Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive277

This is an archive page, last updated 9 February 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>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <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)

The "starlight problem"

The starlight problem is a complication for Young Earth Creationism involving the amount of time it would take for light from distant stars to reach Earth. causes difficulties for the theory that the universe is billions of years old, because we can observe stars that more light-years away...than the the oldest ages suggested for the universe^img. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 21:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

That's like a right-winger saying that liberalism is wrong, because we'd more regulation for it to work effectively. F_ucker^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 21:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Basic misunderstanding of the universe fail. That's what you get for thinking Goddidit! -- Seth Peck (talk) 22:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I think Andy is going to start pushing the whole, "God made all the light in between" bullshit again. So of course we can see 13 billion light years away, god wanted us to have something to do at night besides get eaten by wolves. You didn't think God wanted you to take the stars SERIOUSLY, did you? Jeez... RachelW (talk) 22:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Does anybody know what Andy is going on about with the 39 billion light-year stuff? It seems oddly specific, but as is par for the course, there's no citation, so it may just be a typical brain fart insight. --Sid (talk) 22:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the whole 'space is expanding' thing can lead to situations where the distance between source and destination is now much greater than the distance the the light actually traveled. Something like that. Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 22:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

(EC - You seem to be correct if I understood things correctly) Scratch that question. Andy had already replied on the talk page with "JFGI"^img so I did just that and HEY it turns out that apparently, this is simply Andy taking a "Huh, that's non-trivial!" issue and turning it into a Counterexample, hoping that nobody fact-checks. --Sid (talk) 22:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I Googled 39 billion light years and found this. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 22:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, if an infinitely large universe makes sense to an anonymous dude on Ask Answers, then its good enough for me! BTW, the farthest thing we've ever seen is 13 billion light years away, not 39. RachelW (talk) 22:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Best Of The Public! P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 22:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

13 billion being strangely close to the estimated age of the universe, of course. Where exactly did 39 billion come from? -- 22:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

There is a very good reason that the farthest objects we can see are slightly over 13 billion light years away. After the Big Bang, it was impossible to see anything, because the temperature of the vacuum was so high that the mean free path of a photon was so short that light couldn't get more than an inch without hitting a particle. After 300,000 years the universe cooled down and it was possible for light to travel long distances. This was also the time when galaxies started to form, and in their centers these Gamma Ray Bursts formed after a few million years. So the oldest visible objects are 13 billion light years away because the supernovas/gamma ray bursts closest to us have already burnt out, but the ones super far away are still visible/haven't been seen yet.

The universe itself is estimated to be 78 billion light years in diameter, so if the speed of light were not a problem (Subspace telescopes a la Star Trek) we could see objects 39 billion light years away. But as far as we're concerned its 13.7 billion light years in radius because we will never be able to see that far. The increasing expansion of the universe will probably top us out at 16 billion light years away.RachelW (talk) 23:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

From wp:Observable Universe:

The age of the universe is about 13.75 billion years, but due to the expansion of space we are observing objects that were originally much closer but are now considerably farther away (as defined in terms of cosmological proper distance, which is equal to the comoving distance at the present time) than a static 13.75 billion light-years distance. The diameter of the observable universe is estimated to be about 28 billion parsecs (93 billion light-years), putting the edge of the observable universe at about 46–47 billion light-years away.

Who the heck knows where 39 billion comes from. -- Seth Peck (talk) 23:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's my favorite part of that article, at the end of the Humphrey section:

• "Furthermore, in the event the Earth was in the center of a immense gravity well, the core of the planet should be composed of a soup of subatomic particles, like a Neutron fluid."
• "This model receives cautious but wide support among creationists."

Drill baby drill! Get that neutronium! RachelW (talk) 23:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Look at that fucking article, its almost presentable to the outside world, now! HAHAHAHAHA!!!! RachelW (talk) 00:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

It can't last. Capping^img for posterity. Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 00:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, look, Rob stumbles in and brings up variable speed of light^img because fuck, things weren't weird enough already. --Sid (talk) 00:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

It's been 'cleaned up' by Andy.^img It was nice while it lasted. Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 01:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Lets assume the universe is expanding^img. No need to assume, it is expanding. Ace^Moderator 01:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

If there's no need to assume, then change the Rationalwiki article. Big_Bang#Starting_assumptions. nobs^Moderated 01:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Ummm, those starting assumptions don't mention an expanding universe. Ace^Moderator 01:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

(EC) Why don't you read the Rationalwiki article. Those are the starting assumptions for the evidence of the Big Bang. In simple words, my fellow First Worlder, without the starting assumptions, there is no expanding universe -- according to the Rationalwiki article. nobs^Moderated 01:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The starting assumptions are the homogeneity of the universe and the universal nature of physical laws. Expansion is an evidence. Please read our article on Bigbang. --Buscombe (talk) 02:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

yes, a lesson in reading would help. The universe is expanding - it is doubtless and provable. Ace^Moderator 02:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

LOL, I just saw this now. Andy is an idiot, the soooper-simple explanation is basically this: The universe is expanding (and that expansion rate itself is accelerating). Light from stars that reached us after 13 billion years emanated from stars that were 13 billion light years away at the time, (again, for the stupid YEC, that was 13 billion years ago; with us so far)? Over those 13 billion years after the light traveled to Earth, those stars and us have moved apart to where the distance between those stars and us is now 39 billion light years. Most likely, those stars don't even exist anymore, long ago exploding into supernova and becoming neutron stars or black holes, or fading into white dwarfs.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 02:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• those stars and us have moved apart to where the distance between those stars and us is now 39 billion light years.

This contradicts George and Rachel; I postulated the distances are changing, they disputed that. nobs^Moderated 03:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The rate of expansion is accelerating under the repulsive force of Dark energy. Ace^Moderator 03:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

ahhh Ace, the subject under discussion is gravitationally unbound objects, not an expanding universe. Why don't read the context before interspersing your trolling. nobs^Moderated 03:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Gravitationally unbound objects only matter in an expanding universe. In a non-expanding universe gravitational binding wouldn't matter because space wouldn't be expanding. --Fergus Mason (talk) 03:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Well we know the universe is expanding simply because it is measurable. Simply put, we can do this through the Doppler Effect, where objects that emit light shift to the red when moving away from us (and to the blue when they are moving toward us). We know through Hubble's Law that red shift (recession speed) is proportional to distance, so just using some math we can figure both distance and how fast an object is moving either towards or away from us. The only way Andy's claim that "39 billion years is a starlight problem for the old universe" is if the universe was completely static, and objects weren't moving in relative distance to each other, or that the universe itself wasn't expanding. In addition though to we knowing the universe is expanding, we know its accelerating; we discovered that fact back in the Nineties. I don't understand why Andy's is making such a preposterous claim, not even YEC advocacy groups would make such a stupid claim, and understand the expansion of the universe (even if their ideas to as why are wrong). Anywhere else Andy would be so appropriately smacked down for making such ridiculous assertions, but he is the untouchable master of CP, so anything he says is "TEH TRUTH". Andy will defend his version of the facts to the end and his sycophants will ban anyone who questions him, because his pride can't allow the possibility he is wrong.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 04:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I really see no reason why three separate webpages--1 here, and 2 at CP--are needed to educate a man who is a complete idiot about basic high school science. Can we try to limit the Rob-induced mission creep? P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 03:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Gravitationally unbound objects? I was talking about Ice hockey and how its nearest NZ equivalent is beating the shit out of someone on a cold winters day. Ace^Moderator 03:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course there's also the Horizon Problem, which is what Aschlafly may be thinking of. It's still repeated oft enough by creationist shills. But it's what inflationary theory was developed for. Of course, any new theory like that - inflation, dark energy, dark matter - is simply plugging yet another hole in the Big Bang. Wouldn't it just be easier to admit that Goddidit? No thought required. Ajkgordon (talk) 09:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Sheesh, just because we can't see it because it's long ago away, doesn't mean it isn't there. There's a reason for the phrase "observable universe". I suspect what is beyond that is a lot like what we can see. And might be "infinite" or not, but is surely larger than just what we can "see". ħuman 05:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Roman Coins, Shroud of Turin

...um, anyone know what's going on with that Shroud of Turin bit on the main page? That's pretty random, even for CP. It's not even "referenced," by which I mean, linked back to some insipid crap at CMI. GayGator (talk) 00:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's extremely random. I'm not even sure what he's trying to say there. To me it sounds like people anticipated the blinding light of the resurrection and placed coins on Jesus' eyes to protect them. Which kinda implies that if they hadn't, Jesus would've stumbled out of the tomb, going all "I'M BLIND! I'M BLIND! OH, IF ONLY I COULD CURE BLIND-...oh, wait." --Sid (talk) 00:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Even weirder than that, because he says that they were necessary but not intended to block the light, which, I mean, what? So Mary Magdalene went into an automaton trance of some sort and put coins on the eyes without intent to do so? Plus, isn't the theory of the Shroud that the image was burned on by radiation coming from the body, not moving toward it. Anyway, the coin bit is based on analysis of one photo of the face from the 1930's, as I recall, and is basically enhancement artifact combined with a healthy dose of wishful thinking, like picking out structures on the Moon from analysis of single pixels in Apollo photos. Even the proponents dont think that the coin can be picked out from the much higher-res photos from the 1970's on: conveniently, continued manipulation of the Shroud has 'distorted the fibers' too much. Too bad that the coin image survived 2000 years* only to be destroyed just after one low-quality photograph was taken. (*not really, no.)--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 01:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I would have thought the coins were placed there so the deceased could pay the ferryman to cross the river Styx. Or was that the Greeks? --PsyGremlinPraat! 01:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

It was the Greeks. And the coins were probably placed in the corpse's mouth, not over the eyes. And the Jews didn't do it. And there are no coin images on the medieval bedsheet known as the shroud. --Fergus Mason (talk) 02:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

And now, Andy claims that this has happened^img not just to Jesus. So I guess... those other people had coins placed over their eyes to protect them from the light of resurrection... which never came? What? --Sid (talk) 12:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Grade your teacher project

I hope the homeschoolers decide to grade Andy over his writing because "Rick Santorum's senseless instance on staying in the race in Florida is depriving Gingrich of a victory there." doesn't make sense. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 09:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I tried to read the article, it was basically an add for the video with just quotes out of it. I tried to watch the video but it was just shock talking about things that didn't matter and saying "grade you teacher project" over and over again. They fail so hard that it hurts. Bonus points, he said that he knows more than Darwin did. He may know more about some stuff (like DNA) but boy is that not the most arrogant and asinine thing you've heard all week, or what?--Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 09:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe a parodist should add "instance / insistence" to cp:Writing Tips... ;) --Sid (talk) 12:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

This is why I support the Department of Education. They keep shmucks like andy frm teaching the general public.--Thunderstruck^{YOU'VE BEEN...} 13:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

It just goes to show that spelling checkers are only of limited use. The wrong word, even if spelled correctly, may be more wrong than a simple typo.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 14:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I hope I'm not digressing too much when I say that Ken's chosen image for the "Grade Your Teacher" bullshit is just about the most disturbing thing I've seen on the main page. Tone down the creep, manchild. GayGator (talk) 15:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The phrase "lamestream media"....

