then. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 22:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

They're just for decorative purposes. His shoes stick to his feet with the sheer power of God! --Sid (talk) 22:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

@Sethpeck: Eh, local news affiliates are relatively apolitical. They highlight sports, crimes, and the occasional feel-good story, and that's about it. Local news appeals to a geographic area, rather than a politically-minded group, so if they run any political propaganda they run the serious risk of offending half their own audience. (This is also why local news is always so bland. At least, mine is.) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 22:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

In the case of KDVR, which is my local Fox affiliate, it is VERY political; the conservative bent is very strong and quite obvious (perhaps less so in the sister station CW2, but even there I see some things that make my eyebrow raise). More to my point—the Nielsen numbers they report, specifically the 31.6 rating, do not appear anywhere else on the internet, and other sources show much higher numbers. -- Seth Peck (talk) 22:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, my. I'm sorry to hear that. Though, this supports my hypothesis that Oregon is one of the blandest states in the union. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 22:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Arguably, one could say that all of the Denver-Boulder-Fort Collins DMA affiliates (Colorado has a separate DMA for Colorado Springs/Pueblo, which I would guess are probably more conservative but cannot attest to this) are on the conservative side when it comes to their news offerings, Colorado being a long-time red state (the radio programs, even more so—AM features all the usual suspects, of course, but even the FM dial has some pretty scary conservatives for morning personalities, and that's on rock stations). -- Seth Peck (talk) 22:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

This Nielsen family has to stop telling our kids what to watch on television. These bureaucrats have no right to operate in shadowy surroundings making unnecessary bureaucracy. Because who else had a family anyone else could join: Charles Manson. And you don't want Charles Manson telling your kids what to watch on television.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 23:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

This is why I want to Broncos to lose, not because of Tebow himself, who is a pretty good character (and I wish him all the best), but because his radical religious fans are the most insufferable people around. They honestly view his team's football victories as some sort of divine message or revelation. C'mon... Its Football! Man I love the sport but I can't imagine any all-powerful divine god caring more about some particular American sports team than all the carnage and suffering in the world, or caring at all for that matter.

Tebow fans are the Weeaboos of the NFL.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 23:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

That is what I've noted -- Tebow himself seems to be a pretty classy fellow and specifically does not claim God is using him to send a message or that God particularly favors him. He does thank God for giving him his skills, but that's different. It's his fans that are being jerks about it, and many of them are only fans because of his overt Christianity.

And if God was going to use sports to send a message, you'd think He'd use something other than a sport that's really only popular in a largely Christian country anyway. Soccer would seem to be the more logical choice. MDB (talk) 13:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I just want people to fucking shut up about it, Tebow or otherwise. Maybe if they'd devote their money and energy to solving real problems instead of a sport that ultimately does and means nothing in the history of the world besides permanently injuring more than a few young men, things would be a little better. -- Seth Peck (talk) 23:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Erm, I have to say no to that. Sure the public obsession with things you don't care about can be annoying, but sports in particular serve as an outlet for emotions. They can give nations their pride back, push economies back up again and serve as an catalyzer for the solution of all kinds of social issues. For example, in 2006 at the opening game of the soccer world cup on the market place of my old hometown during half-time, I saw a young Turkish girl, about 14, in a headscarf (headscarf → conservative family) screaming "Germany! Germany! Germany!" as loud as her lungs (right organ?) could possibly make her. In addition she was waving around a Germany fan scarf like you normally only see it in stadiums. Such a thing wasn't seen or even thought of before. And she wasn't the only one, thousands of young immigrants were (all of a sudden) cheering for Germany. That same world cup (IIRC) many of "the Turkish" in Germany hung out flags they had made themselves that combines the German flag with the Turkish flag. Germans and Turks watched soccer together. And sure, while that further integration into a completely foreign society may would have happend anyway, it wouldn't have happend that fast and who knows what might have happend in the meantime. So, while I don't necessarily agree that sports are super-dooper important, they aren't completely irrelevant to the real problems either. --★uːʤɱ anti-communist 00:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

There are a few saliences I want to point out here: I would argue that there's a difference between things like FIFA and the Olympics, which are closely tied to both publicly-funded/supported state/national ventures, and NFL football, which is a private venture meant to profit corporate owners. Secondly, even national/state enterprises like the Olympics are not without progressive voices who have issues with them. In short, big sport, like anything that concentrates money and power, cannot be looked at with an uncritical eye. P-Foster Talk "Go get Ace" 02:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

So is any of this nonsense gonna go into the Tim Tebow or selection bias articles, or do I have to break down and do it (tomorrow)? -- Seth Peck (talk) 00:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Man these contrived 3:16 references are getting annoying. Alright, so the total yardage is an interesting coincidence, but then they try to make the average yardage being 31.6 yards meaningful, when it's basically just reiterating the same statistic. When you have 10 completions the average is always going to be a power of ten off the total. If each pass had been 31.6 yards, not just their average, that would be something. I'm waiting to hear that he threw a total of 948 feet, which is three 316s! These numbers keep coming up! DickTurpis (talk) 11:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

10 out of 21...

using the power of god, Tebow managed to make 10 out of 21 passes^img. It seems god only wants him to do somewhat good. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know American Football so is Tebow any good? Or is he an adequate player who happens to be a Conservative Christian's wet-dream? Ace^Moderator 23:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Considering I like not american sports i wouldn't know at all if thats good or bad. but he seems decent--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 23:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Throwing 10/21 is hardly indicative a good quarterback; as the statement doesn't taken into account passing yards, rushing yards, third-down conversions, fourth-downs which result in field goal attempts (as opposed to punts), or turnovers. You can be 10/21 and win by 21; you can be 10/21 and lose by 21. For comparison's sake: Elway in his final two seasons was 55% and 58% in pass completion, and his passing game was topnotch (as well as accounting for the bulk of his yardage). -- Seth Peck (talk) 00:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

(EC) Apparently he does charity work in the Philippines so he's probably a decent guy, albeit one who's driven by his religion rather than one who thinks it's just the right thing to do whatever. Separating motives gets a bit difficult. However you have to wonder at somebody who seems to think that every moment of his life is governed by God; I mean, out of 6 billion people on the planet and God's so concerned about you when so many people are living in abject poverty? Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 00:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I would not discount this for him as a human being—must be nice to be rich enough to provide charity for people halfway around the world. Still, being a good humanitarian, or a good Christian, does not a good QB make, and vice versa. -- Seth Peck (talk) 00:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, you can be 10 of 21 and win by 21...but the majority of the time, if you complete less than half your passes, not only will your team lose, but if you do it consistently---you're not even going to be a starter. Tim Tebow's completion percentage for the year was 46.5%...that would place him 34th out of 34 qualifying quarterbacks, a full 4 points below #33. His QB Rating, which takes more stats into consideration, placed him 28th out of 34. Pretty much any indication of INDIVIDUAL quarterback statistic tells the same story---Tebow stinks. Jared (talk) 00:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

^ This. Also, one should note the following: people will talk about Tebow's fourth-quarter/OT game as if it's the Second Coming...which was true for six of his first seven wins. However, in yesterdays game, the Broncos didn't come from behind to win...they were winning, gave up the lead, then had to reclaim it. Everyone calls the comebacks "miraculous"—but if the Broncos were the Super Bowl contenders that people want to believe they are, they need to concentrate on scoring, not just scoring when it's convenient. -- Seth Peck (talk) 00:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

"Look at the glory of God working through Tebow!" Pretty pathetic, get back to me when God saves people from being raped. Ace^Moderator 00:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

You guys sure do love your sports. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 00:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not so sure they love sports. If they did they would know that yards per completion is NEVER used as a stat. Instead, yards per attempt is used. Did you know that four times during the game the game clock read 3:16? 66.68.86.111 (talk) 05:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

When I was younger, I used to watch professional wrestling quite a lot, and I saw "3:16" and even more specifically "John 3:16" absolutely *everywhere*. Which is just proof that God sponsors The Undertaker's domination over Wrestlemania. X Stickman (talk) 15:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Although I normally find these guys insufferably unfunny, Mr Deity does a good parody on the subject. [3] Damo^Hi 05:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Gays don't get fat

The gay diet. Does this mean gays aren't atheists? Ken, help us solve this conundrum! Rennie McGreet (talk) 15:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I love that image caption on the article. All it does is describe exactly what is in the image and nothing more. Ken could learn some things from that. ^{ONE / TALK} 15:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Gay food? Two words: hot dogs. MDB (talk) 16:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Clearly guzzling spooge burns the calories. Quick ken, do it to it and lose those loose rolls! --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 19:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

A thing of beauty (aka blast from the past)

When I first read the opening paragraphs of this,^img I thought I'd been transported to an alternate universe, where CP isn't run by a bunch of mindless thugs.

From Conservapedia:Administrator's Guide

“”Working with others A sysops (sic) responsibility is to help users by providing guidance. If a user seems stubborn or indifferent, try shepherding or mentoring the user. The relationship between Sysop and Editor should not be adversarial. Do not compound the problem by being argumentative. You should interact peacefully and positively with users, direct newbies to the appropriate Guideline page or clause that deals with certain problems, and issue polite warnings as required. If necessary, you may impose editing restrictions, undo useless work, userfy inadequate articles, or try short blocks. Civility Conservapedia Administrators are expected to afford registered users the same standard of editing etiquette, decorum, and interaction you yourself, and the Conservapedia project as a whole, require and appreciate from others. You must be civil. No bullying.

I guess Kara, TK, Ken, Terry Wobblebottom and Creepy Uncle Ed all missed this memo. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 16:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

You missed the last paragraph, probably because it's written in sooper seekrit invisible ink, "Nothing in these guidelines shall be interpreted as applying to liberals, liberal sympathisers or people you vaguely suspect to be liberals." --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

There is a whole book to be written on the gap between CP's stated rules and actual practice. Part of that book would be a chapter on what CP was back in 2007--an actual attempt to write an encyclopedia with lively debate between the people involved in the project (and the trolls who came out of the woodwork and did really smart and interesting work to sabotage the project, from the Pacific Arboreal Octopus to quoting "My Favorite Things" in the Counterexamples to Evolution article), and how it slowly became a blog written by 5-6 stupid angry people that draws a bunch of basement-dwellers who thing that writing COCKS in giant letters on a user page is a worthwhile project. P-Foster Talk "Go get Ace" 16:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I actually believe CP has a rich enough (and comical enough) history that you could write a book about it. It would almost certainly get a spot on Colbert and reach a wide audience. It would be best published after CP has finally died, though. Who wants to write it? Maybe RationalWiki could embark on its biggest project ever, collaboratively writing a book about CP, with all proceeds to the RW foundation. ^{ONE / TALK} 16:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Trouble is CP will only slowly fade away and will only close when Aschlafly finally loses interest. That's not likely to be for a few years. By which time everyone will have forgotten about it. Ajkgordon (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I think Ken's claims/attitude is representative of the other sysops, he's just far more open about it. An atheist and/or (hah, "or") liberal is inherently uncivil just by existing. That same atheist/liberal then going to CP is obviously just there to cause trouble (why else would they be there?) and therefore does not deserve to be treated civilly since they themselves have broken the CP guidelines already. Throw in CP's standard definition of "atheist/liberal = anyone who does not agree with the attending sysop" and you've got a site wide way of making the rules irrelevant without actually breaking them directly. X Stickman (talk) 17:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

It is amazing that CP sysops manage to break, literally, every single rule/guideline in that paragraph. That takes some considerable effort... -- 20:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

That's RobSmith's fairytale version from summer 2011. Obviously it got ignored & the earlier versions are still valid in the mind of his former fellows. Ken created the article discussing some real problems for administrators at CP:

“”When blocking vandals or other troublemakers, uncheck the "block anonymous users only" box. The block is more secure this way as it will block the IP Address that the vandal or troublemaker is using which will make it impossible to use the same exact computer connection to edit Conservapedia.

