Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive278

This is an archive page, last updated 17 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>, <277>, <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)

"Why are there so many religions?"

Ken: The bible(Creation Ministries) has the Answer!^img Thats fine if the answer wasnt "cause people are evilllll!"--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 13:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Disappointing but pretty standard. "We have religions because they don't worship our god", is the typical reply you are going to get. Sagan said it best, we have religions and rituals because we long to understand our origins and our connection to the universe; science is another way to express this longing.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Seems relevant. Probably how all the religions came about anyway. -- 17:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Sagan was wrong. Religions are about in-group identification at least on some level. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 17:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Religions are 'about' many things -- superficial filling of gaps of knowledge, comfort, control, etc. F_lucked^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 19:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I found one part of that "article" to be interesting. When asked why God found the Jews to be so special, the answer was: "The Jews weren't special. In fact, the Bible records that they were an extraordinarily stubborn, rebellious people, so much so that God had to be persuaded not to destroy them all on more than one occasion! So according to the author, God had to be talked out of pulling a Hitler. More than once. That's really strange behavior for an infallible being. --Inquisitor (talk) 18:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Inquisitor, that's a very interesting application of the "God Wins" law. -- Seth Peck (talk) 20:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem of many religions is one of a lack of communication. If only Andy/PJR/Ken/Ed/etc could have an open-minded audience with Jews/Catholics/Protestants/Moonies/etc, they could explain all the misunderstandings and unify the world under the one true religion. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Scientology? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Last Thursdayism, surely. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The reason there are so many religions is that anyone is qualified to make up their own version. Unlike science, that tends to converge on truth using objective evidence, religions rely on virtually no evidence at all, and therefore, they diverge. Jimaginator (talk) 21:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

and feeds our desire for there to be a "reason" for it all. "My life sucks, I need to know that the sucking has a purpose". Not to mention the odd WishFullfillment aspects of religions. GodotGrow a vagina 22:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

:)

Hi all. Long time listener, first time caller ... etcetera. Anyway what's with Ken and the smiley faces lately? Is this a response to recent accusations of rudeness? ^{— Unsigned, by: Ruddager / talk / contribs}

Godspeed. -- Seth Peck (talk) 03:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Ever notice how most people who use smileys are unbearably smug assholes who often have no friends? That's all the explanation you need right there. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 03:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

:( F_ucker^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 04:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

A concentrated dose of WTF from Andy -- Underdogs edition.

This^img. Also, this.^img BTW, is this the first time he has directly said that the United States is "Christian"? P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 22:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

not. even.close--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 22:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The hits just keep coming: "The lack of cheering by atheists for the upset victory by the Giants in the Super Bowl."^img Is there some statistical data about the religious belief of Giants fans that has been released? P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 22:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes I wonder what thoughts were going on in his head when he writes shit like this. What must he have read to assume the UK dislikes underdogs? GodotGrow a vagina 22:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

So I guess he missed the start of the game when the crowd in Indy was booing The Pats and cheering The Giants.--Thunderstruck^{YOU'VE BEEN...} 22:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Stalin didn't like underdogs.^img Ace^Moderator 22:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

JUst WOW. does he believe his shit? GodotGrow a vagina 22:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

"Atheism is about control". What? And what's Christianity about? -- Seth Peck (talk) 22:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Sadly it's probably only a matter of time before he uses the "Stalin didn't like underdogs" crap as a basis for another argument. He'll be able to tell with 95% certainty how likely you are to go on a murderous rampage based on what sports team you support. «-Bfa-» 22:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Lack of cheering by ATHEISTS? were they all in neon yellow or something? GodotGrow a vagina 22:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)(ec)

(EC) Godot, I wondered the same thing about the British hating underdogs. Any UK'ers awake to retort/refute/rebut?

Also, I love how he ignores that both teams donated to Democratic candidates, are "union teams" and played in a state that JUST voted to restrict collective bargaining, which caused a massive outpouring of union workers in protest. But no, let's focus on what the atheists think. -- Seth Peck (talk) 22:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Erm, British time=server time. --★uːʤɱ libertarian 23:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

(was aware of this...some people stay up late/work days/don't sleep!) -- Seth Peck (talk) 23:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

You know, techincaly, Atheists are underdogs in the U.S. Also, why does andy hate The Patriots? It clearly means he hates patriotism, and thus, hates America. HEY ANDY, Love it or leave it.--Thunderstruck^{YOU'VE BEEN...} 22:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

They lost; thats why he hates them. Losing is the easiest way for andy to toss somebody under a bus. Beating 3:16 didnt help. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 22:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