....as of this moment, appears seven times on CPs front page, and in the first two items on MPR. Mix it up a little, boys. Seriously. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 14:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Reminds me of when it was inundated with various parodies of Fairey's Obama image. I think they had 8 at one time? Turpis 3:16 (talk) 14:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I think he needs to follow Colbert's lead and go with "lamescreed". Occasionaluse (talk) 14:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems to be a common trait on the US right - latch onto a theme and leech it for all it's worth, Andy and Ken are past masters at that. It shows a complete lack of originality and creativity which, by definition, are the antithesis of conservatism.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 15:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Some lefties do it too, though. Pharyngula's obsession with the word "Rethuglican" (which seems to have passed now) really annoyed me. It's just so... dumb. X Stickman (talk) 16:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Florida, the Important yet unimportant Primary

People keep saying Romney will win Florida; but it's unlikely he'll even get over 45%; and theres only 50 delegates anyways!^imgl, but andy; just 4 days ago you called it "the biggest day of the Presidential Election 2012"^img horray for flip-flops!--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 14:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I love watching Andy turn on a dime like that (the Daily Show does bits with politicians and pundits doing the same quite a bit, and it's always great). Is he completely unaware? I realize some people do this because they have to; it's their job to support a candidate 100% and if that means saying something one day and the opposite the next they do it, probably quite conscious of the fact they're contradicting themselves. Andy, however, doesn't have a job, and doesn't need to alter reality to fit his agenda. Well, I guess in his own head he does. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 15:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course he knows. Shit, do you think he really believes Mitt Romney, a mother fucking Mormon, is "pro-abortion"? Occasionaluse (talk) 15:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

It's especially cute that both items are currently on MPR. The lamestream media continue to overhype the biggest day of the election. Phiwum (talk) 15:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what Andy realizes and what he doesn't anymore. I honestly think he's not entirely sane. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 15:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Er, Occasional? Mitt Romney was a Mormon back in 2002, but he still explicitly said, "As Governor, Mitt Romney would protect the current pro-choice status quo in Massachusetts. No law would change. The choice to have an abortion is a deeply personal one. Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not the government's." I don't know that I'd call that "pro-abortion", but that's certainly how many conservatives use the term. Phiwum (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Romney hardly has pro-life bona fides by their standards. But how they claim Santorum isn't anit-abortion is beyond me. MDB (talk) 15:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

"that's certainly how many conservatives use the term" That's what I'm talking about, Phiwum. Romney doesn't want people to have abortions, but they knowingly label him as if he does. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, that is not deliberate dishonesty. Many pro-lifers think that anyone who is in favor of abortion rights is in favor of abortion, just as many pro-choicers believe that anyone opposed to abortion rights seeks to oppress women. That's more a matter of political blinders than intentional (self-)deception of the sort I thought we were discussing. Phiwum (talk) 15:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

That also ignores people like me, who don't like abortion and would like to see it never happen, but want that to occur through means other than the law. MDB (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not so keen on giving them the benefit of the doubt. There's something wrong here. It's a combination of "no true scotsman" (i.e. Romney says he his now pro life, but Andy knows what real pro-life is). Once you tell someone that supporting abortion rights doesn't equate to supporting abortion (as evidenced immediately above), they're being deliberately ignorant if they persist. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

By the self-identification of the main sides here, those in favor of the availability of abortion are "pro-choice" while those against are "pro-life". If Romney can be considered "pro-choice" he would then be "anti-pro-life" and therefore close enough because there is no such thing as nuance. Perhaps not the most compelling logic, but then there's still trouble in River City. 184.61.193.172 (talk) 00:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I was under the distinct impression that the most important day of the 2012 U.S. Presidential Election would be, um, you know, November 6th, 2012. But apparently Andy knows better. -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, Florida isn't an importantly primary, say like South Carolina was; it is only the fourth most populous state on the Union, that's all.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Newt is lowering the bar

"I'm not going to lose big in Florida." MDB (talk) 15:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Long time listener Scott

Scott takes Andy to task.^img Prediction: Andy meant that the primary was the most important day in the 2012 election so far. As it's still so early, there are many much more important days to come. Also, liberals. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Damn, should have capped it. It's vaped now. What did he say? (ʞlɐʇ) ɹǝɯɯɐHʍoƆ 16:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Exactly what we did. He asked why Andy called the biggest day of the election over-hyped. Capped. It didn't get oversighted, the other diff was caught up in Ken's melee. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

It's because he's Mormon, right, or do they want Obama to win?

Now im not saying that its impossible to like Newt, Im just saying Im a lefty and even Im disgusted by Mr. I Cheat on My Wives. But for whatever reason Newt seems to be their choice besides Jed (lol). So is it because the more likely to beat Obama Rommey is Mormon, or like my thoery on fox news, they want Obama to win? Since its more entertaining to insult then to praise.--Sorge (talk) 13:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that the main reason why Mittens is seen as the presemptive nominee is because he came second last time. That seems to be the mindset of the Republicans ever since Ford (with the solitary exception of the Dubya). The Romney Unit has been running since 2008 and is possibly showing signs of software degredation, but he has the ground game in place. Now, the bunch of loonies who now make up the lower stories of the Republican party seem to see things in terms of who's the most ideologically pure. The Romney Unit has, as a result, been reprogrammed so many times that I'm amazed he isn't babbling "404 Error. Reboot." every time he's asked a question. By the way, if the Republicans swing even further right the Horst Wessel song won't be too far away. Darkmind1970 (talk) 14:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

It's because Romney doesn't fit their mold of ideological purity (he's a Massachusetts Republican -- in most states, he'd be called a Democrat.) They've managed to convince themselves Newt does. What I don't understand is why they're not pulling for Santorum, who would seem to be right up their alley. Unless they're willing to acknowledge elect-ability as a factor. But that should mean they'd favor Romney, who I think is the only one with a chance of beating Obama. MDB (talk) 14:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Godwins law in the first reply? Good god sir. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 14:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, his readiness to throw Santorum under the bus confounds me. He seems like as close to their ideal candidate as could be. I have a hunch mommy is for some reason supporting Newt (being an actual player she may have political reasons for doing so) so Andypants has to follow suit. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 14:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

He was the ideal candidate; until he started not landsliding. Then all his "idealness" vanished in the face of his abortion loving liberalness. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 15:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The Horst Wessel bit was a bit low, I admit. The thing is that my brother-in-law's a Republican and my wife (his sister) can't work out why. Darkmind1970 (talk) 15:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Andy's dislike of Mitt doesn't have to do with his Mormonism, but because Mitt fails to pass enough of the ever-increasing list of non-negotiable conservative positions required of a Republican candidate. This is my concern and problem with the Republican Party. While the party always had a conservative bent in my lifetime (which is fine, as I am fiscally and economically conservative), only recently has candidates been subject to an ever lengthening "ideological purity" checklist in order to be even considered by many in the conservative base, mainly the Tea Party types and other social conservatives. It threatens to permanently alienate moderates and independents, dooming the party to continual minority status. Andy may claim conservatives are the largest voting block, but largest does not equal majority and last I check you still need 51%. That is what hard-core social conservatives like Andy do not understand. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

@ Turpis: I found This interview with Phyllis Schlafly. It's a bit outdated, but she does not sound very enthusiastic about Gingrich. I kind of doubt your theory is correct. Andy seems to have gone rogue.--Th. Bernhard (talk) 12:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Rationalwiki > Conservapedia

I noticed CP was boasting about its 927,000 edits on the mainpage. You can tell how many edits a wiki has by the page id number in the edit bar. The last edit to CP is by Ed and has and has id 954030 or is the 954,030th edit. The most recent edit to RW (before posting this) has id number 960485 or is the 960,485th edit. If we maintain pace we should reach 1,000,000 edits before CP. Not bad considering they started over 6 months before us and have had nationally televised attention. Although the major difference is that people are allowed to edit here. - π 23:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it the 'diff' number that is the important one? That would have them on 957799 and us at 960486. Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 00:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh yeah, good call. - π 00:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Not to cast aspersions (but I'm gonna anyway)...the number of edits doesn't really have any bearing on the quality of the edits. But, yes, RW still has more. -- Seth Peck (talk) 00:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

^This. After all, how many of the edits were by Kenny alone repeatedly fixing his own mistakes?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 00:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Probably about as many as there are edits here, about the edits by Kenny alone repeatedly fixing his own mistakes. --Benod (talk) 00:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Just wait til they upgrade MW (lol, that will be FUN) and all of Kendoll's page vapes vanish huge numbers of edits... ħuman 05:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Would that reset the total pageview count as well? Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 07:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, MediaWiki upgrades as a rule don't mess up the revision data, nor they will mess up view counters. Of course, in Conservapedialand, "MediaWiki upgrade" means "whoops, we 'accidentally' nuked everything, and spend 2 weeks painstakingly restoring things from old backups, and it still won't look right after all these years". --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Does Andy even have any team members who know how to do that any more? --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 19:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Andy on Romney's strong showing

Someone with a real computer (I'm on a kindle fire) needs to wigo Andy on how old people are fooled by slick TV ads and how Romney's 47% win is a poor showing. I can agree with Andy there, it looks like he only did slightly worse that Santorum and Gingrich combined, for shame, for shame. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 01:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, he did slightly better. He has 47% and the two also-rans have a combined 45%. That makes me smile because Andy's been setting up the MPR so he can call Santorum a spoiler for Gingrich who split the conservative vote and let the pro-abortion RINO with the 15% tax rate win. RachelW (talk) 01:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Not just that, but polling for second preferences showed that while Santorum's supporters split evenly between Romney and Gingrich (with a few going to Paul), Gingrich's supporters would go overwhelmingly for Santorum. So if anybody is spoiling anything, it's Gingrich spoiling Santorum. Can't remember where I saw that but it was probably on fivethirtyeight. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 06:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the reactions nicely show Andy's bias: "Gingrich's 40% against Romney's 28% - LANDSLIDE!!!"^img ... "Romney's 47% - WEAK SUPPORT!"^img But hey, Andy's making a good point there: Romney didn't get more votes than ALL other candidates combined.^img *nods sagely* Poor showing indeed. --Sid (talk) 09:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Look who learned some new words! Science words!