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 21:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

…for 24 hours. --★uːʤɱ libertarian 21:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

How many buses?

Over the years, Andy has been kind enough to gloat about the number of buses he has chartered to the March for Life rally. Two buses. Three buses. This year? Seems like there's just one... I think this is going to be a tough year for Andy because he most likely won't be able to blame a low turnout on cold weather, considering the extremely mild winter, which is with absolute certainty not caused by global warming. On the other hand, I don't think he would be capable of admitting that turnout had declined. Considering the outright lies he's told about crowd attendance in the past, I wonder what he'll say this year? Occasionaluse (talk) 14:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

In the past, he also had a captive audience of home scholars to drag along. I have a feeling that given the reduced numbers and the fact that several courses have vanished into the ether, this is no longer the case. --PsyGremlinTala! 15:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Do we know his IRL hoamskooler crowd is smaller? We do know they're no longer an active element of CP, but he still spends lots of time in a basement with children, right? P-Foster Talk "Go get Ace" 16:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Andy's Austrian? --PsyGremlinSnakk! 16:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Incest, rape, paedophilia, relatively recent tragedy and a subtle delivery all wrapped up in two words. I am impressed as hell. X Stickman (talk) 17:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

As Ron Paul just said, "we're all Austrians now." Junggai (talk) 07:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

What you don't agree with us? You are irrelevant!

[2]^img --★uːʤɱ digital native 01:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

They have to play down his victory, Romney is the one candidate they do not want to win.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 02:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

What about Huntsman? Surely they don't want him to win? Peter^{Quasniki 2012!} 02:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

But nobody thinks he will. P-Foster Talk "a cheetos-eating, Mountain-Dew drinking vlogger living in someone's basement." 02:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't suprised by it, but the clumsiness in which it was made me laugh out loud. Andy seems to have seen it too.^img --★uːʤɱ socialist 12:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I like how he bags on NH for being a same-sex marriage state....and Iowa is, what..? As more states legalize same-sex marriage and medical marijuana, will they ALL become irrelevent? -- Seth Peck (talk) 23:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Hilarious observations are hilarious. Occasionaluse (talk) 00:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh these goddamn liberal birthers!

The hypocricy is strong in this one.^img --★uːʤɱ sinner 01:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

"This is a conservative encyclopedia. Its job is to decry liberals and their ideas at every turn. By promulgating the idea that Obama may be a Muslim we are being good conservatives, because it helps to turn people off him." ~ unknown CP admin--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 01:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I like this bit: "... John McCain (R-AZ) was also not a natural-born citizen." Do you really think for a moment that if McCain had won we'd have heard so much as a peep about birth certificates and citizenship? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 01:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Holy god hurlbutt. Just give it UP. The birth cirtificate was released, Obama has proved he was born in America. You and Joseph Farah have lost. Deal with it.--Thunderstruck (talk) 03:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

So if Obama's father was born in Kenya, Obama can't be president. But Romney's father was born in Mexico, but Romney's birth certificate doesn't matter because Romney is white. And the mother's place of birth (irrelevant anyway) is conveniently left out. Yes, I think Hurlbut is a racist. Senator Harrison (talk) 03:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, in fairness, he does have a consistent rationale. He has previously provided an explanation as to the definition of natural born citizen on his blog. According to, and consistent with that rationale, the critical difference between Obama and Romney is that, whilst Romney's father was born in Mexico, he was, nonetheless, an American citizen because both his parents were citizens. Obama's father, by contrast, was not an American citizen. Hurlbutt's natural born citizen theorim requires that a natural born citizen be born in the US to parents who are both citizens. As much as I dislike defending Terry (because he is often a deceitful little prick) he cannot be criticised for inconsistency in this instance. --Horace (talk) 06:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps not for inconsistency, no, but surely he can be criticised for making up a definition to suit the facts. Damo^Hi 06:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Am I the only one who finds the name "Hurlbutt" funny? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 07:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Nope. Other variations are: Chuckarse, Tossass, Throwheiny, and Launchbooty. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 07:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

You forgot my favourite, Vomitbottom. ^{ONE / TALK} 08:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't really care for all the twisting of someone's name, but Launchbooty in itself just made me laugh as it sounds like a character's name from a Monty Python sketch.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm gonna start using Launchbooty from now on.--Thunderstruck (talk) 14:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I like Wobblebottom. Makes him sound like he's from inbred English gentry. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 16:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

His Lordship the esteemed Terence Wobblebottom is here to see you, sir. ^{ONE / TALK} 16:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

This thread took a turn to the hilarious. Senator Harrison (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

What Tea Party Mocking?

Okay. Karajou is upset^img about the White House Alice-in-Wonderland themed Halloween Party from 2009.

Okay, yeah, it's a fair point to question the political tone deafness of a honkin' big Halloween Party during a major recession. But Karajou claims it's "TEA Party Mocking", and the cited article claims nothing of the kind. Doesn't he realize that a tea party is a major scene in Alice? MDB (talk) 13:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I've never seen Karajou make a single reference to a book. It's possible he doesn't read and is unaware of the existence of a tea party scene in any book, let alone in Carroll. Also, given the results in both Iowa and N.H., Obama would be a fool to think that the Tea Party is anything worth thinking about this year. P-Foster Talk "a cheetos-eating, Mountain-Dew drinking vlogger living in someone's basement." 13:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, the Halloween Party in question was from 2009, when teabagging was really hot. MDB (talk) 13:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of not reading, I didn't read the story in question. I assumed it was from last year. AWKWARD TURTLE. P-Foster Talk "a cheetos-eating, Mountain-Dew drinking vlogger living in someone's basement." 13:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

As the Obama administration said, if they wanted to keep it secret, they shouldn't have invited the press corp, posted photos on flickr, or invited all those children of men and women serving in the armed forces. This is a prime example of a manufactroversy. I only wish I could troll America this hard. Whoever did this, while totally being a deceitful prick, has some of my respect. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

If it wasn't for manufactroversies, Fox News and talk radio would have about a thousandth their influence. One of the reasons I have up on Air America was when I heard them using the same style of shoddy attempts at creating outrage the right uses. MDB (talk) 15:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Kara completely missed the train on this. Instead of attempting to claim that the Alice In Wonderland theme party somehow mocked the Tea Party Movement, he could have pointed out the large expense of hosting such an event during tough economic times; that would actually resonate with people. Instead what we have is Tea Party people trying desperately to play the victim card in a transparent way.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, pretty much the entire right wing spin is "how dare they hold such a big party when the economy sucks" -- perhaps karajou was trying to comeu up with a new take on it. Nah, he's just an idiot. MDB (talk) 22:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Back on the encyclopedic content front:

Andy reinserts demonstrably wrong content about "purebred" dogs and earthquakes^img and, having made his own truth, locks it down for all eternity.^img P-Foster Talk "a cheetos-eating, Mountain-Dew drinking vlogger living in someone's basement." 13:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

In fairness to Andy, Conservapedia was just proven right beyond all doubt because there was an earthquake. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

That is some pretty aggressive stupidity there. Andy seems to believe that purebred breeds just arrived out of nowhere, rather than being bred by humans, emphasizing various traits and eliminating undesirable alleles, to the point that a male and female of the same breed produce pure offspring. But then again, if you believe the earth is 6000 years old, ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE. I wish I were as intellectually free as Andy.Shakedangle (talk) 14:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, okay, Andy is not that stupid. He's not saying one earthquake proves Conservapedia right. Two, on the other hand... Occasionaluse (talk) 15:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

As far as dog breeds go... what's considered a "breed" of dog is really pretty arbitrary, right? Isn't it something kennel clubs and the like establish and not something with a really firm scientific basis? MDB (talk) 15:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

"Arbitrary" is probably the wrong word (at least to someone who grew up around breeders), but you're right. A dog is a dog (is a canis lupus familiaris). Occasionaluse (talk) 15:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

And in fact, there are now MORE breeds than ever before, with even more extreme "traits", since they aren't actually being used for anything but show dogs in most cases. Oh well. It's snowing today. Global warming is a hoax. And they found a new baby White Rhino this year, so rhinos are clearly no longer in danger of going extinct. GodotDear god, fucking grow up 16:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, a 'breed' of dog is just a subpopulation in which certain alleles (frequently recessive ones) have been driven to near-fixation. This is done by artificial selection by humans, who want, say, a tiny dog with short hair and big floppy ears instead of a tiny dog with long hair and big floppy ears. If you let the 'purebreds' mate outside of their 'breed', all those carefully selected alleles/traits get jumbled together. The number of purebred strains is going to fluctuate with time as breeder interest and fashion varies. It's tough to get a sense of what Andy's concept of breeds is here: does he think that all the dogs were created as purbreds during creation week, potentially making them different 'kinds', or what? He mentions "natural, pure-bred" dogs although that is an oxymoron. Maybe he's thinking of landraces, which are the local 'wild dog' stock from which purebred lines are derived. I have no idea how many different dog landraces there are, or how that number has changed over time. --Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 16:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

His theory seems to be that God created poodles, American pitbull terriers and Australian sheepdogs, and that Noah had cages for two of each of them. The degeneration of this Divine Doggie Register into a sea of mutts is therefore a YEC biological clock, which confirms 6,000 years. This is odd because some creationists cite dog breeding as disproving evolution (years of breeding has yet to produce a separate species of canid). It's central evidence in the microevolution/macroevolution narrative. I guess Andy forgot. --Whoover (talk) 17:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Bored at work so I did some digging. Andy added the original comment, and as a bonus, discusses his rational on an archived talk page(near the bottom). Apologies, new to this wiki thing so I couldn't find diffs for the comment on the archived page. Shakedangle (talk) 17:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Andy isn't even singing from the same song-sheet as the creatards who claim that there was just one pair of doggy baramin on the Ark and all the other canines have micro-evolved from them. Why hasn't Ken (who can edit the page) corrected him on this? Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 17:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

When global warming is declared false on the MPR

IT'S COLD and snowing LIBERALS, WHERE IS YOU'RE GLOBAL WARMING NOW. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 21:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

When is global warming not declared false on MPR? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

EC Are you talking about anything in specific, or just seeing if your caps lock key still works? P-Foster Talk "a cheetos-eating, Mountain-Dew drinking vlogger living in someone's basement." 21:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

In massachusettes, it been rather mild this winter.--Thunderstruck (talk) 22:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Northern Finland. Didn't get a lasting snow cover until December. Utter frigging lunacy. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah they will always say that the moment they get a convenient opportunity weather-wise, and completely ignore the climate when the weather doesn't go their way. This winter has been warm in Wisconsin; warm enough that we had only one day of accumulative snowfall in December, otherwise it has been all rain. We had three days in the fifties (plus 13 in the forties) in December and three so far in January (including one where it got to 57 degrees). To give a better understanding how much warmer than normal that is, the average high is supposed to be thirty (not in the thirties, just thirty) right now. Of course this is all ignored on CP; although according to Andy's own standard of evidence when it comes to climate, this would absolutely prove global warming. However starting today we are supposed to have our first major snowfall of the year with highs afterward sliding into the low-twenties (thus below normal), which I rather expect CP to crow about on their main page as "proof" global warming is false.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Before it is burned utterly