This might shock people here, but I call PIDOOMA on the Brits not rooting for underdogs insight. Maybe he thought of Britain...and then thought of British bulldogs...and then thought bulldog ≠ underdog, therefore Britain doesn't like underdogs...or something? Grumblejaws (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Apparently Andy forgot about the time when the British were the ultimate underdogs (UK'ers: not meant to offend). -- Seth Peck (talk) 22:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Alongside a lot of other times, england didnt start becoming the top bet til historically recently. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 23:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it's the same logic that makes him think liberals hate, well, something. Andy likes A, Andy=conservative, B is the direct opposite of A, everybody Andy disagrees with loves B and hates A. Now the real question is why does Andy like underdogs so much? Hope. --★uːʤɱ socialist 23:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

British press love underdogs. As do most people in the uk. It makes a better story than 'big man knock the shit out a little'. Iwould imagine this is true the world over. I think the real mystery i where Andy got his hate on for us Brits?AMassiveGay (talk) 23:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm expecting David v. Goliath parallels. -- Seth Peck (talk) 23:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

As a representative of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, I can unreservedly say I have no fucking clue what the fuck Andy is talking about. Presumably AMG, his dislike of the British stems from either a) three hundred years of "AMERICA, FUCK YEAH!!!" anti-crown republicanism, or b) stereotypical bastard misconceptions of the United Kingdom, most likely never having been here, I'm sure much to all of our disappointment. SJ ^Debaser 23:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Is there anyone who doesn't root for the underdog? It's more dramatic, makes for a better story and is generally more fun. "The people who were expected to win, won" is a boring story. Ignoring, obviously, the idea of team support. If you're a sports fan you support your team. regardless of under/over dog status. Andy seems to be supporting some kind of reverse glory chasing, which is bizarre. X Stickman (talk) 23:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The British dislike the underdog? He couldn't be more wrong, the moron. We consider it a national trait. There have been thousands of column inches dedicated to asking why the British (not all of us, obviously) love the plucky underdog. A quick Google confirms this. Man's an ignorant tosser and is just making shit up to support some stupid notion about fuck knows what, the wanker. Ajkgordon (talk) 23:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, vindication...thanks guys. Time for someone with an account to ask him outright what the fuck he's talking about. -- Seth Peck (talk) 23:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, underdogs and liberals seem to go hand in hand. Helping out the little guy? Liberal trait. Favoring the multimillionaires? Sounds rather conservative to me. This is a new level of Andy just completely making shit up. Is the man just utterly insane? I seriously think he is on the verge of being put in an institution. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 01:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

We now have a rationale. It's athiests' love of Survival of the Fittest.^img If Andy knew anything about evolution, he'd know that SOTF is the story of underdogs exploiting every ecological niche possible. Hell, all he needs to do is watch Fantasia. Little mouse underdog scurrying in the pile of dinosaur dung get's to become Andy someday. --Whoover (talk) 02:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You're totally right, DickTurpis. Conservatives have even hindered underdogs' chances of winning elections in the U.S. by making a mockery of campaign finance laws.

Also, do any of you British RWians know what show Andy is talking about here^img? And if that's an accurate description of the show? (The only thing that comes to my mind is The Weakest Link.) --Tabrcg23 (talk) 02:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘As has been said before, somewhere above, all this is, is another attempt by Andy to stay relevant. He knows people are going to be searching for "Super Bowl" and maybe "upset win" and "underdog" so he thinks this is his way of cashing in. Sadly, it's Andy we're talking about, whose take on matters is so off the scale, that it leaves him looking like a gibbering idiot. "The lack of cheering by atheists" Really? Where does he get this stuff? --PsyGremlinPrata! 03:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the entry for underdog is so typically CP - you get all of Andy's petty biases, yet have no idea how the term originated. That's an encyclopaedia for you. --PsyGremlinHable! 03:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe Andy is on to something here. Clearly in terms of brain function, he is the greatest underdog of them all. Should he drop dead tomorrow the average intelligence of the human race would increase measurably. No one's rooting for him. Maybe we do hate underdogs sometimes. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 04:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, he does clearly state atheists have an IQ of 105 or so. Gotcha. We should tell that to Neil Tyson, and Hawkings and well, just about every major pop-science physicist out there. GodotGrow a vagina 05:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Ye gods, this is even more batshit crazy than Ken. Andy's obviously never watched Wimbledon to see the British support of underdogs for a start. Two world wars started because 'we' stepped in to stop the bullying Hun. And can someone point out that "begs the question" doesn't mean what he thinks http://begthequestion.info/ ? SphincterI'velostmylogin 82.23.210.230 (talk) 05:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