RobS: "Yes its a difficult task to add up stations around the planet, at different exchange rates, and convert to US dollars for comparison; but it's a simpler equation than calculating the distance of a gravitionally unbound object at x lightyears comoving with another gravitionally bound object and making adjustments for at what rate space is expanding between them whole they approach the horizon of an expanding universe. And much more practical -- there's a payday at the end of all your laborious calculations" Link

Wow, Rob sure sounds smart! Tesformes (talk) 01:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

"Gravitionally"? -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Fuck him, I taught him those words and he has no idea what he's saying. Or how to do a goddamn Hubble's constant problem. Or what fucking gravitationally bound means. RachelW (talk) 01:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Stop WIGO-ing Rob. It's not nice to make fun of the mentally retarded. Only in the last 24 hours did he learn what a "light-year" was, and only in the last 72 did he learn what "first-world" meant. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 01:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

This discussion was moved to Forum:Analysis of the relative income streams of the National Football League and international rugby union.13:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

46 States to Go

Reading Assfly's post, you would think the "Liberal Media" would be shaking in their boots. Insted of, you know, giggling with glee. I myself hopes this keeps up. I think its funny.--Thunderstruck^{YOU'VE BEEN...} 03:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

LOL... Yeah. 46 states to go until everyone in the Union unanimously votes Democrat out of sheer disgust. (I personally intend to fill out my absentee ballot with a write-in for Stephen Colbert.) The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 06:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I know Andy has convinced himself the media wants Romney, but I don't see that, for two reasons.

• If you accept Andy's contention that the entire US media is is conspiring to elect Obama for lifea second term, then the media should desperately want to see Gingrich doing well, because pretty much every poll shows Romney is the only candidate who can beat Obama.
• If you believe that the media is just after ratings, then they should want a long, drawn out primary season. The Republican debates have drawn big ratings. As soon as the nominee is settled, they're in a slow political news cycle till the conventions.

I'm also thinking of a Newsweek columnist (I can't remember which one) I read last evening. The phrase was something like, 'when I look at the economy, I think Obama can't win. When I look at the Republican candidates, I think Obama can't lose." MDB (talk) 13:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh boy

"History proves: a long, drawn-out presidential primary helps the challenging party defeat the incumbent in November, as happened in 1976, 1980, 1992 and 2008."

There was no incumbent in 1992 or 2008. ħuman 05:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, CP-watching is like shooting fish in a vise with a hammer. Open main page, read two or three sentences, clean keyboard, type. ħuman 05:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

George Bush was the incumbent in 1992. He lost. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 05:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

He was the sitting vice-president, not an incumbent. ħuman 05:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The incumbent already holds the office, like Ford in 76 and Carter in 80. ħuman 05:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Um, no. He was the president. PACODOG^{woof, bitches} 05:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

George Bush won the presidency in 1988 after 8 years of Reagan. He was the incumbent in 1992, lost to Clinton. like shooting fish in a vise with you, it is. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 05:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Also: McCain was treated like the incumbent^img. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 05:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I just can't believe he's using NPR as a source, sans irony. It really blows my mind how little self awareness Andy has. RachelW (talk) 05:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the club, Rachel. PACODOG^{woof, bitches} 05:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

In any case, it takes a particular brand of idiot to say that the 1992 Democratic primary was even close. "Long and drawn out" my ass. Junggai (talk) 15:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

That's whenever I need an idiot, I always be sure to look for Conservapedia^TM brand idiots. That's right: trust your idiot needs only to Conservapedia^TM brand idiots. When it absolutely, positively has to make no logical or emotional sense whatsoever, accept no substitutes. -- Seth Peck (talk) 15:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure the maps give a full indication of how drawn out the primary was, but they certainly can in some instances. What Andy's doing, though, seems to be overlooking the cases in which long primaries didn't have any relation to unseating an incumbent. Notably 1988, 1984, and 1972. In fact, almost all recent primaries seem to be about as drawn out as this one seems likely to be (Romney's got it basically sewn up now), with a few exceptions (Gore in 2000, Dole in 1996, and Kerry in 2004). Turpis 3:16 (talk) 15:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

ScottDG

gets it right^img Pays the price. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 05:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

This whole Castro thing is Andy being unable to admit he was wrong at its worst. It's really pretty sad. What will happen when he does die and there's a huge funeral in Havana for him? Will Andy still insist he died 4 years ago? (OK, stupid question.) Turpis 3:16 (talk) 05:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

R.I.P. Because liberals. --Inquisitor (talk) 06:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

This really is quite the act of hubris. Scott wasn't rude, wasn't offensive, wasn't anything other than perfectly, 100% correct. And Andy stripped him of rights and gave him six months in the slammer. Could you imagine him in charge of anything? "President Schlafly, there are riots in New York. They say you're a monster." ... "Execute every last one of them and burn the bodies. 98% of them are Liberals anyway. Godspeed." --Sasayaki (talk) 06:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Replying to my own, but... isn't infallibility limited only to God? Does Andy think he's God now? --Sasayaki (talk) 06:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Scott was on the way out for a long time due to his "because liberals" remarks amongst others. My guess is that after the last comment Andy took a look at his recent contributions and decided he'd made a mistake in promoting him. He was right. Damo^Hi 07:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I thought Scott was you, P-Foster - either that or somebody else was copying your sig style. Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 07:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

All his trolling/parodying and he got banned for that? Wow. -- 08:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

"You did fine one NYT article in a period of nearly 3 years, and it used phrasing I found to be artful in referring to doubts that Castro is still alive." - Is Andy deliberately hiding his Writing Course homework all over the wiki? Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 09:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

RIP Scott! In other news, Rob's efforts of reform must be proceeding well. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 23:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

JPatt, Vulture

It doesn't take them long. MDB (talk) 15:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Jesus christ, I had quite forgotten about that delightful part of the site. I honestly think this is the perfect indicator as to how sickeningly spineless and spiteful these scumbags really are. They mock dozens of people (who's "crime" was to be linked to "Hollywood" in increasingly vaguer ways) for having suffered and died, with not so subtle references to how the fact they were "liberal" means they deserved it. Hell they mock Sharon Tate for being in the hippie lifestyle, and how her being a liberal somehow made her (and of course her friends and unborn child) deserving of being murdered. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 16:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I've often wondered if a website were to have examples of "Military values", cataloguing every time a soldier or ex-soldier murders someone, commits suicide, beats his wife, commits a crime, etc., (and there would be plenty of examples from which to choose) what CP's reaction would be. I have a feeling I know. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 16:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Homosexual liberals, all of them. See, they knew this would happen if Don't Ask, Don't Tell was repealed! F_lucked^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 16:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Could be done, given the stories one hears about rape and sexual harassment in the academies. The "alternative viewpoint", as it were. But from a "I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALwiki!" standpoint, the concept of Hollywood values is really the assignment of "very bad things" to any particular group, culture, race, industry or location ignores the fact that these bad things happen pretty much everywhere, in every group and every culture despite all blusterings to the contrary. -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The opening paragraphs of that page are pure poison. Hollywood values include a flagrant disrespect and disregard for... laws that apply to everyone else, commonly accepted behavioral boundaries and values of human decency. Yeah, I guess murder, rape, assault and robbery don't occur anywhere else in the US. And of course it's not crossing a behavioural boundary when you're screaming at people that they're mentally ill and going to hell if they're gay, or atheist, or don't believe in the right God, or if someone somewhere has just died and you're bragging about it on a family-friendly encyclopaedia. SJ ^Debaser 16:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

What sickens me is that they go out of their way to mock and spit on so many people because they were connected to pop culture, and are thus the "enemy", and the fact that the ones responsible are not trolls. I mean it takes a special kind of scumbag to mock someone for being murdered, or having been driven to suicide, or having overdosed, based on some delusional criteria of "values" they insist they all held. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 16:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

So much for consistent life ethic. I'm reminded of when GWB called for a new "crusade" against terrorist efforts. Amazing. -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Conservapedia:Dancing on Graves Occasionaluse (talk) 17:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

DouglasA

Obvious parodist admin, who seems to have gotten bored and quit without a word. Was it ever revealed who was behind this account? Based on his knowledge of CP dynamics one presumes he was an RWian... --Benod (talk) 19:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

other sites and people do watch cp; just saying--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 20:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

whatever, has there ever been a single remotely prominent parodist who didn't at least have an account here? anyway, i guess this means no one has fessed up to being Douglas? --Benod (talk) 22:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Who say's there is one, he's been there a long enough time. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 22:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Couple of problems there, Benod: First, many, MANY people have accounts here, including senior CP sysops (Ken, Rob, Ed, TerryH, if my memory is correct), so it shouldn't be SUCH a surprise that many parodists also have accounts here. And second, if a prominent parodist doesn't have an account here, how would we ever know for sure he's a real parodist? For all that we know, DouglasA may be such a case: A parodist who didn't have an account here and who grew tired of the parody. Also, parody actually predates RW's existence (Richard being the most notable case there). --Sid (talk) 23:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

ah, don't confuse me with a senior CP sysop. I'm not. nobs^Moderated 00:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah guys, they think he's a bigger piece of crap over there than we think he is over here. They unlocked his article, the bastards!!!Tesformes 00:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

If I ever had plans to go deep cover, I probably wouldn't have joined RW until after I blew my cover at CP. For me, it'd be too hard to keep the secret over here. So I am certain that there are parodists who are fully aware of RW but don't participate here. --Inquisitor (talk) 00:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

^this^ Back when I was TonyPark, I made an ass of myself here every time anything happened on CP involving me. I imagine that if I were to ever try to go deep cover again, I would have to completely cut myself off from RW, otherwise I'd piss myself every time I got WIGO'd. Tesformes (talk) 00:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Well at least you had a bit of a run at it. I kept getting blocked by other parodists. Then when my accounts kept getting blocked for being socks of random accounts, I threw in the towel. --Inquisitor (talk) 00:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Look, I'm not saying RW breeds vandals or anything like that, but most of them show up here sooner or later. Douglas was a pro so I suspect he was well familiar with CP: space. I was just wondering if we knew his account here. Apparently not. --Benod (talk) 02:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Judging from the Conservapedia Group e-mails Rob leaked to me while he was in the wilderness, it seems as if DouglasA was a false-flag operation, dreamed up by Rob and run by himself and Karajou. It seems the plan was for him to act like a douche, for us to libel him, and then Karajou could sue. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 04:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Surely you jest. That has to be one of the dumbest fucking schemes I've ever heard cooked up. But then again... looking at the alleged chefs it makes sense. --Inquisitor (talk) 05:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Sue for libelling a fictional person? Are you making that up? Boy, I'd love to see the emails, if not. Phiwum (talk) 12:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

So Rob, as DouglasA, was going to slander Karajou at CP, and Karajou was going to sue Rationalwiki? You've got to be kidding me. I don't think even Rob and Karajou are that stupid (although if they work as a unit might their stupidity increase exponentially?). What sort of damages was Karajou going to cite? I'm sure his boss keeps a close eye on CP, and would fire him if a random guy said sucks cock for nickels in the bus stop bathroom (which I hear he does, by the way). Turpis 3:16 (talk) 13:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Karajou has a boss? I thought he was sucking the public tit with a veteran's grant for Middle Tennessee State University in Murfreesboro and demonstrating against mosque building.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 15:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Might have been me. But I'm not telling. ħuman 05:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Pff, I'm DouglasA. Yes, it got boring once Andy stopped ConservaBibling and Ken took over with his weird, weird stuff. 17:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

No I am DouglasA. 18:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm DouglasA and so is my wife. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 18:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Now, guys, what's the point of trying to out myself if you keep doing Kirk Douglas impressions. 22:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

We killed some women! WIN!