This^img should be preserved. I do so because I note that Ken has tried unsuccessfully to delete the last comments already. At some point he will likely succeed. --Horace (talk) 00:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I had to look up the word "dyscalculexic", which referred to dyscalculia and didn't appear to be a word in itself (according to Google). I was extremely amused. Here comes the banhammer! -- Seth Peck (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I wish there was some way to get an idea how Andy really feels about this stuff. Surely it must be frustrating? At this point User:Conservative is basically a permanent houseguest who has decided Jesus wants him to daub everything with shit. Once you've decided that you can't face going into the sitting room and saying "Don't smear shit on the furniture", where do you draw the line? Do you just buy another house, move out, and not give the houseguest your new address? 82.69.171.94 (talk) 03:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

What you do is stay in a different room and ignore him. Seems to be Andy's way, anyhow. The main page being the toilet which they both have to use but at different times. Scream!! (talk) 03:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

In his dealings with other users, Ken pretty much does what Andy used to do back when he could be bothered. That is to say, accusing everybody who disagrees with him about anything of being a liberal/an atheist/a parodist/unqualified to write about whatever the subject is. Whereas Ken says, "Can you answer the 15 questions that evolutionists can't answer?" Andy used to say "Deny this and lose all credibility. Global warming is a fraud/Marriage is the union between a man and a woman" or something else completely irrelevant to whatever argument he was having with the user. Obviously, Andy did have a private word with Ken about laying off the bestiality articles and they don't agree about everything (a picture is worth a thousand words vs. no pictures in the Bible) but Andy and Ken are cut from the same cloth. --Spud (talk) 05:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Reading that makes me realize what a sad, pathetic excuse for a human being Ken really is. I realize saying this about a guy who's clearly mildly retarded can seem a bit harsh, but man, it's so very true. At what stage of being overtly obnoxious does mental retardation no longer remain a legitimate excuse? There must be a line somewhere. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 06:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

It's been said before, many times, that Andy is at fault here, allowing it to continue. Scream!! (talk) 06:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not Ken's fault if he has some sort of mental disorder, and there's no call for this "sad, pathetic excuse" language. Scream is right, the sad case in this is Andy, who's been completely spineless in his dealings with troublesome sysops. Rennie McGreet (talk) 08:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

If Ken is mentally ill or disabled, his guardian/mother/concerned friend, ANYONE, ought to be noticing his internet habits. On Conservapedia, his delusions of grandeur are flourishing (after all, the soil there IS fertilized with plenty of manure.) His work has gone from the good-ol'-days of logical fallacy and bigotry (homosexuality articles, et al) to nonsensical (Flying Kitty) to unvarnished lunacy (atheism and obesity, and its more advanced cousin, atheism and bestiality.) I don't know if he's getting crazier or he has more latitude to display his crazy, but either way, it isn't good for him. GayGator (talk) 14:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

... and Ken burns it utterly: "if you want to keep deleting my posts to this debate page fine - bye page!" larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 08:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

As always AugustO delivers the inconvenient truth - how has he not been conveniently banned yet? He reminds me of the Sword of Damocles, except AugustO is pawing at it like a suicidal cat. ^{ONE / TALK} 08:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

My favourite bit was when Conservative happily edited around the (boring) vandalism attack; then -in a magnaninomous mood- undoes one of the hundred or so vandal edits.Tielec01 (talk) 08:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

There was a time when Ken was just simple, now he's nasty and simple. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 10:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

He learned from the best. ^{ONE / TALK} 10:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

It's just another sign of Ken's lazy mental immaturity. He doesn't have to defend his bullshit, if his detractors are busy defending the lame insults he throws at them. Ken and integrity were never really on speaking terms anyway. But he's certainly become worse since taking over as Andy's 2IC. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 13:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Erm, Ken...^img we don't have same-sex marriage in Germany, those couples were blessed. Read it for yourself if you don't believe me. You know why? Because marrying in a church in Germany has no legal effects. But yeah, he can't even form an ad hominem argument that makes any kind of sense… --★uːʤɱ constructivist 14:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I hate to do this but he did put "marry" in inverted commas. Ajkgordon (talk) 14:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I noticed it and took it as "same-sex marriage isn't marriage" kind of thing. Of course he could be so stupid not to remember the word "blessing"… --★uːʤɱ secularist 14:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow. Ken turns^img the "Look I too can be an utter cunt" dial to 9. He's doing nothing but baiting August now. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 14:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

is your liberal Protestant denomination still declining in their membership? Probably yes, and so is Christianity overall in Germany. --★uːʤɱ digital native 14:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

"I can't possibly answer your questions on the subject at hand, so I am going to launch a personal smear campaign against your person!" Ken in a nutshell. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

(EC)They both go crying to teacher^img. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 15:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Ken's already attacked Ashlafly's Catholic Church as being liberal and heretical so I can't believe he would care that he's also attacking a minor German protestant one. He also doesn't care when editors are attacked by Ken. Ajkgordon (talk) 16:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Or more likely he does care but he's far too spineless to step in and put a stop to it. He's great at pretending problems don't exist. He hasn't even acknowledged that Conservapedia was redirected to a malware site the other day. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Could be. The third option is he's too proud to admit he made a mistake. Giving Ken so much power, allowing CP (which of course is blessed by God therefore perfect) to be hacked.... He seems incapable of learning from his mistakes perhaps because he won't even admit them to himself. Ajkgordon (talk) 17:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Conservative has noted once or twice on a talk page directly to Andy that he acknowledges Andy's admittance that he has a hard time admitting he's wrong, during one of those rare times Ken actually disagrees with Andy. Fuck the full circle, this shit spirals like a slinky. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 00:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

So in Andyland, Frothy Santorum is nothing but a dirty liberal pro choicer

The Ever Huggable Rick Santorum, the one politician I would consider to be the ideal match of Andy's stupidity, smugness, vanity, delusions, self righteousness, hypocricy, sliminess, zealotry and catholic creationism, is apparently nothing but a black mark on Mitt Romney's record due to him being an evil abortion supporter. I know im new here, and i am well aware of the current focus on the exploits of Ken, but this seems to be worthy of a little attention. -- Judge Holden

This one really confuses me. Not only is Santorum frothingly anti-abortion, he's anti-contraceptive for fucks sake. Andy's beef with him seems to be that he endorsed Arlen Spector over Patrick Toomey in the 2004 Republican primaries for US Senate. Spector eventually flipped to the Democratic side, so Andy's wrath is partially justified, but Spector was the Republican incumbent at the time and Santorum was expected to endorse him. GW Bush also endorsed him. But really other than that, he's Andy's dream date, like Holden says.Shakedangle (talk) 17:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry, the focus on Ken's exploits is not out of choice, but rather the lack of activity from most of the others. Steven Kavanagh (talk) 13:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

We do it as a public service - every time Ken sees his name mentoned here, he masturates furiously. And as it's the only sex he's ever going to get... Also, I see Andy and co are already turning on their own. Andy virtually jismed all over the main page when Santorum ran Romney a close 2nd in Iowa, now he's just a filthy pro-choicer. Of course, when Romney loses to Obama, it'll be "Why didn't we pick an evangelical candidate?" --PsyGremlinSprich! 13:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I'm allready looking forward to the white-washing when Romney gets nominated, and the black-washing when he looses. --★uːʤɱ atheist 14:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I almost feel bad for Andy because he has no candidate this time around. Going down the list:

• Mitt - CP:Pro-abort/CP:XINO
• Newt - CP:RINO
• Jeb - Not running
• Ron - Too libertarian
• Perry - CP:RINO
• Santorum - CP:Pro-abort
• Hunstman - Maybe???
• Bachmann - Out.
• Rubio - Doesn't fit birther citizenship, not running
• Palin - Out.
• Huck - Out.
• Cain - Out.
• McCotter - Out.
• Rand - Out.
• West - Not running.
• DeMint - Not running.
• Cuccinelli - Not running.
• Jindal - Not a citizen, not running.
• Pawlenty - Out.
• Daniels - Out.

The others aren't even worth mentioning (which says a lot because most of these aren't worth mentioning). Aside from Huntsman, who is highly unlikely to secure the nomination, who can Andy support? Either way, since he's pretty much sold everyone out, it will be fun to watch him go back on his word when Mitt is nominated. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

@UHM Yes. I'm keeping a close eye on the Romney article, as should we all. In fact, it deserves a section:

Huntsman? Are you kidding? The candidate so liberal that many Democrats support him? The guy who thinks evolution and global warming are real? No, Andy must have someone he likes, and I'm also surprised it isn't Santorum. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 15:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I was basing it mostly off of the list. Hunstman is pretty much the only person who hasn't dropped out or been lampooned by Andy. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm guessing Andy doesn't mention him because he doesn't even bother acknowledging his existence. In any case, he's never been a serious contender. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 15:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, once you're a pro-abort, you're out. That leaves Newt, Paul, Perry and Hunstman. Newt and Perry are RINOs and Andy isn't a big fan of Paul, so I'd expect to see a ruling from Andy on Huntsman soon (or he'll just drop out, which is probably even more likely). Occasionaluse (talk) 16:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Wait a sec, what the fuck? In what universe is Santorum pro-abortion? -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

He once supported a fellow politician who had not been completely anti-abortion. Therefore he's a PLINO. Ajkgordon (talk) 17:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Aaaand he has now added it to Foamy's page. Just to check I had a little look at the history of this/last year's conservapedia news and it seems that Andy did indeed show Santorum significant praise for his rallying against abortion and evolution. However as he will not win, Andy deems him to be another filthy liberal. what i want to know is why he is still holding out for newt?Judge Holden

WhitewashWatch

So far, to my surprise, Andy has mostly steered clear of the whole article - only 6 edits in the last four years, and of those, only 2 that make any difference to the content (both made in the past month). He removed, without reason given, a fairly objective paragraph stating that Romney had been called a RINO by some. I wonder if Andy has ever called Romney a RINO - if he has, then this edit is definitely the beginning of the Great White Wash. He also removed a parodist's insertion that Romney is an "excellent conservative candidate" that can appeal to moderates, giving the reason "unjustified or unsupported edits" (some strange vandlism was cleaned up in the process, making this edit summary seem rather weird). Obviously, Andy still isn't yet comfortable with Romney being considered an "excellent conservative".... but expect that sentiment to creep back into the article once Romney wins the nomination. ^{ONE / TALK} 15:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Who cares if Andy called Mitt a RINO - he's already done one better and called him "liberal-supported", meaning that when Andy finally comes around and hitches his cart to Mitt, the liberal conspiracy will have finally come around full circle to Andy himself. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Well there we go, then. Quick! Someone at CP confront Andy about the RINO thing! ^{ONE / TALK} 16:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

It shows how extreme the Republican Party has become when Romney is called a RINO. People like Olympia Snowe and Richard Lugar are RINOs (i.e. decent politicians who are prepared to make deals across the political spectrum in the wider national interest). The Real James Brown (talk) 17:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

He's "republican" as fuck, but he's not very good at consistently being financially or socially conservative. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

So if he doesn't tick all the extremists' boxes, he's a RINO - correct? (Would Eisenhower, Nixon and Bush senior have been called RINOs...?) The Real James Brown (talk) 18:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Proposals like the Interstate Highway System, the EPA, and cap and trade for emissions control are now considered firmly in "liberal" territory. With all his tax-raising and government-expanding and having been a Democrat, Reagan would probably be a RINO too. 184.61.193.172 (talk) 18:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd say he has pretty much all of the republican boxes ticked, it's the conservative ones he's missing. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

And...^img Occasionaluse (talk) 19:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

"Put that in your pipe and smoke it!"