"Two world wars started because 'we' stepped in to stop the bullying Hun." LOL! Not entirely the reason but hey. Ajkgordon (talk) 08:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I was gonna say something about that too. --★uːʤɱ netlabelist 10:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Just to shoot more holes in Andy's theory: The FA Cup third round, when you get match-ups between tiny non-league sides and Premiership sides. I remember several years ago when Stevenage Borough were feted for taking Newcastle to a replay. People love the upset wins. Ditto Wimbledon. Andy is a moron, and I see Karajerk has stepped in to defend his master from having to think. --PsyGremlinPrata! 06:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the ultimate refutation of this has to be the existence of Eddie "The Eagle" Edwards. A ski jumper so bad he immediately became beloved in the hearts of all Britain. They're even supposed to be making a film about him. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 07:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes, Eddie was grate! I work on a building site with him the year before he went to the games, he used to slide down rooves on scaffold boards into piles of sand. Mad but the public and the other competitors loved him82.23.210.230 (talk) 07:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The British don't support the underdog? Bullshit! What on Earth is the NHS and the welfare state about if it isn't supporting the underdog? Генгис^{Gum disease} 08:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah! And Aschlafly's an underdog and we support hi.... oh, wait... Ajkgordon (talk) 08:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I have no freaking idea what the game show is - but then I don't really watch game shows. Interesting use of the past tense though - so possibly not a current show. The only thing that springs to mind is 'The Generation Game' which basically laughed at people for being rubbish at very difficult things, but ultimately rewarded them for being good, so no idea. Worm (talk) 09:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I should also point out that when England are playing rugby against a very weak side and start hammering them, the England fans all start cheering on the opposition (the underdogs). Happens a lot in the group stages of the world cup. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 10:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

My guess would be that in their twisted "mind"set "supporting so." doesn't mean you actually help them. And actually they'd have a point, if you interfer in the game, the underdog isn't the underdog anymore. --★uːʤɱ libertarian 10:08, 7 February 2012

On the subject of the gameshow, I think he has The Weakest Link in mind since a) a central gimmick was presenter Anne Robinson making barbs at the players between rounds and b) we exported it to the States, so it's a slice of Brit pop-culture Andy might actually have experience of. Of course, Robinson slagged off all the players, whether they were underdogs or not (if there's such a thing in a gameshow where the contestants' backgrounds are of little relevance) but at this point I'm elevating Andy's "evidence" to the status of something worth refuting. Grumblejaws (talk) 12:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

(UTC) What bollocks. In the UK we love it when a small team knocks a big team out of the FA cup. And surely Obama was very much an underdog. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 13:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I fucking love the talkpage! Andy just backpedaled into "find sources for me" excuse, and a user brings up Karajou's edict that trips up Andy. Those morons simply can't learn, no matter how many times their words turn around and bite them in the ass. His next step is probably ignoring everything on the talkpage and hope everyone goes away. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 21:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

He's getting beat up pretty bad on the talkpage. [7] Damo^Hi 00:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh my. Andy: "Also, fan conduct at a stadium is probably not a representative sample." Does he even realize that he typed that, when his whole argument came from, quite specifically, a discussion about sports? -- Seth Peck (talk) 01:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

What goes through Andy's mind?

It's things like this that make me wonder if TK's story about Andy being a functioning alcoholic is actually true. I find it hard to explain these sudden "insights" any other way. His whole "it's common knowledge, go find the evidence!" gambit seems like an admission that he knows he pulled this directly out of his arse, but somehow still seems to be compelled to defend whatever his most recent idiocy is. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 09:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

He seems to me more like a functioning pothead — stuck in that phase of paranoia I keep hearing about. --★uːʤɱ kant 10:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I've know potheads who have made much more sense than Andy ever did. He's just really angry at the world because despite coming from a wealthy, well-connected white family and obtaining two Ivy League degrees he's ended up teaching kids in a church basement. Of course, this isn't because he's extremely incompetent. No, it's because liberals. --Night Jaguar (talk) 10:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it has anything to with alcoholism , it is simply ego. Andy believes himself to be some sort of conservative intellectual giant, a paragon of conservative virtue, a new father of conservative though; creative, insightful, and bold. So of course he need to come up with these innovative insights no one else is discovering, either because they lack his wisdom or the liberal establishment is keeping them cowered; in reality this is driven by his desperate need to be relevant in the politics and culture of America. His ego blinds him to the truth though, he isn't relevant because those who may otherwise embrace him see his ramblings as unsupported, unverifiable, ridiculous, preposterous and most of all, an embarrassing liability. This example "insight" of "atheists hate underdogs and thus did not cheer for the Giants", is a perfect showcase of why. Anyone but Andy and those who continue to kiss his ass, (for what reason I do not know) can see the huge holes in his assertions, starting with how does he know this? After all how does he know how many atheists were in the stands? How does he know who they cheered for? What evidence does he have that in America, underdog victories are increasingly seen with disapproval, or that British people hate underdogs (or even why, if true)? Of course he presents no actual evidence, just bullshit assumptions he creates out of thin air and pixie dust. The rest of the conservative movements sees this and dismisses him, but those at CP are too cowed to question him or call him out on his bullshit, so on CP these so-called "insights" will stay, fortunately in obscurity.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 11:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