Is JPratt having a laugh^img? What a great win it is shutting down cancer prevention screening and education. Killing poor people in the name of preserving life, and they're still celebrating. Fuckers. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 05:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

"Pro-life." Roll over, Beethoven Orwell! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Stupid liberal. If they don't have abortions, there's no need to scan for breast cancer. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 06:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Ting!* The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 07:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I think pro-lifers view Planned Parenthood analogously to how most Westerners view Hamas, a terrorist organization that also operates some schools and orphanages; cutting off funding to the "terrorists" then becomes acceptable despite the negative effect on the "orphanages." ListenerX^TalkerX 07:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

It looks that way. The linked article contains a bit that makes me want to throw up more than Jpatt's gleeing: "As a breast cancer survivor, I applaud the decision made by the Komen Foundation to discontinue their partnership with the billion-dollar, abortion mega-provider, Planned Parenthood," Americans United for Life President and CEO Dr. Charmaine Yoest said. "The work of the Komen Foundation has life-saving potential and should not be intertwined with an industry dealing in death." Seriously, what the fuck. --Sid (talk) 09:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, you guys! You guys! It's Jesus Miracle! We cut off breast cancer "prevention screenings" and "education"! What an ass. I volunteer with Planned Parenthood here. I escort women from their parking spot, past hordes of idiots and to the locked back door of our Planned Parenthood clinic on abortion day. It's sad to see people get harassed for a decision they've thought long and hard about... but when there's no one parking to escort, I love making faces at the protestors. GayGator (talk) 14:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

You guys, Cancer is a creation of god. Therefore, anything that cures or prevents cancer is destroying a creation of god. Deny this and lose all credibility.--Thunderstruck^{YOU'VE BEEN...} 14:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, though, I think PP can survive without SKG's funding. SKG is kinda like United Way--they're more interested in marketing than actually finding a cure (Edward Abbey said something about the main focus of an institution that seems relevant here). Buying crap with a pink label or walking with a sign doesn't cure cancer; there are plenty of charities that actually DO fund research and not awareness. As far as CP goes, they seem to think PP is the Abortion Megastore that The Onion reported it to be, and not actually a health clinic that focuses 97% of its efforts on anything BUT abortion, including STD screening, pap smears, mammograms, and ACTUAL family planning. I've even used their services...and I'm not equipped for an abortion.

Hopefully, this means that more people will give less money to SKG and more money to research and PP directly. I'm interested in hearing WfG/Blue/RachelW/Lily's take (or any other women that haven't posted yet). -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry about Planned Parenthood, they anticipated this and put aside money to make up for the $700,000 that SKG was going to revoke. And once the bullshit investigation gets done with, SKG won't have any excuse to withhold the money. RachelW (talk) 19:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I"ve been told I'm late to the party. I want to bitch!!! what the fuck is with the right. these are breast cancer screenings. GRRRRRRRrrrrrr.... GodotGrow a vagina 19:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

RAchel, it's not that PP won't or can't survive, it's teh gall at politicians who push this kind of shit. It's domestic terrorism. It's belittignly women and their choice, and it's saying to them, we care so much about your body and controlling it, that we will tell people to not fund non-abortion activites you do, even life saving ones. THAT is what angers me, not that PP might not make it, or something. Far too many women with money, or without money but with voices, time and other assistance to keep that from happening. IT's just that it makes it harder. For every dollar you spend fighting this shit, it's one more dollar you have to charge a poor woman for her health needs. GodotGrow a vagina 19:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Update on HuffPost: "Planned Parenthood announced on Wednesday that it has received $400,000 from about 6,000 donors since Komen announced it was cutting funding to the organization on Tuesday afternoon." -- Seth Peck (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear Jpratt (and ilk)

Until you a) adopt an unwanted child, or b) grow a womb, shut the fuck up about being pro-life. You're only pro-life if you care about them AFTER they're born. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 14:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Grow up, that argument has no legs. --99.155.90.106 (talk) 16:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, how's this one. "You are not the woman in question. Until you can get pregnant and have to face the reality of pregnancy, stay the fuck out of the debate". better? GodotGrow a vagina 16:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

No. If the pro-lifers are right, then abortion is akin to killing off your uncle because he's too expensive to feed. It would be ridiculous to say that the only ones who can consider the morality of offing Uncle Freddy is his family. It would be wrong to off Uncle Freddy, and one doesn't require intimate experience to say so.

Exactly the same reasoning applies in the case of abortion, assuming that abortion really is murder. Notions of privacy and empathy matter only if you view the situation as a hardship primarily for the mother and do not regard the fetus as a person in danger of losing his life. If the act is essentially murder, then of course we do not defer to the putative murderer's moral sensibility.

Really, if you want to engage the other side of the debate, you must take their beliefs seriously enough to communicate coherently with them. Phiwum (talk) 17:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

This sort of brings up why I actually have a little more respect for the pro-lifers who don't make exceptions for rape and incest. Using pro-life logic, in which abortion is no different than murdering a fully grown human being, saying you can have an abortion if you were raped is the equivalent of being allowed to kill anyone who's conception had been the result of rape. Of course I don't agree with them, but at least they're consistent. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 20:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the rape and incest exceptions seem inconsistent for their stated reasons why abortion is wrong. Never made much sense to me. If killing a fetus is wrong because it is like murder, why should it matter that the act which caused the fetus was involuntary? (Even philosophers like Dan Marquis seem loathe to take on the case of pregnancy due to rape.) Phiwum (talk) 21:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

And Bloomberg steps in to save the day. It's almost like they planned this so that liberals would get all in a huff and donate. 38.105.236.162 (talk) 04:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

This is just lazyness

User: Its to much effort to revert you so I'm just going to do nothing"^img--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 20:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Not really. It's just futile to get in a revert war with some penis when the folk who can actually stop it sit around with their thumbs up there arses. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Especially when you don't have the SkipCAPTCHA right (as is implied in the diff you link to). Nowiki and page-replace vandalism sprees are utter nightmares then since there isn't a CAPTCHA when you take out links (vandalism), but there is one when you insert one (reverting). And in the time you decipher some random characters, the vandal can mess up five more pages. --Sid (talk) 20:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

... This Picture

I saw it on kens... thing; and just... why would somebody make this picture?^img--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 19:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Because, liberal, in God's Own Land (i.e. The USA) flying pigs have the right to bear missiles. Actually it is bizarre. And Googling "flying pig missiles" doesn't come up with anything, so I have no idea what the original context is. --PsyGremlinPraat! 19:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The pig makes me think fat atheists, but the missiles makes me think Christians destroying atheism. That's a puzzler. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 19:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

You need to reference the original source of the image, which is somehow related to the Iraq war, although I don't understand it either. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 19:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems obvious that it's a critique of the cost of sending fighter jets in to the war since it looks like a piggy bank. The car headlights are a mystery, though. --184.175.20.175 (talk) 19:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Whille we are looking at pictures, joaquin has finally found a website with some real art he wants to share with CP: bestgore (linked to in talk:mainpage)AMassiveGay (talk) 20:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

What the FUCK. Diff^img because otherwise, people won't believe this wasn't vandalism. --Sid (talk) 20:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, anyone else who posted a link to BestGore (NSFW) would be deep-sixed in no time. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 09:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Anything you can do, I can do worse

Rob: "I'll erase a section critical of my nemesis Ken to post my request."^img

Ed Poor: "Whoa, there, two can play this game! My deletion won't even^img

--Sid (talk) 23:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Ed is truly stu --★uːʤɱ netlabelist 23:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that so much as he's just a bit, you kn -- 23:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

∗LO --larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 23:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Took me a second to figure out why all these comments a Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 00:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I usually get RW's style of humor, but I'm compl --Inquisitor (talk) 00:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

No one's saying Candlejack. Thats go ^{— Unsigned, by: Thunderstruck / talk / contri}

What on Earth w Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 07:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Ed really is an incompetent cu Ajkgordon (talk) 09:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe this joke has gone on for long e Vulpius (talk) 16:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Seriously gu --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 17:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

CPalmer joins in on the f Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 20:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Conservapedia to Rival IMDb

Not content to simply rival wikipedia, Ed Poor decides to review a movies also.^img liberal IMDb should be fair warned to lift their game. Ace^Moderator 00:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Tedious? Long??? damn I hate stupid people who wouldn't know good humor if it slapped them. "Liverpool's a lonely place on a Saturday night, especially when it's only Tuseday morning".GodotGrow a vagina 00:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Ed is almost as stupid as Rob; no reason to expect him to "get" foreign humour. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 01:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, a lot of people outside the UK and it's former colonies have serious problems understanding the humor of these countries. Personally, I count myself as one of them. --★uːʤɱ netlabelist 01:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Really? Uh, did you watch Dinner for one on Silvester? --Fergus Mason (talk) 08:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, way to often actually. I never laughed because I'm generally not into slapstick comedy (only if it is real stuff happening). Also I possibly didn't like it because it was "tradition" my mom liked. Not sure if that was rebellion or not my cup of tea. And don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with slapstick, it just isn't my thing. --★uːʤɱ secularist 19:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I find there are two types of humor in the UK (well, millions, but for this argument...) One is very punny, intellectualish, word play (monty python, It crowd, yello sub come to mind), and the other is very bawdy and often glories in awkwardness (the increasingly poor decisions of todd margaret, or Benny Hill). I get the first, and just dont get the second. And humor is the hardest thing to understand from a foregin culture, period, i personally think. Japan humor, anyone? But Ed is still just an idiot.GodotGrow a vagina 01:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Hahahaha!^img Ace^Moderator 01:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that's the link you wanted. Try this^img. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 01:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Ed is almost as stupid as Rob? That's debatable. nobs^Moderated 06:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

This gave rise to the common expression, "why don't you ride out on the same Yellow submarine you road in on", - homonyms, Rob, don't you just love them? Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 07:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Now, this is an interesting change, especially the comment. [1]^img CS Miller (talk) 06:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Yup, looks like he's trolling RW. Ajkgordon (talk) 09:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Is Ed actually recognizing what is and is not encyclopedic content? It's a miracle! --Tabrcg23 (talk) 22:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Ed?