Checkmate atheists and Darwinists!^img You were ALL proven wrong because somebody admitted we don't know every species on earth.--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 14:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Let's file that one under Not Even Wrong. ^moral 14:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Makes you wonder if Ken knows all the species on earth. --★uːʤɱ secularist 14:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I love how when Ken has to burn some talk page he gets beat up on this is his typical response. What a master debater ;). Ego (talk) 14:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

"scientism"??? They really are cave men over there. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 14:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Gotta love the last paragraph of that article.

One common criticism of Christianity is that we simply say "God did it", and end the issue. This simply isn't the case. "God did it" is the beginning, it allows us a starting point to then ask "How did God do it?"

Yeah, how did God do it? It's not like he has a magic wand! We want answers, God! ^{ONE / TALK} 14:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

In short he is saying "Since we don't know everything, how can we know anything? Thus logically it is all God and DA MAJIKS!"--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

What is it about these guys with their so-called debating tactics that would shame a primary school kid. Can they not get past yah-boo-sucks and 'my dad's bigger/better/richer than your dad' type arguments? Steven Kavanagh (talk) 15:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Obviously they cannot. And yet Ken expects people to pay thousands of dollars to engage him in a written debate. We've all seen it done for free every day, and we've all seen how terrible Ken is at it. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 16:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

...it allows us a starting point to then ask "How did God do it?" So here's the Catch-22 (and speaking as an reformed God-squaddie, I know beyond reasonable doubt this is what they will say): if you actually ask how God did it, it's an ineffable mystery which our simple human minds are incapable (variation: unworthy) to comprehend. Ha! God wins. The Real James Brown (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm only guessing here, but perhaps they mean "In what manner did God do it?" rather than "What was the method by which God did it?" When I ask my boy how he did on an exam, I am asking about his performance, not what causal capabilities produced the result.

So, if I'm right, what they mean is this: creationists try to figger out what God produced way back when. Which is not a particularly deep or fruitful investigation, but if you're a creationist, I can't see much more for one to do: catalog the critters created and try to figger out how they work. Phiwum (talk) 19:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it really depends on the type of Creationist you encounter. Some of them are gleefully trying to achieve a strict least-miracles scenario where God only does the tiniest nudge and uses SCIENCE! to do the actual heavy lifting. See for example this CNAV post about how God created the Earth on Day One. Instead of going with "Yep, God created the Earth!", God suddenly only created elementary particles that formed into the Earth through physics. See also Andy's rambling about Jesus didn't do miracles (rising from the dead is perfectly logical, Banach-Tarski explains the multiplication of fishes and bread, quantum physics explains a lot of other crap). Why they do it is beyond me, but it is rather amusing to see them playing a variation of God of the gaps (more like "God into the gaps, and stay there!") with themselves. --Sid (talk) 00:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The bigger problem is that they think the converse is as logical. Jesus performed a miracle by remote control so relativity is disproven. To them, that's science while biology and physics are scientism, aka pseudoscience. It would be amusing if it weren't so damn destructive. --Whoover (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

TerryH's "economy of miracles" was in response to my question and just exposes the craziness of creation scientists - science, science, miracle, pseudoscience, miracle, science, miracle, pseudoscience, miracle... Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 07:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Pretentious, fraudulent, shysters

I tell ya, that is a great way to legitimize your cause and to convince people to Question Evolution! Call those you are trying to convince and/or engage in the campaign pretentious, fraudulent, shysters^img. That'll surely draw people into your cause. Idiot. Ace^Moderator 01:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

One of these days, poor August is just going to give up. Doesn't seem like it'll be any time soon, though. GayGator (talk) 01:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

"ultimately I am a mere mortal (or perhaps several). :) ". I see what you did there. We see you ken.--Thunderstruck (talk) 02:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to see him explain what he really means by no true skeptic claims to know my/our name and while he's at it, he might tell us why no true Christian would defend evolution, no true militant atheist is tall and thin and why no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge. --Spud (talk) 04:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I prefer Ken in all his/her/their weirdeness to Uncle Ed, the textbook example of sanctimonious prick... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 08:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I kind of lost track of this on the main WIGO page, who exactly was Ed addressing when he intervened? -- 08:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

anti-conservatives, liberals, vandals, tricksters, bullies - as represented by August O. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 08:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

All the years of following CP and I still can't tell you who the dumbest admin is... Occasionaluse (talk) 14:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

They are all dumb in their own unique ways. MDB (talk) 14:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

They're all the dumbest. Each time the dumbness of an admin is measured, it is found to be greater than any previous dumbness measurements taken. ^{ONE / TALK} 14:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

It's a game of dipshit limbo: "Oooooh, look how low Ken could stoop! Unca' Ed, you're up!" As long as the music keeps going, Conservapedia admins will keep attempting to outdo each others' idiocy. GayGator (talk) 15:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone else have the feeling that Ken just learned the word "shyster" a few days ago, and that's why he's using it in every other sentence now? --66.147.244.244 (talk) 22:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Yup. Ajkgordon (talk) 23:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Science-fiction is "liberal."

Not Andy^img, surprisingly. P-Foster Talk "a cheetos-eating, Mountain-Dew drinking vlogger living in someone's basement." 16:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Imagination is for liberals. Conservatives root themselves in cold hard facts and reality, like a magic omniscient sky daddy and creationism. F_ucker^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 17:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

This grudging suspension of disbelief thing they've got going on must ruin movies for them. I wonder if The Phantom Menace pissed Kendoll off because the Bible doesn't mention which of the 12 tribes of Israel was small, insectoid and lived on Tatooine. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Now now... Ken didn't specifically dismiss all science fiction as liberal; he just deleted Star Trek from "Greatest Conservative TV" because it has "ETs and other liberal fantasies".

Speaking as a science fiction fan, there's plenty of conservative SF -- early Heinlein (though more libertarian than conservative) and, more recently, David Weber, just to name two. I doubt Ken knows about any of it, though. MDB (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Virtualy that entire list (saving ozzy and harrit, i suppose) was added by poes, right? Dick Van Dyke was the first show to show a woman in Pants, EXTREMELY liberal at the time.GodotDear god, fucking grow up 17:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The entry for The Prisoner might suggest this, though it's hard to argue against some of the other shows. The inclusion of "Eschews violence until absolutely necessary" for MacGyver as a conservative value made me spit my drink. -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

"conservative SF" doesn't necessarily mean "Christian (as Ken understands the term) - friendly" SF. P-Foster Talk "a cheetos-eating, Mountain-Dew drinking vlogger living in someone's basement." 17:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I've never read any, but there is some explicitly evangelical/Conservative Christian SF, not to mention tons of works that are Christian analogies (some friendly, some not.) MDB (talk) 17:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Science Fiction also shares initials with liberal, homo-loving San Francisco. Enough said. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 17:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Apparently Ken's never ready any L. Neil Smith, but that would be unsurprising. -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Folks, there's a difference between conservative and libertarian. --★uːʤɱ digital native 18:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, should have been more specific in my assertion--I was pointing out that the writings of L. Neil Smith are definitely NOT liberal. -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

And it goes back in. MDB (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Orson Scott Card is fairly conservative. -Lardashe

In the conservapedia sense of being a crazy arse douchebag, yeah. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah. So it's back in by orders of Andy. Ken, here's your chance to cross the Rubicon. We know Andy dones't have the backbone to stand up to any of his sysops. Remove that liberal, ET-loving Sci-Fi liberalfest Star Trek, and stake your claim on it. Watch Andy do nothing, revert and block anyone else he reverts you, because no one speaks for Andy except Andy and you. This one symbolic act will show who really run Bartertown. It's what you've been wanting. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 19:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Resident swabbie feeling left out?

Ken and Ed are getting all the attention, so Mr Perpetually Angry makes his play:^img

“”Before you attempt to change the I.D. articles, before you try to claim evolution is a fact, I want you first to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that God does not exist.

Hey, Kara - send him to not find Noah's Ark. Or how about you prove beyond a shadow of doubt that God does exist. --PsyGremlinTala! 18:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll do it for $10,000. -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

This is the classic "Not sure if trolling, or just stupid". With anyone else, it'd be trolling. With Karajou, it's the stupid. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Karajou is like a quivering lump of anger-flavoured jello, but without the charisma. Steven Kavanagh (talk) 19:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Tell you what Karajou, you get to tell people what to do when you've proved beyond a shadow of a doubt you've stopped beating your wife. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Predictions on current scuffle^img

So with the rampant smackdowns currently being administered to Ken on the Debate: 15 questions for evolutionists and its talkpage, how is Ken going to react?

Massive block via 90/10 rule and vaporize the whole thing	12	Vote
Walk away and pretend it doesn't exist, then come back after everyone has left and vaporize	6	Vote
Keep calling everyone names and hope they all get frustrated and leave, then vaporize	44	Vote
Admit his mistake and post substantive creationist rebuttals	2	Vote

(ʞlɐʇ) ɹǝɯɯɐHʍoƆ 21:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Addition to the drinking game

Every time AugustO says "(a tactic often used by liberals)", drink! -- Seth Peck (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Slightly tangential but still related

Der Spiegel from the 19.9.2011 had an article about Catholicism declining in Germany and, off course, why. To make clear how wrong Ken is about this "people quiting church when it gets to liberal"-unthesis is here are some stats I found. It should be said before that, that the church Ken is refering to is Protestant and seemingly very liberal, as we all know the RCC is much more conservative and so is it's German part.

General stats between 1990 and 2010:

• Membership: -12.5% (28.1 million to 24.6 million between 1991 and 2010 according to records)
• Church attendence: -42.5%
• Marriages: -58.5% (probably related to marrying inter-confessionally)
• Baptisms: -43,1% (child going to hell? who cares!)
• Canidates for priestship: -62,1% (I don't know if this also goes along with a decline of theology students)

There was also a poll included in the article:

• After six years, are you satisfied with what Benedikt XIV. has done? Rather satisfied: 36% Rather unsatisfied: 32% I don't care: 21% - of all those who answered, 54% were Catholic
• Do you think it's right that the Pope will speak to the Bundestag (German parliament)? Yes: 47% No: 45% I don't care/know: 8%
• Should Catholic priests be continued to be forbidden from marriage? Yes: 6% No: 87% I don't care/know: 7%
• Should the Catholic church continue to exclude women from being priests? Yes: 6% No: 88% I don't care/know: 6%
• Do you agree with the Catholic church that practicing homosexuals are "sinners"? Yes: 9% No: 87% I don't care/know: 4%
• Do you think the Catholic church has reacted appropriately to the reported cases of abuse by priests? Yes: 17% No: 77% I don't care/know: 6%
• Should the Catholic church have more or less influence on society [in the future]? More: 8% Less: 50% Same: 37% I don't know/care: 5%

Considering that 54% of people polled here are Catholics and the actual percentage of Catholics is 29.7%, the real numbers would be a lot smaller. This gives us a nicely framed picture of about 3-5% of the German population while very religious still being more liberal than Ken. These questions also don't tell us anything about these peoples views on evolution.