(EC)The thing about this particular insight that I don't get is the "underdog" and the cheering parts. I can get the "atheists" part, and everything that follows from there, but I don't get why the winning team is the underdog, nor why he thinks "atheists didn't cheer". I guess the winning team could've been the underdog (I have typed that word entirely too often since this particular insight) and I just don't know because I don't follow american football, but the "atheists didn't cheer them" part seems to have come entirely out of thin air in a much more blatant way than usual. I have to admit this little episode is the first time I've actually questioned Andy's sanity. X Stickman (talk) 11:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I thought that when Candlebucket was dating Lil' Phyl he said that Andy was quite abstemious when it came to drink. I can only ascribe TK's comments to his penchant for bullshit.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 12:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The Giants were technically the underdog as the Patriots were 3.5 point favorites, but most analysts agreed beforehand, the game could go either way. The Patriots, despite being slight favorites, had a lot of problems going in, problems everyone knew the Giants could exploit and exploit they did; the outcome was not surprising. That underdog bit is all Andy got correct though. The reason why you don't get the rest is because there is nothing to get, it is complete bullshit; his so called "insights" are fabricated out of thin air without basis in fact. Anywhere else, anywhere, Andy would be called on his bullshit and he wouldn't have a leg to stand on, but on CP he can make up any crap he likes and call it "truth" because he runs the place like his own personal kingdom, disconnected from reality.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm starting to come around to the 'Andy is an alcoholic' point of view. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 13:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I think we've had this conversation before. I maintain that it is certainly possible. While Phy's BF stated he never saw Andy drink, the truth is, with many alcoholic you don't see them drink. They drink in private and in secret. He did say Andy stayed holed up in his study for hours on end. It's entirely possible he's be boozin' it up. That's not real evidence, of course, but we now have more evidence that Andy is an alcoholic than that atheists hate underdogs, so, yeah, by CP's verifiability standards Andy is most certainly an alcoholic. Who also likes gerbilling. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I think the claim Andy is an alcoholic is a stretch. I think it's a lot more likely he's just a man who is incredibly bitter that he's not where he thinks he should be in his life at this point -- either a Congressman or a successful patent attorney. And it's exacerbated by the fact the man who beat him for editor of the Harvard Law Review is now President. MDB (talk) 16:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

"Functioning alcoholic"...hmmm. Are we referring to what Andy does as "functioning"? He creeps around a church basement and then locks himself in a study all day to play online. GayGator (talk) 16:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not seriously claiming that Andy is an alcoholic, just that it is a possibility which might explain his behavior at times. Clearly we can't really say one way or the other. But this claim that he can't be an alcoholic because Kettleticket never saw him drink doesn't mean anything. The gerbilling, though, that I'm convinced of. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 16:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It's better to just knock it off about Schlafly than be more careful. Thanks. 17:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

While I would never suggest someone is an alcoholic, or mentally ill... I can tell you this. It's not just ego. He is fully irrational; not just "i don't like you" irrational, but he cannot see small things that everyone else sees. and he as a pathalogical problem with admitting he is wrong. In the face of overwhemling evidence most of us with egos will grunt and moan and say "fine, you're right i'm wrong'. he can't do that. Even if it's just something silly. GodotGrow a vagina 18:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll say this much, Andy might be an alcoholic, but Ken is certainly mentally ill. Exactly what is specific problem is we can't say, but there is no denying something is not right in that guy's brain. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 18:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I would like to take this opportunity to thank Schafly. I went to a rubbish school. I did not exert my self and as a result, although my grades were good for the school, nationally they were pretty average. I am constantly aware I am not as clever as I like to think I am, and I am ignorant of a great many things. I am constantly embarressed at my lack of academic success. Or was. Thank you Mr Schafly, you who have been to the best schools, the best universitys, you who has had finest education money can buy that you could have been the president of america. Thank you Mr Schafly, for achieving so little with what you were given and for spewing so much mind numbingly ridiculous shite that you make me, a dumbarse on all accounts, feel like einstein. Cheers, fella, you fucking half wit. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

^ Excellent post, you massive gay. Ajkgordon (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

What goes through Ken's mind?