Now we can have a empty template^imgthat is going to tell us what a Koreans age is in the Gregorian calender! --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 05:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course. Daddy moon would be pissed if his children got his earthly age wrong. Do not anger the deity, because he knows where the lake of fire is and has a strong throwing arm. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 07:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand why Jan 23, 2012 is hard-coded into the template. But then I'm an old fool for expecting to understand anything that Ed does. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 07:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The 23rd was the Korean new year. It's in there because Ed's a fuckup and has designed a template that needs to be updated every year. Anyone want to take a bet on whether Ed will ever touch that template again? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 08:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, thinking about it some more, I think Ed's template is broken even if you keep the lunar new year constantly up to date. I think it fucks up in the edge case where someone is born after the solar new year and before the lunar new year in their birth year. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 08:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Transcribing between calendars is rarely a case of simple arithmetic between years. Of course, just like the age template at WP, what Ed has done here is provide the all important idea, now it just needs a parodist with wiki-fu to come up with the comparatively unimportant coding. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 09:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I quite like the fact that when someone queries it, Ed not only uses WP as a reference (a hangable offence on CP surely?), but if you go to WP to check, it directly contradicts his 'no other country does this' statement. Worm (talk) 10:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

WP is unreliable, therefor ed is right, because liberals. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 17:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

And yet more Ed.

Incest and feminism besiege what should be a good Christian show.^img Ace^Moderator 09:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Ed, I don't think you understand what "hoax" means. You may be grasping for "myth." And even then you'd still be a fucking idiot. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 09:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

"The mom was clearly the head of household and ruler of the roost." Isn't that just classic sitcom setup though? The man/dad/whatever works and thinks he's the head of the house when in actual fact he's kind of bumbling and amusingly incompetent while the woman is the stay-at-home-keep-everything-running intelligent one who is actually in charge of everything. I can't think of many sitcoms that involve a family that don't follow that formula. Hell, even The Young Ones does (if you assume Neil is the mom). X Stickman (talk) 21:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Something to crow about...

At the moment there are various metrics to measure the success of Conservapedia - especially in comparison with RationalWiki, most ominous for sure Andy super-secret number of unique editors (how many do we have, I wonder...) . The statistic pages of Conservapedia and RationalWiki provide other numbers, some of them misleading. E.g., there are more than 1000 active users at Conservapedia, while there are less than 700 here at RationalWiki. But Conservapedia's numbers are inflated by vandals (and other undesirable subjects). One gets the impression that it is not only laziness and ineptitude on Andy's part that no effective countermeasures are taken, but that he tolerates this childish behavior to keep his wiki-statistics from becoming to pathetic. Look for yourself:

• 
• 
• 
• Error creating thumbnail: File missing
• 
• 

(Sometimes later, I'll correct the spelling in the last pics of the rows.)

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 10:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Could you clarify what the 'edits' refers to in the leftmost chart? Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 17:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Until stated otherwise, in all pics (as well as at RationalWiki:Active users, Conservapedia:Active users and Active users at Citizendium) the number of edits refers to the number of comments made by a user during the month which can be found in the database at the end of this month. That's essentially the number of edits to be found in lists of user contributions like this one. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 19:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The Conspiracy against Atlas Shrugged

LaunchBooty (man, I am never going to get sick of that name) is crowing about the sequel film to the box office flop, Atlas Shrugged. Not noteworthy in itself, other than he honestly believes that if it wasn’t for the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the United States federal court system would consider banning the film^img. Now I dunno about you all, but I don’t remember a time in my life where a federal or even a state court banned a fictional movie, do you? Or in anytime in American history? I know towns have tried banning movies at theaters for said town, but no movie has been banned from being show in the country by our courts since cinema first appeared that I am aware (ya know, because of the First Amendment, that one religious zealots hate).--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 23:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Court order counts, right? --★uːʤɱ libertarian 23:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I should say for political reasons, which is what I feel Launchbooty is going for. I know that films can be banned for copyright reasons or illegal obscenity (such as child porn), but that isn't running against the first amendment.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 00:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately Wobblebottom is suffering from the same problem as Andy - he's created his own little echo chamber, which only serves to enhance his own brand of crazy and increase it exponentially. Sadly, in Terry's case, it would appear as if he's sinking into paranoid delusions and some of his theories on there make Alex Jones look sane. I'm surprised we don't have FEMA death camps on CNAV yet. But give it time... --PsyGremlinSprich! 06:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

"Because liberals"

If we ever made a Laconic RW, we have our entry for CP. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Poor CP

They just had two victories in their grasp, only to see them wrenched out of their hands. First Trump was to endorse Newt (just a they predicted!), then suddenly it was Romney he was endorsing. Then Komen cuts funds to Planned Parenthood, only to reverse the decision a few days later. Can't catch a break. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 16:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Conservapedia predicted that Conservapedia would be unable to catch a break! MDB (talk) 16:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Poor widdle Jpratt is already spitting bile on MPR. Why did Komen capitulate? Because liberals.^img Imagine that, Komen were actually concerned about women's lives after all. Maybe one day, you'll be too, Johnny boy. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 17:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Trump is nothing but a liberal america hating commy who would have only destroyed newts chances; so really its a blessing for the Gingrich administration! --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

You can never expect them to just admit, "well, the people have spoken, better move on", but instead it's some dirty liberal string-pulling and dingleberry licking. When the populace is in their favor they tout it as being right, and when it isn't, everyone else is wrong but they're still right. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 20:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Wait, I'm confused. Planned Parenthood supporters said "you are taking away funds that save women's lives because of the free breast exam those funds go to". millions of women (and men) said this. Komen figured it out. and "PP" is the one that is "against saving women's lives???" huh?GodotGrow a vagina 20:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Yup, CP (or more accurately Aschlafly) is always right and everything else has to conform to teh Truth including the Bible. Ajkgordon (talk) 20:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

@wfg: Yes. all those women will now get breat cancerAMassiveGay (talk) 20:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Their most-reasoned answer (and I'm not advocating, just telling you) is: unborn female babies are women too, so supporting an organization that provides abortions is bad for women.

If you don't like this answer, go tell WND, I don't care. 173.10.105.29 (talk) 20:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Norsemen, moving on is a liberal organization. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 22:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Got me there! Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 16:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Kendoll really has no insanity filter

He's getting his news^img from Alex Jones now. Jeez. Jonesey tells a sob story about James Cameron leaving the US to go live in third world New Zealand.

The weird thing is that neither Kendoll or Jones apparently bothered to read the source for their claims. In fact, rich people are fleeing the country because the Bush administration passed tax cuts that let them take their capital gains out of the country to podunk tax havens while only having to pay nominal taxes on them. How exactly Kendoll or anyone else expects a decent nation to compete with a tax haven where income and corporation taxes are zero I have no idea. Rich, greedy fuckers are greedy, and there's always going to be some tiny island nation that's going to be happy to cater to their greed. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 01:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of Ken, apparently more people search the net for information on for the spiritual figurehead of the world's largest religion than they do for information on a biology prof at some obscure branch plant state university^img. Apparently, this is noteworthy. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 01:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

That "obscure branch plant state university" is very well regarded on a national level. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course there's no scale on the Y axis in those charts. Hey Kendoll, how do you know PZ Myers ins't bigger than Jesus? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 01:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, but there is a scale; it's just distorted - the one for PZ runs from 0 to about 8, and the one for Jesus (despite appearing to be the same height) runs from 0 to 1.8. This is a very old and unsophisticated trick; as I recall it's in Chapter 1 of How to lie with statistics. PZ is still being searched more often; his search volume index is currently about 1.3 while Jesus is on about 1.2. --Fergus Mason (talk) 02:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The number of searches for 'Muhammad' is far greater than that of 'Conservapedia'! Also,'porn' kicks Jesus' ass by a wide margin and has been doing so more and more for years now. So, in the future CP will lose to Islam, and Christianity will lose to porn. --Night Jaguar (talk) 03:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

That's what I love about the fever swamp, the mundane becomes a seekrit conspiracy. Canadian James Cameron, plans to move to NZ to shoot a squeal to Avatar. Take that fact, mix it with a dubious online Zogby poll, some random post from Free Republic, and Bush family real estate ventures. Now run it through Alex Jones' brain... BAM! THE RICH ARE FLEEING OBAMA'S TYRANNY!1!!1 --Inquisitor (talk) 05:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

You also have to remember that any source that agrees with CP (remember the process - make the statement, then find the source to fit it) is a good source. That's why you have Rob using Pravda for his Barry Soetoro crap. --PsyGremlinPraat! 06:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

My favorite thing about Alex Jones is how he will have someone on his network of crap write a POS made up article, then cast out a press release and wait for some tiny news website in another country to pick up their story, and the instant they do they stand up and shout about this thing that an obscure website reported and how terrible it is. Never revealing that that are in essence quoting themselves through a third party. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 06:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't have any favorite thing about Alex Jones. I went to college in Austin TX (in the early 90's) and I used to run into that fool all the time at the local coffee shops. We got into more than one ridiculous argument. If anything, he dials back the crazy when he's on air. --Inquisitor (talk) 06:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

You lie, sir! I have it on good authority that Alex Jones is really Bill Hicks, who faked his death in 1994. Hence, you never saw Alex Jones in the early '90s, cause he hadn't been invented yet. Phiwum (talk) 18:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Wait, you actually tried to argue with Alex Jones? Or were you just unaware that he was a wackaloon at the time? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I was aware. He used to have this crappy cable access show that was popular with the college crowd precisely because of his wackalooness. Anyway, for the most part I just used to listen to him rant. You know, just to see how deep the rabbit hole was. But every so often he would spit out something that just wasn't in accordance with the laws of the known universe. And I don't know what's wrong with me, but I can't let complete unadulterated bullshit go unchallenged. --Inquisitor (talk) 00:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

"But every so often he would spit out something that just wasn't in accordance with the laws of the known universe." Oh only every 5th or 6th sentence or so! --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 06:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Facebook reigns; fundy Conservapedia is in decline

Borrowing Kenny's title there.