Now follows a quick look at the German Wikipedia, or actually a table on there:

From 1990 to 2010 the Catholic church share of members to the overall population went down from 36.9% to 29.7%. The Protestans went down from 35.4% to 29.9%. So while the Protestants (EKD) lost signifacantly too, the much more conservative RCC lost more members. In these 20 years the percentage of so called "undenominationals", that means everybody that isn't member in church which are mainly atheists, agnostics, deists and several unrecognized religions, went up from 22.4% to 34.6%. From what I know the "black figure" of non-believers in the churches is quite high, as you can see above in the CC statistic of church attendence vs. membership. But also high is the number of Christians that were/are so pissed about what their priests were telling them (according to the polls, that has to be a conservative message) that they leaft church, but are still Christians.

Conclusion:

• Ken has no clue what he is talking about
• The exact opposite of what he "hypothesized" is true.

→ If you want to be right, look what Ken says and say the exact opposite. --★uːʤɱ constructivist 22:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Heh heh!

"Ken, Ken, which wire should I cut!"

"The blue one! The blue one!"

Cuts red one. Lives.

The end. Ajkgordon (talk) 23:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Lol. Man, the problems we could solve this way. Financial crisis, world hunger, wars, poverty, under-education… --★uːʤɱ soviet 23:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I've often found Joseph Farrah to be quite useful for the same reason. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 23:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Of encyclopedias being in the prediction business and Stalking Horses

Jesus, but he's a smug one, ain't he?^img P-Foster Talk "a cheetos-eating, Mountain-Dew drinking vlogger living in someone's basement." 21:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I can predict stuff too! I'll bet they'll be smug assholes in the immediate future! -- Seth Peck (talk) 22:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Dammit, Andy, that's not what a Stalking Horse is. I mean...in a very loose definition, but not really. --Yossarian^{Speak, Memory} 01:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Rick Santorum is a trial balloon with a stalking horse hanging from it. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 01:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Poor, deluded Tony

Andy's latest desperation sysop-lite may be throwing his weight around, but he doesn't know who he's fucking with. The rules should apply to everybody? Yeah right. You just blocked the guy who unilaterally changed that rule to benefit himself. You've got a swift, painful banhammering coming for you. It won't be pleasant. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 01:23,

Just curious -- Ken has already unblocked himself (twice), what authority do you need in a wiki to be able to do that? Tacitus (talk) 02:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Just the blocking privilege, if you can block people you can unblock 'em. That includes yourself. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Jeeves, I totally thought that if I blocked Conservative, everyone would applaud and I would be promoted to Sysop. I had no idea he would unblock himself and Andy would side with him. I mean, its not like there's an article on Conservative on this site or anything. ^{— Unsigned, by: Tesformes / talk / contribs}

You're welcome, random troll. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Conservative got blocked

I don't know if its gonna stick, but check out the logs. Conservative got into it with some people on the talk page for the 15 questions debate, and he banned a biologist he was arguing with for 90/10 violation, and then he gets dinged for name policy violation. He unblocked himself, and got blocked again for unblocking himself.Tesformes (talk) 02:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC) 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for drawing our attention to your trolling. P-Foster Talk "a cheetos-eating, Mountain-Dew drinking vlogger living in someone's basement." 02:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Heh, I'm a shameless attention whore sometimes, guilty as charged. Won't happen again. Tesformes (talk) 02:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Cool story bro.--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 02:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I've never made it over there long enough to get into any sort of major dust-up with any of the key players. I keep getting blocked by parodists... --Inquisitor (talk) 03:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

sorry if i blocked you once or more. I was still surprised i got block powers; or that i managed to last longer than april--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 03:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Right on. I'll never forgive "Bugler" for blocking my attempt at a sock, "Conversative" before it even got going. I had big plans for that account. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 03:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Having monitored the antics of the Conserapedia ant-farm for over 4.5 years we have watched people with block rights who have used them against sysops multiple times with absolutely no affect. It's not funny, it's not even mildly interesting. It's much more amusing when Ken blocks himself, something he has done four times now. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 08:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow. That's just adorable. --Brendiggg (talk) 08:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The only mildly amusing part of all this, is Andy's continued inability to see that those who act as his echo chamber are parodists. For all his claims of CP being a meritocracy, the easiest way to get rights on CP is to suck up to him. --PsyGremlin講話 10:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Or be around to undo some vandalism. Back on the topic of Kens blocking himself... what?--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 17:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

You must remember that Ken is really quite dim. He blocks himself completely by accident, he can't use the preview button properly, and it took him almost two years (I think) before he found out how to upload images to CP. He has a very limited repertoire of 'tricks' so tends to repeat them ad nauseam, rather like his recent discovery of the word 'shyster'. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 17:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

QEC! Going For The Kill

Translation: Ken's going to write a new "Atheist and ________" essay.--Thunderstruck (talk) 15:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

We really ought to keep track of all Kendoll's violent metaphors, if only to say "we warned ye!" when he finally turns in to a spree killer. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Exactly how will this pale, skeletal creature survive the first moth that hits him? --Brendiggg (talk) 15:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Ken has used the "the time for stalking is over" metaphor so many times over the past several years. Usually involving a picture of a cheetah. You know what the outcome of these claims are? Zilch and fucking zero. Ace^Moderator 15:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Through stubborn denial about its own demize, I imagine. -- Seth Peck (talk) 15:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey ken.... didnt you say QE was going to GO FULL THROTTLE and crush the neck of atheism... about a year ago?--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Anyone have statistics on the dwindling number of atheists in the country? It seems there should have been a measurable impact by now. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 15:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

statistics tends to come from people who went to liberal colleges, therefor they would change the numbers to HIDE the decline of they're atheistic beliefs. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 15:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

How can you possibly doubt that the QE! campaign has crushed the hull of atheism? After all, they called so many Texas churches. Churches are where all the atheists hang out, right? They listen to what priests tell them don't they? Hell, the QE! campaign may soon have as many as 50 members, and I'm sure at least 2 of them might make some phone calls! Then evolution will really be in trouble. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I am weaving a very thick thorn hedge round my house solely to repel the hordes of QE! campaigners I expect to be venturing down my lane any minute now. I've also stocked up on baked beans, peperami and red wine as it could be a long siege, because, as far as I am concerned, they will have to force the Bible into my cold dead hands. Come and get me, ya varmints! Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 16:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Baked beans? Pepperami? Red wine? You planning to use chemical warfare against them? PsyGremlinSpeak! 16:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Exactly what I plan to do with these items is a secret. P.S. I forgot the peanut butter. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 16:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Last time I checked, Christian missionaries have been to India. How are you gonna top that?--Thunderstruck (talk) 17:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Vishnu, I choose you! --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Bless you! Would you like a handkerchief? Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 19:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Ken's next article

Suggestions go here!

The long awaited Atheism and Necrophilia?

Atheism and Fascism?

Atheism and FEMA Death Camps?

Atheism and Timecube?

Atheism and Dendrophilia?

Atheism and Atheism (?!)

Atheism and Those Strong Boys In High School Who Beat Me Up Because I Rode The Short Bus And Was A Fundy, God It Hurt A Lot, But I Did So Much Love Their Bare Skin On Mine, The Closest Thing To Deliberate Physical Contact I've Ever Had... Those Strong, Supple Hands, Their Bare Rippling Chests, Their Long Golden Hair Flowing In The Wind Like A River Of Silky Wheat... How I Have Dreamed Of Their Touch, Cuddling Me Of A Nighttime, Falling Asleep In Each Other's Arms...

Atheism and Rape?

Atheism and Birth Certificates? ^{— Unsigned, by: Sasayaki / talk / contribs}

Kent? Kent who? Pongo^{Orangutans are sceptical} 23:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Atheism and Holy Shit I'm An Excitable Newbie Who Will Make Pointless Topics That Aren't Funny In The Slightest. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The sad? Guy's been here 7 months. P-Foster Talk "a cheetos-eating, Mountain-Dew drinking vlogger living in someone's basement." 23:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I suppose next you two will be complaining that it's cold and you can't poop because you ran out of Metamucil. You've turned into curmudgeons. Come back. 23:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

That was a Kent = Cunt thing but maybe it's local to Australia (some people pronounce them the same way). I'll now flagellate myself as appropriate for my "excitable newbie" transgressions. --Sasayaki (talk) 00:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Superman has to be whole different "adventure" for you Aussies. Especially quite fitting for the silver age Superman. --★uːʤɱ digital native 00:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Especially how 'bonk' is a childish euphemism for sex, that appeared frequently when heroes punched people then yes. --Sasayaki (talk) 00:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Bonk is nothing. X Stickman (talk) 00:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Atheism and Alger Hiss. He's going to team up with FOIA and create the longest article in the world. Vulpius (talk) 01:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps a collab with Jimmy on Atheism and Elvis Presley talking bout his narcotic abuse and promiscuity.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 02:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Atheism and Explosive Diarrhea. Gods revenge for not beliving in him. Also for eating that thing in your fridge you thought was guacamole.--Thunderstruck (talk) 01:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I thought that was Montezuma's revenge. Peter^{Quasniki 2012!} 02:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The return of Schlafly Stats

as well as missing the point by a mile:

User: (responding to Ken trolling another unrelated post with his QE blog) "I'm afraid to say that, as a UK resident, and a member of one of the official universities, I don't know anyone apart from myself who is familiar with the campaign."^img

Andy: "Comments like "no one has heard about" such-and-such are not persuasive when the sample size does not even open the most logical, the most popular, and the most influential book of all time."^img

Well, yes... except for the fact that this sample size is exactly the type of people QE should be targeting.

And the stats! I've attended and graduated from universities, I've taught at a university, I've given talks at universities, and more recently my students have gone to universities. It's obvious that 99% or so of university students have not opened the Bible in years, not even once, to read it with an open mind.^img --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 03:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I sure hope Andy dons a pair of gloves before pulling out these "stats". --Inquisitor (talk) 05:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know whether to lose more hope for humanity over his splashing PIDOOMA statistics around like water mixed with festering, three day old diarrhoea, or the fact that he's still using the term "lamestream media". -- 11:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

What will CP say now?

When Denver won over Pittsburgh last week, CP couldn't shut up about Tebow, claiming nothing short of divine intervention and miracle working in a flurry of subsequent posts on the MP Right. Well tonight Denver went to (liberal) New England and was flattened 45-10. This game was over at half time (where New England was already up 35-7); that is how terribly lopsided it was. Tebow was only 9 of 26 for 136 yards and no touchdowns, which are terrible numbers. So now the question now is, what will CP's reaction be? Toss Tebow under the bus? Ignore? Attempt to salvage the day where "liberal San Francisco and New England" won?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 04:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

136 yards??? That's just 3:16 rearranged! The odds of that happening must be one in a million! All hail the Heavenly Father! «-Bfa-» 04:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Brady threw 6 TD passes, 5 of them in the first half? Let's see. God must be calling everyone's attention to Matthew 6:5.

And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, they have their reward. [KJV] Gauss (talk) 05:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Awesome...I tried to shoehorn some other statistics into a verse (45:10, 10:45, 13:6, etc) but failed. Guess I wasn't being illogical enough about it! -- Seth Peck (talk) 05:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

@Gauss, pure fucking awesome. - π 05:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

At one point he was in danger of going 3 for 16. But whether Tebow succeeds or fails, it doesn't matter, they will simply point to Tebow's unshakable faith and call him a winner come what may (and compared to the losers running CP, he is most certainly a winner).