MOAR bestiality!!^img --PsyGremlinFale! 05:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I wonder what we would find if we went through his browsing history on his hard drive. I mean, I look at furry porn and I'm not as obsessed with bestiality as he is. F_ucker^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 05:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Um...Ken...Being an underdog does not mean being under a dog...um...oh, why bother. -- Seth Peck (talk) 05:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Animal sex ain't my cup of tea, but if it gets Kenny boy all hot and bothered, than I say go for it! Kenny boy just needs to come out of the closet. The Goddess Masturbates (talk) 10:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

"I take offense to that last one!"

• Rachel: "Oh please, Andy and the other sysops can make whatever claim they like and don't need sources for them because the rules don't apply to them. Just look at the articles on Obama and Homosexuality."^img
• Ken: "That's a lie! ..........the Homosexuality article has many footnotes!"^img

Good to see that not even Ken is willing to defend Andy's "I don't need sources, I speak for the people!" insights. ;) --Sid (talk) 10:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget this little fact

"37% (including many Conservapedians) will not watch today's Super Bowl at all"

Two things: If Andy didn't watch the Super Bowl, how the fuck does he know atheists didn't cheer? Also, how much is many, in terms of Conservapedia? 3 out of 10? Stupidity is a work of art! Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 18:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Fuck, if Andy did watch the Super Bowl how would he know atheists didn't cheer? I watched it, and guess what, the camera never panned to a group of hipsters with red "A's" on the shirts sitting on their hands whenever the Giants scored. Al Michaels never said "and over in this part of the stands we have the atheists' section, who, I must say have remained strangely quiet since the Giants retook the lead." Turpis 3:16 (talk) 18:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

He doesn't know anything. He wants it to be so, even feels it must be because... well, atheists, so it just is. Man's a cock. Ajkgordon (talk) 23:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey, don't soil the good name of cock with that bag of pure stupidity. F_ucker^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 23:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Not worth Wigoing but....

' Creation Day Four: it was a Big Stretch…'. Said with absolutely no trace of irony or self-awareness, but then again posted by Chuckarse himself, so that could have gone without saying. Oh, and the bolding is his, not mine.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 11:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

That is just a FANTASTIC read. His Head-In-The-Sand-Fu is strong, and the comment thread is hugely enjoyable. DogP (talk) 19:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

What's funny is that the assertion that God stretched the universe (along with the more realistic explanation of the Big Bang) actually answers Andy's JAQing off on the starlight problem. -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

"Isn't it time you abandon antiquated 18th century science"

Ken: Sonething about doctors and the title line^img. Gee, idk ken, it would seem we should drop our ... bronze/iron age Antiquated beliefs first. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 21:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It's true, we used Origin of Species in my bio 101 course. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, lets ignore the fact that the counter argument, the whole sky wizard snaps fingers and "Poof" world, is about 2000 years older.--Thunderstruck^{YOU'VE BEEN...} 22:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Older still if you go with the idea its based on Babylonian myths. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 22:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey, those are tried-and-true facts that have managed to stand the test of time despite their critics! How old is evolution? 160 years? Pfff! -- Seth Peck (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

This creationist obsession with Darwin is fascinating. It's like they believe that Darwin "invented" "evolutionism" and nothing's happened since. They seem oblivious to the concept of progress. Not just progress from bronze age FAQs (the Old Testament), but scientific progress from 160 years ago. Ajkgordon (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

If they started targeting modern science they'd actually have to explain it to their sheep, which would be fatal to their cause. Lumping the whole of evolution under the banner of Darwin is much safer. You don't have to explain more than the very basic facts to get a bunch of ignorant buffoons mad about "Darwinism." --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Plus, Darwin can be shown to be in error (see, Panda's thumb), might have been a jerk, and stole ideas from others. "all of science" is harder to personally demonize. GodotGrow a vagina 22:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

They explain the very basic facts about evolution? Citation needed! Ajkgordon (talk) 22:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

""all of science" is harder to personally demonize." Bingo. Climate deniers do the same thing with Al Gore. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Because Christianity is an entirely original idea with no concepts stolen borrowed from ANY other religion, including Judaism! -- Seth Peck (talk) 22:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

They need to establish evolution and atheism as organised movements in order to target them. They want to make Evolution and Atheism into direct parallels of organised religion because then it becomes a faith issue rather than an evidence issue. Part of that is assigning "holy" status to individuals in the "movements". Darwin becomes the prophet of Evolution just as Dawkins becomes the prophet of Atheism. So they see Darwin as the evolutionist's Jesus and On The Origin of Species as the evolutionist's Bible. To them, we believe that Darwin was 100% right about everything he said and his book is infallible, so all they need to do is poke holes in either of those things to bring evolution crashing down. X Stickman (talk) 23:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Nice, I like that. Ajkgordon (talk) 23:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I can't add to it, that is a perfect explanation--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 00:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC).