Noticed this while reading the CNN Money article on Nevada, as linked to by CP and talked about above. It looks like Andy's bane, Facebook, is gaining users quickly and making money hand over fist. Only worth noting because Andy likes to crow occasionally about the company's supposed decline while the reality is the exact opposite.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Does that mean Palin will be President? --PsyGremlinHable! 19:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Oddly enough palins Facebook use is a pro according to CP; so yes. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 19:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

What? When did it suddenly become a pro? I remember CP avidly claiming it was very definitely a con. Can we can an exact date and time for this 180-degree flip-flop? ^{ONE / TALK} 20:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Andy added it as a con with this edit. Which was flipped to a pro by another user with this edit. --Inquisitor (talk) 23:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Gambling kills the economy

Andy wonders if Gambling killed the nevada economy^img. Heres the thing, arent there two states that dont have gambling? or am i thinking of another figure. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 16:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

that's funny. In colorado, limited (small stakes, I guess) gambling has revived several of our non-ski resort mountain towns. I get that like all things, it can be addictive, but I don't see why it's "bad" in and of itself. I know lots of friends who love a good game of 20-100 buck poker on Friday nights.GodotGrow a vagina 16:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

You are right there are only two states that doesn't allow any gambling: Hawaii and Utah. All states though have various restrictions when it comes to gambling, for example Nevada doesn't have lotteries or racetrack gambling (in fact Nevada is only one of seven states that doesn't have a lottery system), while other states do; including the states Kenny likes to tout as thee Christian business model state, North Dakota (which has both lotteries and Indian gambling).--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

two words "Tripple Crown". oh, wait. horse racing isn't gambling!GodotGrow a vagina 18:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Nevada doesn't need a lottery system. You can't walk five feet without tripping over a fucking slot machine. If you want to gamble in Nevada just throw a quarter and wait for the ker-chingggg! --Fergus Mason (talk) 19:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

It's true in a way. When your economy is reliant on gambling and tourism and that goes kaput... Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Nevada gambling has been in decline since it lost its monopoly to local Indian gaming in the several states. nobs^Moderated 20:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Nevada may not need a lottery system, but never underestimate the government's insatiable desire for revenue.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 21:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

There is a town on the Navada/California border called Primm (Fallout fans would know it well). It has three casinos and a discount shopping store all on the Navada side of the border. There is a road that runs along the border called Lotto Store Road, it literally has one building on the California side of the border to sell lottery tickets. - π 10:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

With out gambling there never would have been an economy. If you went to Vegas and took away all of the gambling today what remained would still be a stronger economy than what they would have had had they never started gambling in the first place. Gambling does hurt the economy, just like drinking and drug abuse hurt the economy, but it's vegas hurting the economy of the rest of the country, not the other way around. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 06:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I guess gambling in around about way is hurting the Nevada economy in that it is the Nevada economy and in the middle of a recession people aren't going to fly to a desert to throw money away. Mind you when things were going well Las Vegas was the fastest growing city in the US for 10 years straight. I was there about 18 months ago, it looked busy to me but everyone was saying that hotel were below half full, I couldn't imagine what it would be like in a boom time, they would be minting money (although isn't that what casino chips are anyway minted money?). - π 10:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Whatever happened to the wp:Carson City Mint? nobs^Moderated 22:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Hurlbut is butthurt.

The ruling is "badly flawed" because...well, because.^img P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 17:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Because liberals, by any chance? ^{ONE / TALK} 20:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Does anybody else read "Taitz made a prima facie case that..." and hear Andy going "But the letter is heartfelt!" --PsyGremlinTal! 17:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I liked "binding Supreme court case". only cause i know of where the USSC talked about citizenship, is the one the judge CITED TO. sighs..... i read "taiz made a face" when you just rewrote that.GodotGrow a vagina 17:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Terry clearly doesn't understand what prima facie mean. The fact Taitz had to string together an "argument" means he case was not prima facie. Obama on the other hand, all he did was mail in a copy of his birth certificate, he or his lawyer did not even bother to show up - now that is prima facie. - π 00:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm guessing all the other rulings in Obama's favour were flawed too? Of course they were.... -- 23:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh this is beautiful:

Flingbooty before the case: "What you call “a friendly venue” is actually a judge willing to—well, judge. Sorry if you don’t like a judge who doesn’t rule according to your per-determined conclusions, but that’s the way it is.”

Flingbooty after the case: "We have discovered a thoroughly corrupt judiciary." --PsyGremlinSpeak! 04:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Better Launchbooty: "When I develop clear and convincing evidence of a fix, I am in honor bound to report it and characterize it as such." Yes, Terry, but going "Wah! I disagree with your judgment, is not "clear and convincing evidence" --PsyGremlinTal! 16:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Fighting dictators is a warcrime

Alongside that internationally decried event^img that was the NATO libyan intervention; we might be helping the Syrians overthrow their dictator! and that is just Terrible. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 01:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Jomar is an idiot and a horrible apologist for scuzzy dictators, but the people we backed in libya are turning out to be problematic at best and attacking Syria would pretty much be The Worst Idea Ever -- Iran is already antsy, and look who Syria's neighbours include--Iraq, Lebanon and Israel. There's no way that could get complicated, right? P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 02:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

This is also from Alex Jones' Infowars website, so take anything reported from there with an entire ten pound salt-lick's worth of salt.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 08:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

26% is "surprisingly well"

Andy: Though not even half the state is done telling us what the republicans are voting; we predict romney wont do much better^img. also, Gingrich has done "surprisingly well" with a 26%--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 07:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

You forget, this is Newt. The man who walks on water, pisses Perrier and shits M&Ms. He's also the man who's going to throw open the Republican race, so Jeb Bush can step in and save the day. Do try and keep up. --PsyGremlinParla! 07:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Pisses Perrier? Sounds more like that Frog-speaking Romney. Surely Newt would piss an American mineral filtered tap water like DASANI. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 08:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Why Jeb Bush?

What I've never understood with andys 2012 thing is why the obsession with a Bush the III?--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 16:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Because his last name is 'Bush', obviously. I thought you'd be smart enough to recognize that, User:Mikalos209. F_ucker^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 22:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Answer: Because Jeb Bush's endorsement will carry much weight in the key state of Florida. nobs^Moderated 22:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

he wants jeb to be the NOMINEE rob; and the bush name is pretty much dead--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 22:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

lemme 'splain something about American Presidential politics. There is a tradition of wp:Favorite son candidates. wp:George Romney, for example, was a favorite son of Michigan in 1968 when Richard Nixon won the nomination. nobs^Moderated 22:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but the bush name is also the bush name, and a Bush the Third is about as likely as the Gingrich administration. Having one person who can win florida but then be destroyed by the simple fact he's related to the last 2 republican presidents is stupidity--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 22:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Not it at all. Florida Republicans don't know who to support (Romney did not get a majority). Jeb Bush's endorsement carries much weight in Florida. Until Bush actively gets behind Romney or Gingrich, his support among Florida Republicans is key for whichever wins the nomination. Florida has a binding primary (winner take all delegates), so it may not matter in the convention, but it could matter in voter turnout on General Election Day. If Jeb is not enthusiastic about whoever the nominee is, it could hurt. Two recent examples, Ronald Reagan's lack of enthusism is blamed for Gerald Ford's loss in 1976, while John McCain's active support is credited as helping GW Bush's win in 2000. nobs^Moderated 22:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, you're missing the point, Smith. Andy is not interested in JB's endorsement--he thinks JB should/will be the nominee. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 22:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The Schlalfy name is big in GOP politics. Andy recognizes there is a viable conservative Christian Republican constituency in Florida that is unrepresented by either Gingrich nor Romney, and led by Jeb Bush. Andy pushes Jeb as a way of saying to that constituency whoever Jeb backs, your voice will be heard. nobs^Moderated 22:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

That would work if andy's own edits didn't directly contradict what you just saidTh--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 23:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

He's holding out; he's presenting Jeb as a viable candidate to represent conservative Christian Republican principles and waiting for Jeb to make up his mind (as Trump just did). nobs^Moderated 23:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

... uh huh... suuuuure he is./ Rob; stop trying to fool you're self that the man you went groveling back to is anything less then an insane idiot. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 23:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Andy has zero influence in GOP politics even at the local level, just as he has no influence among conservative Christians. He is just dreaming delusional dreams of a Jeb Bush presidency and hasn't figured out a way to hide that "prediction" in the light of reality yet in order to save face.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 07:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Andy's like a lot of hard right winguts in the way that no human candidate could ever live up to their ideal. Yet they have to pick somebody. So what do they do? They cast their lot in with candidates that are either unelectable or are not even running in the first. This allows them to forever play the victim. --Inquisitor (talk) 23:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The conservative Christian domination of the GOP is being challenged, and in the end they'll lose. They may go crawling back to the Democrats if they become disillusioned enough. nobs^Moderated 23:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I thought I heard something... Anyway, peanut brittle is a tasty confection made from hard sugar candy embedded with peanuts... --Inquisitor (talk) 23:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Christian conservative domination of the GOP needs to be broken if the party wants to remain viable nationally.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 07:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

That is exactly what is happening. Gingrich represent the old coalition of social & economic conservatives, and he has yet to win total support for either. Romney represent the big money establishment tossing the single issue religious right overboard, in favor of moderates without Republican namebrand loyalty. nobs^Moderated 07:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Romeny isn't throwing them under the bus, he just understands reality and the reality is this: You need moderates and independents to win the presidency in a general election. Social conservatives will (likely) vote for him because they certainly won't vote for Obama. You just better hope they are not stupid enough to instead choose stay home like spoiled little children because they didn't get their candidate (which isn't Gingrich, Romney, or Paul). If they do, they give Obama the win in November and they have no one to blame but themselves.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 09:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with all that, but it's also about the future control and direction of the GOP. By November, the single issue to some will be a choice between a Mormon and a Christian. nobs^Moderated 13:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Then those people are bigoted fools; we are electing a commander-in-chief, not a theologian-in-chief.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

(Some) Americans want a monarchy. Without a monarchy you can't have real aristocracy, and they very badly want to be aristocrats. So voting in a whole lineage gets them some of the way toward that. It is not, of course, only Republicans who have had this fantasy. Meanwhile over the far side of the pond some people want a Republic so badly that they'd be willing to have President Blair instead of Queen Liz as a price for their inability to read history books (yes, the last time it was technically not a president, but you don't have to be technical at all to consider it a hopeless failure). 82.69.171.94 (talk) 09:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The real reason for Jeb

Even Andy isn't deluded enough to think that conservapedia is a player in the conservasphere. The real reason that Andy and others like him want Jeb is that Jeb would be a vindication of GWB as president. A Jeb election would say that Yes Iraq was a good idea and No Afghanistan wasn't bungled and Yes tax cuts and increased spending are sound economic principles. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 00:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Except Andy thinks GWB was a horrible neocon, not a true conservative. Try again. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 00:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Jeb don't stand a prayer, and Andy says as much. Andy's saying the Religious Right Conservative Christian Republicans are not particularly enamored to Romney or Gingrich, and are holding out. And yes, there are core GOP constituencies among Florida Republicans, and millions nationwide, that still can be influenced by the Bush name. nobs^Moderated 00:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

except, you know, for all that time He had jeb above people actually running; and how he predicts Jeb will get the nomination since the delegates wont reach the required majority. Andy wants a Bush the Third rob; not jeb to give out a fucking endorsement--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 01:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

To answer your question, What you are seeing is a battle between social conservatives & economic conservatives, and thus far the social conservatives are getting their ass kicked. The economic conservatives (the big money "Republican establishment", as Gingrich calls them) are challenging the single issue Christian Conservative anti-abortion anti-gay rights domination of the GOP. nobs^Moderated 23:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

You're all wrong. It's not about neo-cons or the religious right. It's Andy Schlafly, and as usual it's all about him. Andy's been trying every hail mary pass he can think of to find something that resonates with the GOP faithful for years now. This is no different. Lenski was about getting cretinists, Moo about the religious right, movies, songs and TV are all about getting those who use the term 'lamestream' in conversation. Andy's throwing everything he can out there to get noticed and try and become relevant.