I do like Andy's comment "God likely has better things to do than manage football games every weekend" -- as if managing a football game is likely to distract or tax an omniscient, omnipotent being very much. That's the problem with God -- hard to apply any kind of logic to. Tacitus (talk) 05:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Little known fact; Tebow converted to Islam just before the game. Stile4aly (talk) 05:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry - Andy has the answer:^img "God has given us one miracle with Tebow, so it's perfectly fine for Him to throw Tebow under the bus now, because you should all be reading the Bible by now." --PsyGremlin話しなさい 06:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

According to andy got cant be omnipresent i guess--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 06:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

How about that backpedaling. Rapier (talk) 06:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Andy's putting all his eggs in the Rogers basket. If we see LIBERAL New England and LIBERAL San Fransico in the super bowl, Andy will never talk football again.--Thunderstruck (talk) 14:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

So according to Andy, God only has the time and energy for football on some of the weekends but not others? What pressing issue did God has this Saturday that he couldn't get his message across? I didn't see any divine hand in anything else that happened in the world this week. Was God too tired from last week's victory? Is there some limitation on his time, his power? Or could it, and just hear me out here, could it be the following: Denver managed to win at home against a severely banged up Pittsburgh with an immobile quarterback due to injury, and thus allowing Denver to take advantage of Pittsburgh's weaknesses. Then this week they had to travel to New England against a fully rested, even higher caliber team with a high powered offense behind an elite quarterback at 100%, who also had something to prove after hearing nothing but Tebow-mania for the last 7 days in the media, and suddenly Denver found themselves complete outmatched and thus soundly defated? It's almost well.. almost as it there was no God around, and instead the outcome of the games depended entirely on the relative strengths, weaknesses, and preparation of each of the teams. I mean, imagine that! What are the chances!!? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear Ken

I know you can't use the preview button^img, but you could at least proof-read your scribbling when you're done.

Otherwise, you make CP's main page look more stupid than it already is. --PsyGremlinTal! 07:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey Ken, here's something on QE...

I wonder if Kenny-boy will mention anything about this - http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/jan/15/free-schools-creationism-intelligent-design I'm guessing that he'll either ignore it or whine about them nasty atheists beating up noble creationists. Meh. Darkmind1970 (talk) 12:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Britain bans creationism from being teached in schools! Britain bans speaking of biblical creation! Britain bans Christianity! Britain nationalizes it's churches! Britain has been taken over by Nazis and Soviets that now execute genocide on all Christians!

Or something like that. If written by Ken expect some economic figure in there as well. --★uːʤɱ anti-communist 15:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems they allready reacted, Andy is about to kill the messenger^img. --★uːʤɱ soviet 15:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Two more endorsments for Newt!

one of the Left behind authors and a man who died in 2007^imgendorse newt. However, that still isn't getting him on the Virginia ballot.--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 16:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. The incredibly high possibility of any of the hypocrites, liars and flipfloppers seeking the nomination actually winning the eventual candidacy during the RNC makes me salivate. I see comments on some other forums/Facebook channels for groups like Planned Parenthood and Occupy Wall Street to the effect of "God forbid HE should get the nomination!" ("HE" being whomever is being talked about). My response is usually, "Screw it! Let's stop pussyfooting around the issues and take the gloves off. Let's have the most extreme and backwards of candidates win the nomination, then see how many Americans are stupid enough to actually vote for the asshole." -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The thing about the guy who died 5 years ago, according to the LB author he "said newt was the best man for president!". It doesnt say when he said it... for all we know it was in the 90's when newt actually did seem to accomplish something, or if he actually did say that, it's pretty much hearsay or whatever the word is, its to early for me to remember my law class--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Andy's Tebow obsession is getting insufferable

Really, Andy^img? REALLY? I keep trying to think of something snarky to say, but this is so out there it exceeds my capacity. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 03:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Have you seen his "article" on Rascal Flatts^img?--Colonel Sanders (talk) 03:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Andy and sports is a hilarious combination. I remember two years ago how he crowed that Canada had shamefully under-performed at the Vancouver games, even though they, you know, won the most gold medals overall including the only two that matter, men's and women's hockey. P-Foster Talk "Go get Ace" 03:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

And how can Andy possibly think football dictates Presidential elections when clearly the Oscars are the major player there? DickTurpis (talk) 03:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Tim Tebow is single-handedly changing the culture in Colorado^img. Ace^Moderator 03:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

No it fucking isn't!!!! Not one person here outside of those already religious (see Colorado Springs) gives a shit about tebow other than our chance to maybe, possibly make it bck to the super bowl so we can start another era of losing on the biggest state out there. For F's sake! GodotDear god, fucking grow up 16:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Of all Andy's lies and distortions, I feel like this is one he actually believes. Not like the ridiculous March for Life numbers he knowingly posts. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The thing is, this kind of "evidence" (religious or political or whtaever) never changes anyone, it just reinforces what you already believed. If you think there's a god, then this is proof; if you think christians are annoying, this is proof. Denver/Colorado is a "football town". if you told people that the quarterback wants them to eat twinkies two times a day to help him win, you'd see orange and blue twinkies in the stores and people would buy them. nothing what so f'ing ever to do with their views that twinkies or god are good or real.GodotDear god, fucking grow up 16:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Tweeted by @commondescent (who he?): "Conservapedia asks: Are liberals worried that Tim Tebow's success will make it more difficult for Obama to win Colorado?" Scream!! (talk) 03:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Better question, who the fuck is @MHanabishi? Occasionaluse (talk) 16:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Liberal conspiracy! CNN Omits Tebow's victory to save Obama according to Il Duce Andy! DA PROOF!

Andy "CNN is omitting news of Tebow's success on its website's front page!^img" --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 08:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

On behalf of embarrassed but sane people from UF, let me apologize for Tebow. I can't apologize for Schlafly, though. We brought you Tebowing and the "Don't Taze Me Bro" kid, but even we can't produce Andy levels of crazy. GayGator (talk) 15:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Still, I think it's cute that conservatives have a hero to worship. After all, given the clown car of candidates vying to lose to Obama later in the year, what other options are there? --PsyGremlinZungumza! 16:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

(an off side, based on your "clowns" comment, but why the hell do they not run someone like Olympia Snow, who would win in an instant. She's smart, she's careful, she's a woman, and she's just center enough to not alienate everyone with a heart or conscience. OH, right, she's pro choice. She actually thinks it's important to teach people not to GET pregnant, so you don't have to worry about what to do when you "are" pregnant. what a concept)GodotDear god, fucking grow up 16:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Olympia Snowe would be a terrific President (I'd vote for her if I were American). Too had that having Basic Common Sense means automatic disqualification from the Republican primaries. The Real James Brown (talk) 17:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Tebow for 2012

Obviously andy is pushing for a tebow 2012 presidential run! how else could football effect politics?--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 04:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 04:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Tebow is 24 years old. He wouldn't be eligible to run for President till 2024. He's be eligible to run for the House in 2014, though. MDB (talk) 13:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Exceptions can be made--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 17:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, yeah we let Obama slide on that pesky "native-born Citizen" requirement/ But I've said too much... MDB (talk) 20:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Karajou ups the stupid

Remind me, didn't Karajou fall for the "Horseman of the Apocalypse" bullshit in that Egyptian demonstration video last year? If so, this^img isn't surprising. P-Foster Talk "Go get Ace" 05:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Wooooooooow. Sam ^Tally-ho! 05:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

That's a fairly shit god. Famine in Somalia? Yawn. FOOTBALL?? YEAHHHH! EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 05:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Somalia isnt a christian country, those heathens arent worthy of any attention!--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 06:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

So instead of performing some shattering miracle or saving millions of Christians from death and starvation God shows his presence with a coincidental field kick? Wow man, that's some powerful lord. Ace^Moderator 06:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Kick!?!?!?!? What kind of football do they play down there Ace?

Oh yeah. That kind. DickTurpis (talk) 06:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Ace's lack of facility with American sports isn't any more awkward than him getting his dick stuck in a sheep. Or a whiskey bottle. I don't see you hounding him over that so lay off. 07:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I have quite the docket on where Ace's dick has been stuck. I plan to submit it to New Zealand Royal Constabulary of Non-Conventional Coitus as soon as I am confident I have ample evidence to seek the death penalty. DickTurpis (talk) 07:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow. 316 yard throw? IT MUST BE DIVINE INTERVENTION! And not the fact that over the course of their career someone with sufficient strength will probably throw 316 at some point, uh-uh, no way. Ace, American football is closer to rugby than it is to what the rest of the world call football. Except with less game and more fight and blood. -- 08:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

316 yards? That's kind of pointless, doncha think, unless you're trying to hit someone in the parking lot. -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Matt Ryan threw for 316 yards for Atlanta against Tennessee in November. Why has God forsaken Ryan? PhillyDom (talk) 21:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Next week, Broncos @ Patriots. AGAIN. Good luck with that one Andy, I'm not sure how high Tom Brady ranks in terms of conservative quarterbacks.--Thunderstruck (talk) 11:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

It must be quite insulting to this Tebow to have all is accomplishments credited to god and not, yeh know, his own sheer hard work and skill. As well as being insulting to any christians in the other team, who by definition aren't christian enough for the lord almighty. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking kick as in Rugby because no-one in rugby does such long passes therefor I thought kick - I know the difference between US Football and soccar. You fucking morons. Ace^Moderator 19:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

"CNN is omitting news!"

So says Andy!^img Except... they aren't,^img it's front page and centre, with the text blurb even mentioning the 316 reference. Andy appears to be having a John Kyl moment... -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 08:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

It also depends on what version of Cnn you use, i have mine set to not US as i dont give a rats ass what is happening in my country unless its lincoln or washington; so i wouldnt see it front page either--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 17:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

What are the odds that Andy has CNN set to an international edition? -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Low I know but there atleast is explanations to justify it, plus it might not have when he looked. how often do you think he looks at CNN at all--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 17:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Andy crows that Tebow news is buried on CNN, which happens to be square in the "featured" section. It also has the 2nd spot on the editor's picks. Sometimes I wish Andy got help. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Out of Curiosity

Has Tebow ever publicly made a partisan political statement? I know he did a pro-life ad for the Super Bowl, but, strictly speaking, that's not partisan. It would be amusing to see Andy's reaction if Tebow publicly took the stance of some young evangelicals, that he agrees with the Rebublicans on things like abortion and gay rights, but he likes the Democrats for their environmental stances and concern for the poor. MDB (talk) 12:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I found a neologism on The Nation website - Tee-hadists. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 12:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Really Catty Theory

Andy has a man-crush on Tebow, and this is his way of coping with his "unnatural longings". MDB (talk) 12:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Dude, he's a middle aged, married conservative male. Of course he's gay.--Thunderstruck (talk) 14:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

And if the Broncos don't win the Super Bowl

What will Andy's response be? Blame the liberal media? ACORN? Activist judges? MDB (talk) 15:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

There's no "if" about it. The Broncos aren't going to win the Super Bowl. Before their victory yesterday Vegas was giving them 120 to 1. It's probably significantly better now, maybe 30 to 1, but still, they just aren't as good a team as the best in the league. The only reason they made the playoffs is because they won their division, which they share with 3 other mediocre teams, worst of which they only beat by a single game, I believe. Yesterday's win was their first against a genuinely good team. I'd be shocked if they managed to repeat such an upset 3 more times. DickTurpis (talk) 15:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you people mind not jinxing this. We've not been in a Superbowl (hell, we've not won a playoff) since elway. and I need this to have a reason to wear all my pretty Predominately Orange clothing. Grumbls that we are going to lose, cause you all said "shutout".GodotDear god, fucking grow up 16:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