Wait, I thought the new things weren't always better than the old things? Ah, I guess facts change when personally convenient. Because liberals. --★uːʤɱ pervert 23:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

If that were true, Mormonism would be awesome and Scientology would be the Justin Bieber of religions. In fact, by that reasoning, Justin Bieber would be better than the Beatles, who would be better than Beethoven. Roll over! -- Seth Peck (talk) 00:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Terry Fuckwit is now busy disproving the entire science of astronomy on his blog by claiming that "conventional wisdom" thinks the asteroid belt is the remains of a destroyed planet - an idea that was proposed in 1802 and shot down in flames not long after. It really is the cretards who're obsessed with old science. I guess the new stuff is too hard for them. --Fergus Mason (talk) 23:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

good job trying to deal with him, by the way. GodotGrow a vagina 00:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

He's an utter fucking brain donor and the way he clings to the skirts of anyone brighter than him (not hard) but just as insane (quite rare) is sickening. Schlafly and Walt Brown must have gleaming arseholes given how busy Terry's tongue has been on them. Still, intellectually pummelling Terry does reduce my urge to stamp on puppies, which is a good thing. --Fergus Mason (talk) 00:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Even if what he says is true (and it isn't) how does that help his belief that the universe is 6000 years old?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 00:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Well if whatever Tossbottom said were true, that'd mean there was no point in science. Period. For his and other creationists' claims to be true, the basic laws of the universe were radically different in the not too distant past. Which would infer that they could change abruptly again sometime within the next 5 minutes. Rendering the pursuit of trying to understand the physical universe pointless. --Inquisitor (talk) 00:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, they could. it's just not exactly likely. I mean, it's entirely possible we are just being fucked with, and the universe is random every 6000 years or so. GodotGrow a vagina 00:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Not to side with the idiots or anything, but are you familiar with Hume's problem of induction? There is already no logical reason to adhere to science. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 00:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes I'm familiar with it, and to put it mildly, I'm not a fan of purely philosophical arguments. --Inquisitor (talk) 01:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no argument that isn't 'purely philosophical'. Every belief is philosophical, or based on philosophical beliefs. F_ucker^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 01:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Spoken like a true philosopher... --Inquisitor (talk) 01:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

...Burn...? F_ucker^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 03:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Er, you realize that Hume himself didn't use the problem of induction to argue for radical skepticism or Pyrrhonism, right? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

What the fuck are you talking about? F_ucker^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 04:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no strictly logical justification for induction, but Hume never argued that science should be abandoned because of this. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can see, Fallacy didn't either. FFS, why do skeptics everytime somebody mentions this behave like that person just tortured a toddler? --★uːʤɱ soviet 00:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I love science. All I'm saying is that all logical thought (and all thought, really, in a more abstract sense) is based upon a set of axioms, which makes it philosophical, in a sense. F_idgeter^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 05:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Are these the same guys who insist that global positioning satellites do not have use any technologies that take into account special relativity (or is it GR...I forget)? -- Seth Peck (talk) 00:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Whenever I see Terry talking science, or people debating him in science I always think they need to read this post by PZ. Then they'll have a slightly better idea of what they're up against, when it comes to science "thinking" with LaunchBooty. --PsyGremlinTala! 04:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Slightly off topic of CP, but my god - someone actually claimed that homopathy would help decrease the rate of racist based fradulent convictions in the legal system of the US? And would help dead bodies walk again (didn't get that one, actually... it would help us FIND the dead bodies? I don't know). My god the insanity. This link MUST be added to our homeopathy page.GodotGrow a vagina 14:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Shameless Flip Flopping

Conservative^img VICTORY!!!!!^img by Santorum tonight!!!--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 05:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm curious to know what they consider a "conservative landslide" when all of the candidates being voted on are conservative. The stupidity boggles the mind. -- Seth Peck (talk) 05:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

No, all of them are liberals except Santorum, who is a moderate. F_ucker^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 05:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, Conservapedia projects Santorum wins Colorado, not, you know, a major news outlet or anything. This with just over half the precincts reporting and Santorum leading by 2 points. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 05:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

It was higher, when only 7% precincts were reporting (and they were the very low-populated parts of Colorado too). I am "rooting" for Santorum all the way! -- Seth Peck (talk) 05:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Let this then be a lesson for Andy on why you don't call elections with 7% of the precincts reporting. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 06:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