He's a mediocre lawyer, a local homeschool teacher that can't expand and his great project has failed to attract anyone of note or even the numbers. Why do you think he's such a big tea bagger? He's desperate to ride someone's coat-tails to greatness and he'll try anything to achieve it. Unfortunately he doesn't realise that all the crazy shit he's done makes him unemployable in the political arena. Even if the world turned upside down and the Gingrich administration came into being, they wouldn't be able to have Andy as an intern in the counsel's office for more than five minutes before all aspects of the political and religious spectrum were demanding his removal. It's the real reason we all tune into CP for entertainment, Andy's a walking, talking human tragedy. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 02:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 02:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Fuck you i was going to do that--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 02:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, that is probably the majority of it. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 03:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Bottomline: the GOP establishment is in the process of giving the right-wing, Christian, single issue, anti-gay, anti-abortionist social conservatives, of which Andy Schlalfy is representative, the boot. You guys & the GOP establishment are on the same page. nobs^Moderated 04:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Bottomline:^^{[citation needed]} --Inquisitor (talk) 04:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Sub bottom line, how the fuck does a single issue voter turn up as both anti-abortion and anti-gay? Those are two fucking issues. That's like your only wish being wishing for more wishes! --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 06:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Sub Sub bottom line, the right-wing, Christian, single issue, anti-gay, anti-abortionist social conservatives have already given Andy the boot, all he has is CP.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 07:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm amused by Opcn's assertion that abortion and gayness are "fucking" issues. -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

"Right over there, next to your regular issues" --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 04:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Politicizing the Super Bowl

We all knew it was coming: Andy's commentary about the Super Bowl on the Main Page. He predictably takes a crack at liberal Madonna^img, who will be featured in the halftime show. He also asserts that the game would be so much better with Tim Tebow^img playing. I'd guess that there's more on the way, possibly with references to New York and New England being bastions of godless liberalism, or complaints about unChristian commercials. --Tabrcg23 (talk) 21:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

i just found it funny given how much Rob was arguing h0ow awesome the SB is. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 21:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

But Tim Tebow lost. Is Andy just being a spiteful loser or is he saying Tebow's team should've been let through anyway? Sounds like COMMUNISM. X Stickman (talk) 21:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Tebow lost only because of liberal deceit. Vulpius (talk) 21:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Dunno, the way Andy worded it he sounds like an anti-American parodist. Obama's was just on NBC right now discussing the Superbowl index. nobs^Moderated 21:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Here's the video of NBC & the president politicizing the Superbowl. nobs^Moderated 21:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Nobody asked you shit, Smith. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 21:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

You had to drag out a three year old video to attempt to make your point? Why can't you just admit your master needlessly politicizes everything, even when it makes no sense.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 23:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

NBC fucked up; here's the right one for SB xlvi. nobs^Moderated 00:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

How was the Superbowl politicized by this video?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 06:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

C'mon Andy politicizes or biblicizes everything. That's how he rolls. I'm sure in his mind his shit wouldn't stink if it weren't for the liberal FDA tampering with the food supply. That or poop didn't stink before The Fall. --Inquisitor (talk) 23:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Come on Rob, get over there and take Andy to task. Superbowl is teh awesome because... because advertising! And as for Tebow, it's just another symptom of Andy's weird grade inflation. Tebow says the right things, even if he's an utter failure, therefore they should play in the final. It's ironic, Tebow would have filled the stadium, but didn't God throw Tebow under the bus, just after the 316 game? The game where the other quarterback threw a record 6 touchdowns? Where Tebow was sacked, running backwards in a flat panic? --PsyGremlinPrata! 00:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Once again Andy backs a loser. Running Quarterbacks never last in the NFL. [2] nobs^Moderated 00:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I refuse to watch the halftime show, not because madonna is a liberal, but because she got in the "Rock and Roll" hall of fame before kiss. Also because she got in the hall of fame at all.--Thunderstruck^{YOU'VE BEEN...} 01:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The idea of a Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is risisble at best. It used to be rebellious music, not an excuse to suck corporate dick. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 01:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, but not the point. Madonna is a pop...somthing. Its like, 20 years from now putting bieber in the hall.--Thunderstruck^{YOU'VE BEEN...} 02:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

If there is a god, KISS will never make it into the rock and roll hall of fame simply for being a laughably terrible band. Not that that stopped others, but we need to keep some standards. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 04:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

That said, my man Jerry did the ceremony in style. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 01:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of politicizing...

Denver is one of the areas that is supposed to have a 30 second spot (graphic, i hear) from Randel Terry. The local station has been trying to find any way around it, but I think the last time I heard, they were still required to show it. How's that for politicizing a FAMILY SAFE foot ball game. with images of aborted babies??? http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72465.html oh - not sure if Denver will have to, then. GodotGrow a vagina 23:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

My philosophy is, if you're old enough to watch big, sweaty men round around and tackle each other, you're old enough to see pictures of (possibly faked?) aborted fetuses. F_ucker^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 00:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

My five year-old self would disagree. --★uːʤɱ pirate 01:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Jesus H. Christ. They got the Clint Eastwood pitching the success of the Chrysler bailout. That would by like getting getting Ronald Reagan or Charleton Heston selling the glories of Obamunism. nobs^Moderated 01:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

What the hell is "Obamunism", Rob? Is it another thing like Obamageddon that means whatever you want it to mean at the particular time you say it? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

This sums up everything that word makes me think of--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 02:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I think Obamunism had a lot to do with the New Ordeal. Also, Kara Duhe. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 02:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I think an Obamunism is what happens when a blood vessel in your brain ruptures due to untreated Obama Derangement Syndrome. Also Kara Duhe. --Inquisitor (talk) 02:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I think an Obamunism is when you conflate Hitler, Stalin, and Obama and your brain stem strangles your esophagus to save itself from the stupid. Tesformes (talk) 02:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Please don't go off topic. Here is the offending commercial. nobs^Moderated 03:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Actualllyyy, the "offending commercial" that was on topic was from one of your own. You're kinda the one who took the whole thing on it's meander.GodotGrow a vagina 03:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

What, exactly Kara Duhe is offensive about that commercial idiot? P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 03:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Because, Liberals. Specifically Obama.--Thunderstruck^{YOU'VE BEEN...} 03:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Did Rob just tell us not to stray from the topic at hand? I'd wondered why my irony meter was suddenly spread over 5 counties. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 03:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of politicizing... it seems leftist scum want a turn as well [3]--99.69.235.40 (talk) 15:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

5-year-old Andy, AGAIN

In andyland, it is the "lamestream" media that decides who sings the National Anthem, not the NFL Learn somthing new everyday...--Thunderstruck^{YOU'VE BEEN...} 02:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Andy, despite your conspiracy theories, the NFL picks the halftime show. There is no "special Madonna love" in the media; she is just another singer. Andy could only dream of looking that good at 53.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 03:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I am now picturing Andy Schlafly in a cone bra. I may never my imagination again. MDB (talk) 18:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

George Will

I was watching the tail end of ABC's This Week yesterday, and they asked the panelists who they though would win the game. George Will, one of the regulars, is known as a huge baseball fan and a hater of football. (As he puts it, football captures the worst aspects of American life -- violence punctuated by committee meetings.) When asked for his pick, he said, "I usually pick the team from the city that will upset the most liberals if they win." He was, of course, joking. I can see Andy seriously saying that. MDB (talk) 13:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Wait. What?

The team that beat Tim Tebow is itself humiliated by the upset defeat.^img

Doesn't that make Tim Tebow even more lame? --Whoover (talk) 07:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I think he is implying that God took vengeance on the team that beat Tebow, and inflicted defeat upon them. I suspect God has better things to be doing personally. Damo^Hi 07:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

God took vengeance on the team that defeated Tebow that God himself allowed to win at the time? Or was "God" unable to prevent the Patriots' victory on that day? Christian fundy logic is just so baffling!--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 07:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It's baffling because you call it logic. Rennie McGreet (talk) 08:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, I'd be surprised if God was even into American football. I expect he's the type who watches Superbowl for the commercials. -- 08:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I would say that based on last night's results, God is both a Wales and Manchester United supporter (must be the red jerseys)... and likes a bit of tension in his games. Although Alex Ferguson has yet to walk on water - something Brian Clough used to do regularly. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 11:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

He was busy re-watching Match Of The Day including Arsenal putting seven past Blackburn. Jack Hughes (talk) 08:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I liked the one about how Tebow would have sold the stadium out, as if they should have said "screw the rules!" and put the fundy and his team in the big game even though they lost out. If Tebow needed to be in the big game then Tebow should have won a spot in it. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 08:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Andy is now trying to paint the Giant's victory as some sort of long-shot (divinely inspired) miracle by pulling out the 2011 pre-season superbowl odds. Of course the odds are against any team to win back in pre-season. A much more accurate look is to checkout the pre-game spread yesterday where the Patriots were favored by 3.5 points. Sure that still made the Giants underdogs, but that spread isn't large and everyone knew this game could go either way (many broadcasters even felt the Giants should of been favored). What is insulting though is Andy not giving credit to any players for their performance, instead giving the god that let his boy Tebow fail all the kudos for this so-called "miracle" (still waiting the miracles that would actually matter).--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The team that beat Tebow? Actually, Andy, several teams beat him. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 20:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, Andy's implication that a Tebowless Super Bowl would be a flop is proved as ridiculous as we thought. It was the most watched Super Bowl in history (not terribly surprising, as the general trajectory has been in that direction anyway, and we have two teams from large markets). I suppose he'll try to spin it his way somehow. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 21:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It was actually a good game that came down to the last couple minutes. Both teams played well with minimal mistakes. All the pundits before the game were picking the Giants to win anyway - a 3-3 1/2 point spread is not large by any means - it's set by the odds-makers based on how they feel people will bet, not on how they believe the game will end up. And the Super Bowl ALWAYS sells out, regardless of how crappy the teams/quarterbacks/matchups are.... Stick Boy (talk) 21:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Holy Jesus Crap, this place is crazier than Conservapedia!