We are RationalWiki. I reserve the right to scoff in the face of jinxes and curses. DickTurpis (talk) 16:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

But but but but, but we bleed orange and blue. if you scoff, and we lose, what shall i do????? GodotDear god, fucking grow up 16:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I have a feeling that Andy will stoop to citing the line on the game. "Liberals predicted that the Broncos would lose by 30 points, but the Tebow smashed those expectations losing by a mere 21 points." Something like that. Then he'll ironically gloat about how gracious and humble Tebow was during the loss. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Assumes they make it that far. also, if you poke around enough, Andy made a comment that the Packers, many of whom are apparently evangelical Christians, will win the Super Bowl. P-Foster Talk "Go get Ace" 16:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Andy calls it for the Packers. Do a page search for "Green Bay." P-Foster Talk "Go get Ace" 16:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear. Which means we'll have another "Conservapedia proven right!" comment, despite the packers being odds-on favourites from the start. --PsyGremlinParla! 16:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Those bookies know good pious posturing when they see it. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Lose the Super Bowl? They won't even make it that far. They're up against the New England Patriots (blue state, Democrats) who trounced them in their last match-up, in an away game. Tebow will buckle. An anti-Conservapedia prediction: "Will a Patriots win mean a shoe-in for Elizabeth Warren to replace Scott Brown?" No, it won't--she'll win on her own merits because she's awesome and Brown's a douchebag. -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Andy's escape clause on this is that Aaron Rogers, the quarterback for the favored to win Superbowl Green Bay Packers, is also an evangelical Christian. If the Broncos are eliminated and Green Bay later wins; he'll just make that claim that Conservatives and Christians won the Superbowl and how atheists haven't (even though we will never actually know how many secular people have been on championship football teams over the years).--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Man, Andy's gonna hurt himself if he keeps jumping on and off bandwagon's like that. Besides, Dosn't he know that the Packers are PUBLICLY OWNED! They are the only socialist team in the NFL--Thunderstruck (talk) 22:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The Packers are not "publicly owned" in the socialist sense of the term, AFAIK. The state doesn't own them. They are owned by their shareholders, who bought the stock when it was sold to the public. They are no more "publicly owned" than is Microsoft or US Steel. P-Foster Talk "Go get Ace" 22:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually this is a good time to remind Americans. You probably do own Microsoft, and perhaps US Steel. Most pension funds invest heavily in big dinosaurs like these two, because they're seen as stable. Your pension fund probably has people whose job is to persuade you that they behave ethically e.g. not investing in companies that are going to start a war to make a few bucks. Putting pressure on these people can translate into pressure on the boards of these huge corporations to do what you want. The general belief that the board are required to "maximise profits" is false. A public corporation, like any corporation, serves its shareholders. If it seeks profit at any cost that's because the shareholders demanded it. Many "Packers" investors probably feel a Superbowl win would be better than a dividend. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 10:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Where's your god now, Tebow? Where's your GOD? Czolgolz (talk) 03:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Conservapedia is proven right again! Denver only lost by 35 points--The lamestream media predicted Tebow would lose by 40 points!

Seriously though they wouldn't shut up last week, and this week? Nothing. Andy Frankinson (talk) 01:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Jesus is about to return. The prophecy of the "wp:abomination of desolation standing where it ought not" has been fulfilled on the wp:Lambeau Field scoreboard. nobs^{Empty Recycle Bin} 23:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Born in the Philippines

According to CP, that would make him unamerican and a dirty foreigner who could never understand conservative principles. Discuss. Doraemon^{話そう！話そう！} 16:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone. But neither of these guys are black, so it's okay.

Oh, and, also, the Phillipines...isn't that that one country that the U.S. used to own, and has all those really harsh laws regarding corporal/capital punishment? -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

EC 1. I defy you to find the words "dirty foreigner" on Conservapedia. Their nativistic streak is strong, but it's not the only way they talk about the rest of the world. 2. The Philippines have a pretty strong Christian tradition as well as a long history of connection to the US, what with them being a former colony and all. 3. Geographic location is not the only determining factor of nationality to people who care about such things. Where was Obama born? Where was McCain born? Who is more "American" in their eyes, even should they admit that Obama was born in Hawai'i. P-Foster Talk "Go get Ace" 17:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, Seth, that's a really clumsy use of an accusation of racism. Step your game up a bit. P-Foster Talk "Go get Ace" 17:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry, I should have said something like, "Both Tim Tebow and Lou Diamond Phillips were born in the Phillipines, a country with high Christian moral values. Between the two of them, Tebow is a virgin and Phillips engaged in an 'alternative lifestyle' that resulted in him losing his first wife to lesbianism, as well as having a failed second marriage with a Penthouse model. You don't hear much of Phillips anymore; clearly his lack of recent successes is a result of him engaging in liberal activities and cavorting with loose women. Conversely, Tebow is enjoying much success of late due to his conservative values. Perhaps if Phillips had followed the moral upbringings of his Scottish/Irish heritage of his father (and not that of his father's Cherokee descent, or his mother's Asian descent), he would not have suffered such a horrible divorce and a decline in success so early in his life." Better? -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I've never heard of "Lou Diamond Phillips," but whatever. And I when I think of Asia/Pacific countries with really strict laws re: corporal punishment, I think of Singapore more than the Philippines, which does not have legal corporal punishment, but maybe that's just me. And none of what you just wrote says anything about anti-Black racism, which was the comment I was referring to. P-Foster Talk "Go get Ace" 17:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I see my invocation of Poe's Law is working. Thanks. -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Other than JPatt, I haven't seen any of the sysops ever state anything overtly racist, at least not to my knowledge. I don't know each of the rest's views on the subject of race, but they don't appear racist as far as I can tell.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Their hands are probably pretty clean as far as straight-up-N-bomb-dropping-cross-burning-hood-wearing racism is concerned, or at least they're smart enough to keep everything on the up-and-up in polite company. Ed has made sweeping comments about topics like African-Americans and welfare, but hey, so has Newt Gingrich. All that said, racism is a slippery, pernicious and systematic thing, and they are all invested in that system, with all of its slipperiness and pernisciousness. P-Foster Talk "Go get Ace" 22:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't recall specifically, but I believe Ed has said a few pretty racist things in the past. Of course, they're nothing compared to his statement that gays should be incarcerated. DickTurpis (talk) 00:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Andy endorses the obesity campaign and hits out against Mrs Obama, but is perfectly happy to endorse Chris Christie despite being the size of a whale. Either Karajou or Ed Poor just created that article suggesting that the digital divide is false and black people choose not to buy computers. And one of them redirected "Person of Colour" to "Blacks". I think Ken's the only one on there that's not actually racist... Doraemon^{話そう！話そう！} 10:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Andy hats Romney

Beatrice Cthulhu hat - that's how much he hats Romney.

We need to keep track of his Romney bashing, so we can monitor the abrupt about turn when Mitt wins the nomination. From: United States Presidential Race - Endorsements for Republicans 2012

Useless Value (max. 10)	Endorser	Endorsement	Why it is useless
10	Iowa Des Moines Register	Mitt Romney	The newspaper supported same-sex marriage
9	Jon Huntsman	Mitt Romney	Many wondered why this ambassador for the Obama Administration was running for the Republican nomination.

--PsyGremlin 말하십시오 05:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe, but given Andy's history of never dropping even the most bugfuck insane views (relativity, the bible project, black holes etc) he will most likely state that Mitt cheated, lied, blackmailed the "Real True Conservatives" out of the race (apart from the known commie Rick Santorum who is just as bad), or any number of such ideas to win the nomination, and I also think he will also twist his election defeat (i'm assuming Mitt will be defeated) into another glorious victory for "Real True Conservatives", so not only can he keep whining about Romney, but can claim an Obama victory is a personal victory for him and conservapedia. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 06:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

So, what you're saying is he'd sooner have four more years of Obama, a man he can't stop moaning about, than a moderate Republican? Flip, flop, flip, flop.... -- 07:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Well that was Joseph Farah of WND's strategy in 2008. Rather have Obama win than McCain so we could suffer real hardship and take our medicine as America and vote in a "true Christian conservative" come 2012. Seriously, these people hate our country.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 08:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Look how well thats working. Someone wanna tell me how well the "Christian Conservatives" are doing against first place Romney?--Thunderstruck (talk) 14:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I would hazard a guess that Andy holds a bitter, bitter resentment towards Romney, who arguably rivals Obama in representing everything Andy despises and fears. For one he is perceived by many as a "moderate" republican, he does not care about social issues unless they get him points and he has shown willingness to go "liberal" when it benefits him, and of course he is a different flavor of Christianity, which all synthesizes to create a candidate Andy finds easy to hate.

However, you may ask what truly separates him from Gingrich in this regard? In my opinion Gingrich out of all the candidates personifies Andy's self righteous and hypocritical wrath against the demonic democrats by his leading the campaign to impeach Clinton and his leading the republicans to seize the house of representatives, and as shown by Andy's instant abandonment of those that "fail him" he sees the prosecution of the holy war against liburals as the ultimate ideal, and those who fail to do so sufficiently are worthless to him, such as poor sweet Santorum who is now just another liberal.

As seen multiple times, Andy's unrivaled record of failure, humiliation, and irrelevance has imbued in him a bitterness and resentment towards those he views as either "despicable alien" or "faithless traitor" on a near personal level (as the self appointed avatar of holy conservatism) especially when they attain power and prestige that he may never attain, be it the presidency or the support of most republicans in the nomination.