And with 75% reporting Romney takes the lead. Didn't these guys hear that Conservapedia called this already? You can stop counting votes now. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 06:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

If Obama gets reelected one of the first things I'm doing is checking CP to see how Andy handles it. My guess: biggest sore loser evar. --Night Jaguar (talk) 06:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Oooh! Santorum back on top by a point. This is a real barnburner. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 06:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

@night; if/when obama/a demmy gets elected, he will have lied and cheated to win. as liberals can never truely win without cheating--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 06:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Night Jaguar, I'm amused by your use of the word "if". -- Seth Peck (talk) 06:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm really upset that Santorum won tonight. He's such an underdog. And I don't know what it is, but ever since I became an agnostic atheist... I simply can't stand underdogs. --Inquisitor (talk) 06:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely. I'd say that I hope he doesn't win any more, but as an atheist I don't even know what hope is! Turpis 3:16 (talk) 07:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

We atheist don't have hope, but at least we get to cut down trees to spite Wiccans (or something). OT, Pat Robertson and Andy should have a kook off. --Night Jaguar (talk) 07:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

We've always been at war with Eurasia

It appears Santorum has the clean sweep of all three states which prompts Andy to declare a conservative victory^img where "RINOs" should give it up. Remember when Andy claimed Conservapedia predicted that Santorum was nothing more than Romney's^img stalking^img horse^img, and that he would back Romney^img, oh and a^img pro-abortion^img, "RINO" too?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 11:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't try to understand andy, you'll pop all your blood vessels at once.--Thunderstruck^{YOU'VE BEEN...} 12:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Andy's cognitive dissonance would be enough to drive a man insa... oh, wait... --PsyGremlin講話 12:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

It's on occasions like this when I seriously wonder whether Andy is deliberately taking the piss.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 13:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Just wait till Romney gets the nomination. He will instantly become a Good, Right-Thinking Conservative, and anyone who says otherwise will be a dirty liberal. MDB (talk) 13:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey, atleast its been a short while since he last insulted santorum, --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 13:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Rick Santorum: From Filthy RINO to Conservative Hero in less than 5 seconds! I second the Lily's comment above, about Andy taking the piss. If he's not trolling everybody, I wonder if his Cartman-esque mental gymnastics allow him to realize what a duplicitous ass he is... GayGator (talk) 14:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Between Santorum (who is by far the most conservative of the candidates) and the whole underdog essay makes me think more and more that he's a parodist rebelling against his mom. If that were true, he'd be the biggest troll on the conserva-net and Ken would be the biggest sucker (or partner in crime). -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Rebelling against his mom? No, my theory is that mommy has her own reasons for supporting Newt (political reasons) so Andy has to follow along, even if it means throwing a candidate practically tailor made for him under the bus. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 17:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘MPR is endorsing Santorum ^img now. That's Terry, not Andy, though. MDB (talk) 17:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Terry will endorse anyone if it gets his site a few more hits.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, CNAV at least has a bit of consistency: Some more Santorum-praise coming from RoseAnn Salanitri, dated Dec 13. Though it's silly how MPR endorses Santorum, Proven Right predicts Gingrich and the Elections page predicts Jeb Bush. At this rate, CP will predict EVERYBODY to win. --Sid (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

It's easy to be right if you utilize the sharpshooter approach at close range with a scatter gun. -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

(EC) Well yeah, that's basically the strategy: modify his "predictions" to match the candidate who's in front currently. Since it cycles so rapidly, no matter who wins Andy can refer to a time when he "predicted" it (ignoring all the other intermediate "predictions") and boast about how right he was. «-Bfa-» 19:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Jeb Bush #1

Jeb Bush will be the Republican nominee^img. Never mind that he's not running or anything. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 17:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Due to last night's results, Romney is no longer #1 pick to win the nomination. Instead it goes to:

Jeb Bush.

Yes, a man not even running is more likely to win the nomination that those who are. And Santorum is still behind Newt and Palin. I guess there is a slim chance Andy is right about this. But really, #1 at this stage? Turpis 3:16 (talk) 17:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I will grant that last night's results make convention weirdness more likely, but really, picking a guy who didn't even enter the primaries? C'mon... MDB (talk) 17:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Last night's results were weird, but some of them are from non-binding caucuses, and nothing matters until Super Tuesday anyway. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 17:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