Yes! That's one user's comment on the new Conservative Wiki. Sadly that user was blocked though their edits looked reasonable and they can’t even edit their talk page. Some stuff that user wrote was deleted.

Will they succeed in being sillier than Conservapedia??? Wait and see. Proxima Centauri (talk) 09:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Yawn. Despite its recent state of shabby decline, at least Conservapedia can claim to be the original wingnut wiki. All these flash in the pan imitations, aSoK, Ameriwiki, Conservashitewiki last about 4 seconds, have one real contributor and don't provide any sustained lulz. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 09:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikia clearly has hope for the wiki as they put quite a bit of art work into the Main Page. Alternatively the rich parents of the young founder paid for some really cool graphics. Proxima Centauri (talk) 09:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you new to the internet or something? Stolen artwork is stolen. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 10:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

What about the other images? Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

1 minute with google images will tell you where they're all stolen from if you really care. I can't see why you would though. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Madonna discussion - a thing of beauty

Link^img to the mega-diff of the entire discussion (up to now).

It's the usual "X was a political decision because... of liberals?" bullshit you've come to expect from Andy, but the beautiful part is how quickly he is reduced to simply repeating his mantra again and again:

• Users: "It just so happens that Madonna is REALLY FAMOUS and has built a career spanning DECADES.
• Andy: "If the network/NFL chose a conservative as the lead halftime entertainer, then the backlash by liberals would be like what inflicted Komen for the Cure last week."^img
• Users: "It's not political. Madonna is a pretty safe bet, being a pop icon, and the NFL doesn't want to take unnecessary risks."
• Andy: "If the network/NFL had picked an entertainer critical of Planned Parenthood, then tne network/NFL could expect a backlash similar to what Komen for the Cure had to endure."^img

Though I'm kinda curious if Andy knows any Madonna-level performers critical of Planned Parenthood. I usually don't give a shit about political views of bands/singers, so I genuinely don't know any. --Sid (talk) 10:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Likely Andy has no idea either; he is just trying to find a way to justify his belief Madonna was a choice for political reasons because he politicizes everything. Because.. Well... Liberals!--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 10:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

One really does wonder what discussion around the dinner table in the Schlafly McMansion is like. Yes, dear. Of course, dear. Whatever you say, dear. Sorry dear, not tonight, I have an awful migraine.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 11:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm with Sid in wondering who the hell Andy would consider an acceptable choice. Other than Chuck Norris, do they actually like anyone in the entertainment industry over at CP? Worm (talk) 15:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Ted Nuggent?--Thunderstruck^{YOU'VE BEEN...} 15:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry dear, not tonight, I have an awful migraine. - because of that, I now imagine Andy barking "Tebow!" in a frustrated tone every time he's thrusting. Thought I'd share that bit of trauma with others. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 15:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I would imagine that almost any country singer would work. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Apart from the Dixie Chicks. Not being much into Country - are any of the current stars 'big' enough to carry off the Superbowl halftime? Worm (talk) 15:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Country music has more liberals than you might think. Willie Nelson is very liberal -- I believe he endorsed Dennis Kucinich in 2008. And he did a song for Brokeback Mountain, and the success of that song led him to record one called Cowboys are Frequently Secretly Fond of Each Other -- you can guess what that's about.

Garth Brooks has a beautiful song called We Shall Be Free, which is basically a litany of liberal values.

And Dolly Parton is pretty gay friendly, especially to the drag queens that impersonate her.

I have little doubt country music is probably one of the most conservative branches of mainstream entertainment, but they're not all Charlie Daniels. MDB (talk) 15:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Alan Jackson, Toby Keith, Tim McGraw... Really anyone who has written a hit song about 9/11. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Liberal country music. X Stickman (talk) 16:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The language in that may render in NSFW, be warned. MDB (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Very interesting...Of course Andy completely ignores the fact that (a) the NFL is quite far from a liberal organization, (b) Kelly Clarkson is the epitome of conservative pop musicians, singing sappy songs about monogamy and being a Fox-bot, and (c) Madonna had been booked for months in advance and was not a last-second decision. That being said, I think he's actually right, that there would have been a backlash from liberals had they had someone who had been critical of Planned Parenthood or made racist/sexists remarks. Activist liberals tend to be sensitive to these sort of things (my Facebook feed was blown up last week with stuff about SGK). Nice quote de-mining on Orwell, RachelW. --17:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I think rescinding funds from a group doing breast cancer screening, cause you don't like that 3% of their work is doing abortions, is quite different than having someone like Ted Nugent on a Half Time show. Not one person would have complained. Well, not about his positions anyhow. maybe about his latent insanity. ;-) Liberals didn't really care all that much that Tebow did anti abortion ads. GodotGrow a vagina 20:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Has the NFL done anything overtly political since they threatened to pull the Super Bowl out of Arizona if they didn't make MLK day a state holiday? MDB (talk) 17:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

You mean besides the potentiality of a lockout at the beginning of the season due to disputes with the players' union, the Janet Jackson "wardrobe malfunction" and the whole Dixie Chicks thing? -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I stand corrected. MDB (talk) 18:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

(self correction: the Dixie Chicks performed the SSB in 2003 before they made their anti-Iraq war comments) -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I don't know if you can blame the "wardrobe malfunction" on the NFL directly; I believe they contracted the halftime show to MTV that year. The wardrobe malfunction led to them putting a much heavier hand on the halftime show. MDB (talk) 18:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't trying to imply that the wardrobe malfunction was a political move, but the consequences of that occasion did result in many political moves, from the FCC cracking down "to protect the little childrens!" as well as the NFL getting more involved in pagentry. But, by far, the lockout/players' unions issues are definitely the big ones. Additionally, the NFL pursues and sues violations of rebroadcast rights and copyright infringement (e.g., counterfeit NFL goods like jerseys) more than any other sport or entertainment venue, even more than movie studios chase counterfeiters and copyright violators. -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe the lockout had little to do with politics (outside of internal NFL politics) but instead really was just all about business and the bottom line.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Roger Goodell, current commissioner of the NFL (since 2006, which was after Jackson's malfunction). Son of a former Republican U.S. Senator, married to former Fox News anchor Jane Skinner, has one brother who works for an oil company, has another brother who's gay. Campaign contributions to mostly Republican candidates, including GWB and McCain. Actually asked fans to side AGAINST the players during the lockout proceedings, calling players "hypocrites" for concerns over player safety but then asking for two additional games per season. Anyone care to guess which way his political beliefs sway? -- Seth Peck (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, Various political contribution statistics by NFL members and associations, slightly more Republican than Democrat, but many of the PACs also include players, and ask for lobbying on a variety of issues including copyright protection and safety concerns (not just union stuff). -- Seth Peck (talk) 21:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

More recent stats -- Seth Peck (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Quantifying vandalism

	One way to see how much vandalism takes place at Conservapedia is to count the reverted revisions. This graph shows how many revisions per month were mere resurrections of an older version of a page. Such an edit is generally the reversion of a comment made by a vandal, or an act of vandalism itself (or Ken getting something wrong.
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Revisions 354,000 236,000 142,000 96,000 114,000 Reversions 21,300 14,300 11,800 9,200 12,400 Quota 6.0% 6.0% 8.3% 9.6% 10.9%	In the beginning, when there was huge traffic, most reversions happened. But after July 2007 there have less than 2,000 reversions per month, with two notable exceptions: Aug 2010 and Sep 2011. After Aug 2010, Conservapedia tried to get rid of vandalism by strangling the contributions. Though the absolute number of reversions isn't much bigger than in 2009 - and less than in 2008 - there seems to be more vandalism, as the overall number of revisions is down.
	Less than 900 articles were altered in Jan 2012, but more than 300 seem to have been vandalized and changed back to a prior version afterwards. In Sep 2011, for the first (and only) time (yet) in Conservapedia's history there were more articles vandalized than altered in a meaningful (*cough*) way.

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 16:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Aren't the percentages misleading, in that while (say) 11% of the edits last year were vandalism or otherwise objectionable content, a further 11% were related to removing it. So a grand total of 22% of the edits were vandalism or vandalism related programme activities. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Only when the vandalism didn't create a new page, but changed a page to an earlier version of Andy sucks - otherwise it isn't counted as a reversion. But yes, the number of reversions doesn't cover all acts of vandalism. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 17:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention that the "meaningful" edit count is probably greatly inflated by a certain editor's disdain for the preview button. --Inquisitor (talk) 18:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

There's also a lot of "trimming" going on. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I so read that as a lot of "rimming" going on. I blame Conservapaedia's focus on teh gays, plus the gorge of Red Dwarf the past week, all the episodes back to back.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 20:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting factoid, Ed Poor has never edited the Wikipedia article for rimming. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

An oversight I'm sure. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

or just oversighted? larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 22:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

*rimshot* Occasionaluse (talk) 22:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

*groans*-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 23:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

What is Andy trying to do here?

On the Greatest Conservative Songs page- http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay%3AGreatest_Conservative_Songs&action=historysubmit&diff=947084&oldid=945340

Andy decided to spell out the numbers. Any idea what he's thinking? The attempt to split the table by genre seems really strange. An added bonus - somehow, talking about Regan's tax record shows up on the talk page. -Lardashe

They're idiots. They put text in a numeric field, so now the column is sorted as a string. So 20 comes before 3 in that sorting, and the whole table is screwed up. A sane person would fix this by taking all the text out of the column. But this is Conservapedia where sanity is left at the door. (P.S. I wonder how long it will take Andy to realise that numbers spelt out like that don't sort correctly either? Twelve > Thirteen in an alpha sort. Freaking Morons.) --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I forgot about that list. I'm not going to point any out because I find it amusing, but there's at least one song on there that so blatantly doesn't belong there that I burst out laughing when I noticed it. It was probably added by a troll (I cba going through the diffs) but I like to imagine they just don't understand humour and/or parody in lyrics. X Stickman (talk) 22:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Lots of em don't belong, even those added by Andy. My guess is that he wants to show that country is more conservative than pop pursuant to his recent rageon for Madonna. or some such. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 03:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Tracy Chapman? Bon Jovi? Andy's a bit like the Mormons - he'll baptise anybody conservative, if it suits his agenda. --PsyGremlinParla! 04:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)