Right now he is likely hoping that Romney's probable failure will result in a "revolution" within the republicans which places a "Real True Christian Conservative" in charge, which will then result in them sweeping into power, making him Attorney General, and replacing the constitution with Conservapedia. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 14:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget that Andy is holding out for some conservative wet dream, where they get to the convention and all True Conservatives go "WTF?!", lynch Romney and vote Jeb Bush in as their new Messiah. --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 14:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Andy used to love Romney

Wasn't it only 2 years ago that he kept going on about Mitt's Our Man and various other love taglines. [4] [5] [6] etc. Doraemon^{話そう！話そう！} 10:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm none of those news item really sing Mitt's praises. ^{ONE / TALK} 12:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I tried to find some that did but couldn't remember exactly when Andy was in his Mitt-loving mode. Anyone else remember or is it just me? Doraemon^{話そう！話そう！} 15:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Football is over for Andy

Andy's backup evangelical Christian candidate to hang his hopes on, Aaron Rogers, and the Green Bay Packers, just got upset by the New York Giants 37-20. So now we have liberal New York City versus liberal San Francisco for the NFC Championship, and liberal Baltimore versus liberal New England for the AFC Championship (I am using liberal as Andy would have it be used). The question is what will Andy and CP say now? Personally I expect no mention of football from this point on, as far as this season is concerned on CP's mainpage. I do expect he will dismiss football as just a game that God doesn't care about, so it (now) doesn't matter who wins as a response to any user who brings up these inconvenient facts in the comments section (with a possible burning and banishment).--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 00:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

It would appear that he is not mentioning these facts, but instead standing by his mancrush to say that Tebow "prevented total disaster" in failing to win.^img So in other words just another case of denial of reality, denial of his own words and denial of having ever made a mistake, in favour of clinging to a near mastabatory obsession. However I agree that he will be quick to put this out of sight as soon as he is able to, probably in favour of the Republican leadership speculation Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 02:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Poor God. Back in the old days he was smiting the shit out of entire cities and slaughtering thousands of people with a magic box of death. Skip to the current day and the extent of his power is exerting his influence through a single football player so that his team doesn't lose too badly. I don't care how strong your ego is, this must sting it. X Stickman (talk) 02:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

"Maybe the league needs to listen to Tebow more than it does". Listen to him say what? "I thank Jesus"? Half the football players the sideline reporters interview after a victory give that same line. Tebow isn't saying anything new, he just takes it to another step (and his fanatical fans that it three steps past that). Tebow in that regard isn't any different than Reggie White, an outspoken Christian and minister. So what exactly is Tebow saying that is new or hasn't be repeated ad nauseam? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 08:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The only thing left for Andy to do is try and poke fun at the ratings for the remaining games. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Fun Fact Andy dosn't tell you (from Andy's own link), while all these networks lost ratings over the season, The NFL Network gained them.So people are still watching, they're just watching a different channel.--Thunderstruck (talk) 13:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Does any of this take into account this is, I think, the second year now that the NFL live streams all the games on the internet? - π 12:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Do they? Not for free certainly. Nfl.com lets you keep up with the game "live" by showing you graphics of what line the ball is at and such, but that's not like watching a game. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 13:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

It is about $120 for the whole season, given that in run for 6 months including preseason it is better than any cable deals. Plus you get to pick the game you want to watch, not what is being shown. - π 13:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Surprised this hasn't become a thing on Conservapedia

Thatcher won the Golden Globe last night. If the failure of the Facebook movie had political significance last year, surely this is a sign that conservatives will do well this time around? P-Foster Talk "a cheetos-eating, Mountain-Dew drinking vlogger living in someone's basement." 14:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

It's good news about Europe. That isn't possible and therefor irrelevant. --★uːʤɱ heretic 14:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Plus Thatcher didn't scrap socialized medicine, nor the dole, nor did she ban abortion and allow guns. She did a pretty good job of finishing off the middle class, however. But overall, she's still a stinkin' liberal.--PsyGremlinPraat! 15:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

But remember, the Golden Globes were hosted by obese liberal atheist Ricky Gervais, so they don't count for anything. Also, I'm pretty sure that Andy is forbidden from supporting a movie which portrays a woman leaving the kitchen.Tesformes (talk) 15:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Except The Social Network was nominated for 6 globes, and won 4; in the Oscars, 8 and 3. The King's Speech was 7/1 (Globes) and 12/4 (Oscars); thus showing that the Globes are bastion of liberal Holywood values, and the Oscars are true conservatives. CS Miller (talk) 15:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Today I attempted an attack on Conservapedia. I utterly failed. 108.15.100.206 (talk) 21:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Thats not the only thing you failed. Don't attack CP, they do a good enough job ruining themselves.--Thunderstruck (talk) 21:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll agree, you are a total failure. See you again next time as someone else. --99.85.36.212 (talk) 22:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

DAMN IT. Jpatt agrees with me. I need a shower...--Thunderstruck (talk) 22:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Meh. I can still plan attacks. 108.15.100.206 (talk) 23:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Ever thought about finding a hobby? Your "contributions" will stick around for all of 20 minutes if you're real lucky, so the only people that will even notice you existed is you and the people who blocked you. What's the point? Just to mildly inconvenience some assholes? It's like dumping water on some jerk's windshield; they're just going to use the windshield wipers and move on. (ʞlɐʇ) ɹǝɯɯɐHʍoƆ 14:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

While all the time pissing on their own windshield anyway. ^{ONE / TALK} 14:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

March of Life '11

I'm browsing on my cell phone, so I might not be seeing this picture from Andy's user page clearly, its of Andy at the March for Life but it kinda looks like Andy photoshopped himself into it. It could also just be my phone. Can I get a second opinion please? Tesformes (talk) 12:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I get an error message when I try to access it. Odd. Darkmind1970 (talk) 13:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm... looks odd. Andy looks out of focus, compared to the background. I think we should get the genius who proved that Obama's birth certificate was a cheap acrobat crib to review this. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 13:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

That's very odd indeed. It looks very much like a photoshopped version. The question is - why would someone do that? Darkmind1970 (talk) 13:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I fixed the link in the opening post. And... yeah, the picture does look odd, but I think this may just be a case of a low-res cellphone camera shot outdoors in shitty lighting. Mostly because it's (IIRC) well-established that Andy really was there, thus eliminating the need for 'shopping. --Sid (talk) 13:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Does our hero even have photoshop skills? Rennie McGreet (talk) 13:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Is it just me or does Andy look like he has just been flashed and doesn't know how to react in that picture? --★uːʤɱ kant 14:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Why would Andy pretend to be at an event where everyone would expect him to be anyway? Doraemon^{話そう！話そう！} 16:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

A good point. It just... looks odd though. Darkmind1970 (talk) 17:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

If he's been flashed then it's by JPatt who took the picture on his Blackberry. Andy is probably out of focus because the BB has a fixed focus lens and he's probably too close with the light level - it does look quite murky. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 17:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Probably legit. If the odd appearance isn't due to questionable photography, it's a pretty decent photoshopping, with matching compression artifacts, lighting directions, and such. And if it was photoshopped with that much care, why not go the extra yard and mess with the lightness/contrast a bit? 184.61.193.172 (talk) 22:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

All good points -- but I can't shake the feeling that it looks like a meme photo. F_ucker^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 22:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Quick! Everybody cut and paste Andy into amusing places and situations! Vulpius (talk) 06:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it's just that Andy isn't very photogenic. That's not to insult him or anything, just some people aren't good in photos. Looking through some of his other photos he looks kinda awkward too. X Stickman (talk) 23:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Well since you asked Vulpius I will start with an obvious one. (apologies for the shitty paint job) Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 16:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me for saying so, but you are a fucking idiot, aren't you? P-Foster Talk "a cheetos-eating, Mountain-Dew drinking vlogger living in someone's basement." 16:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

No just drunk at the moment due to my roomates force feeding me a third of the beer left in the fridge over winter. if you want me to remove just ask and I will apologize when sober. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 16:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

"In vino veritas." <--what I always say to people who blame ignorance and asshole behavior on being drunk. P-Foster Talk "a cheetos-eating, Mountain-Dew drinking vlogger living in someone's basement." 16:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Right, so you have never said or done anything dumb or boring while drunk. Hell when drunk I occasionally claim to have copulated with my best friends mother when we start arguing over something trivial, yet there is no truth to that. Also as I have said before, if you wish my post removed just ask, or do it with my blessing, and I once again apologize for having helped perpetuate the most done to death joke/comparison on the internet. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 16:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Thar all done now Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 17:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

(UI)Shame it is such low quality, because there's much fun to be had with it. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 13:58, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Are any of you running TonyPark?

Because this crosses the line^img. Don't be the type of asshole who uses racist discourse to make a website look bad. P-Foster Talk "a cheetos-eating, Mountain-Dew drinking vlogger living in someone's basement." 15:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

IIRC isn't he merely inserting a line attributed to Michele Bachmann? Not that I'm TonyPark, of course. --PsyGremlinTala! 16:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see were that is racist. --★uːʤɱ libertarian 16:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

It could be worded a lot better but it is technically right...--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 16:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I completely disagree. It's a sweeping generalisation and assumes that all of Africa is worse off than even the poorest American. Doraemon^{話そう！話そう！} 16:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I said technically for a reason; i didnt fully agree with it (and for the most part its the slave trade and the wests fault africa is as fucked as it is anyways...)--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 16:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The phrase "the injustices of slavery" doesn't even begin to account for the violence that was the Atlantic slave trade;talking about the "descendants" of slaves makes it harder to consider the millions and millions of "descendants" who would presumably been born in Africa if their ancestors had not been sent to the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean when it was deemed they were too sick to bother feeding/worked to death and/or killed for resisting slavery in the New World, etc. Moreover, the idea that Africans are in a rough spot today has more than a little to do with centuries of trans-Atlantic slave trading and European colonialism, so to argue that the descendants of slaves are doing better than continental Africans because of their immersion in a non-African environment is problematic. P-Foster Talk "a cheetos-eating, Mountain-Dew drinking vlogger living in someone's basement." 16:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The assertion is part of the pledge from The Family Leader (we have no article about this) that was signed by both Creepy and Frothy. The exact clause of the pledge was:

Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African-American President.

However the edit by TonyPark states "scholars and commentators". I had to dive a little, but found this which casts some light on the actual "study" that made the assertion, and includes some links to citations and competing opinions. Of note here (and to correct some perceptions made by other commentors), the statement appears to (a) talk about African Americans and not Africans (some of whom are not black), (b) talk only about the perceived benefits of living in a two-parent household and nothing to do with rights, freedoms, equality or economic status of slaves, and (c) try to emotionally associate all of the problems an African American child might have in today's United States with the "failures" of Barack Obama. -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

While I don't think anyone could ever "test" such a statement in the real world, it's not an uncommon view in the South at all. While they end up ultimately having to agree that "slavery was bad" (i hear that in my head the way I hear' drugs are bad' from south park. a rote statement drilled into heads), they see it as a sorta "good" bad. You will very often hear "if you are so made about slavery, go live in Africa where they don't have schools or tvs". etc. Quite often it's said in response to questions about reparations. GodotDear god, fucking grow up 16:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I am the one behind TonyPark, and I added that phrase because it is a very commonly used pro-slavery canard, and is a view that is still commonly held among the wingnut crowd. OBVIOUSLY it's a load of horseshit, Africa without the slave trade would have used its natural resources to become an economic powerhouse by now. Still, I had no idea that it was okay to use anti-gay rhetoric to make CP look bad, but not racial. Are there any other rules for trolling I should know about? I also made an account called TerryDiedAndILoled, and I told Andy that TK was fucking with him and that everyone was laughing. Was that also going over the line?

BTW, I don't care if someone at CP sees this, I'm on a train right now moving to another state. New IP=New Account soon!Tesformes (talk) 17:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with TonyPark in that he was only repeating the type of nonsense that the type of conservatives who frequent CP have said in the past, not necessarily as an all out defense of slavery but certainly as a mitigating factor, usually as the result of their belief that black people should not still be 'wallowing in the past injustices' they suffered for the majority of the existence of the USA. The swift removal by AS does reflect the fact that it is okay to be seen as anti-gay, anti-Muslim, anti-atheist, and even anti-woman on CP, but even a whiff of racism is squashed immediately, even if it reflects the type of extremist views that are common amongst his ilk.Tacitus (talk) 21:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

We have to give some credit to Andy for not tolerating racism at all. Is the same true for all CP sysops? The Real James Brown (talk) 23:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I think Andy is simply aware that explicit racism is something he does not want on his blog as it would hypothetically cause enormous damage to him and the site, had the site any remaining dignity to damage, and so he is merely covering his arse. In terms of opposing Racism, his words and actions regarding the "Obama is an alien muslim because he is black and has a funny name" debacle speak for themselves Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 17:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Schlafly is on the evangelical-Christian side of conservatism rather than the old-fashioned racist side. The only racism he will permit will be emotive and latent. ListenerX^TalkerX 21:55, 18 January 2012 (UTC)