(ec) You forget, Andy has a wet dream that come the primaries, when the current clown car of crazies haven't dished up a clear winner, Jeb will step up and be the unifying wild-card entry. And if that does happen, I will sell my house, and go and be a missionary in Beverley Hills. --PsyGremlinTala! 17:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll have a little lolgasm if/when Jeb endorses Mitt. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The viewpoint of something-being-created-from-mostly-nothing (which both creationists and scientists argue is possible but chide the other for the impossibility of it) has existed in politics for a long time (making a mountain out of a blowjob, the fight against "voter fraud", etc) so it's conceivable that the CPers honestly believe that Jeb Bush coming forward is a possibility. Or, to my earlier point, they're trolling parodists of the highest caliber. -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Seth, there is no such thing as "CPers" in the plural. There's Andy, a few people who ride piggyback on his free webhosting service for their own reasons (Ken for his essays, JPatt to practice basic literacy, Karajou to be a bully, that weird Elvis guy), and a bunch of parodists. No "CPers" as any sort of community with a consensus opinion. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 17:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, this one's all Andy (and maybe parodists). As usual, the other sysops pretend not to notice it at all unless they can somehow make a point that doesn't clash with The Truth.

But I find it much more amusing that Santorum, after these victories, is still ranking behind Palin. At least he's not alone - Ron Paul is there, too. That's right, the Top 4 currently are Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin. --Sid (talk) 17:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I am enjoying the fact that two of the top five in "Likelihood of Winning Republican Nomination" are not even interested in running. What makes it especially funny is that Andy prides himself on Conservapedia's "predictive power".--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I asked him about that once, he said Running wasnt the most important part in deciding who would win. Well im still holding out for the Gingrich Dream team.--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 17:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course, if Jeb did run then Andy would be Mr Awesome. Генгис^{Gum disease} 17:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

GK: Sounds like a wager to me.

P-Foster: I'm not disputing your statement at all. I tend to used words to describe categorizations in the plural, for as a programmer I often think in terms of this logic: "CPers" = the possibly infinite set of all legitimate (i.e., dyed-in-the-wool conservative) contributers to CP, which may be empty or non-empty, and possibly only one. Additional examples: gods, atheistic priests, legitimate psychics, planets in our solar system that support intelligent life. -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

He's really committed to this masturbatory fantasy of his, isn't he? I few weeks ago it seemed like he was ready to let it go and settle for Newt as his not-Romney of choice, but now he's back on the Bush bandwagon. He's fucking run for office before. Even if he was a complete loser he must have at least some idea how political campaigns work. How is it he can still believe this Jeb thing is some kind of real possibility? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

US-history experts: Has what Andy is proposing will happen--a deadlocked convention drafting a consensus candidate who did not run--ever happened before? P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 18:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Lincoln, I believe, at least, but that was before primaries as we know them. It is possible. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 18:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Correction: Lincoln was running, but was not a favorite. Oh, and this did happen in the final season of The West Wing, but the savior candidate (Mr. Bundy from Married with Children) was discovered to have baggage and didn't win in the end, but was close to doing do. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 18:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Ed O'Neill. And Lincoln was not a favorite in the election simply because no one in the South voted for him, but managed to beat three other candidates with the votes of the Northern states as well as California and Oregon. He was definitely the candidate of choice for the Republican party, being the first presidential candidate for the Republicans since their founding in the 1840s (in Jackson Michigan of all places). As far as "has it ever happened before"...certainly not at the presidential level (unless you count the unanimous election of George Washington...but there was no primary, no convention and no campaign, just a bunch of guys who were nominated and the EC voted for them). Write-in candidates have won at the state legislative level, but they are few and far between. -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Really, the current primary system only started forming in 1968 -- both parties watched the massive fiasco that was the Democratic convention and said "we'll never put on a spectacle like that again", and created a system that all but guarantees a nominee will win on the first ballot. The days of brokered conventions and smoke-filled rooms went out... well, before smoke-filled rooms did. MDB (talk) 18:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not impossible, though. Nate Silver has speculated on this, in fact. If ever there was an election in which the candidates go to the convention without anyone having enough delegates, it might be this one. By now the front runner should be establishing himself, losing a state here and there but still going strong, not the assfuck Romney got last night. That delegates weren't really at play is his only saving grace. If it continues like this it is possible one of them will not get the delegates they need, then it's hard to say what will happen. As I see it the possible scenarios are: one of them gets enough delegates before the convention (probably Romney, maybe Santorum, probably not Newt and certainly not Paul) and is the nominee. Otherwise they decide at the convention, and likely pick one of the the candidates after a few rounds of voting (Santorum might stand a good chance here, Newt and Paul do not). As Andy is hoping, someone else can step and a put themselves forward as a compromise candidate, and they person might be able to pull it off. I'd wager Mitch Daniels is more likely than Jeb, but Jeb would be on the shortlist. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 18:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that an open convention seems to have the highest likelihood of any time in recent memory, but it's still not very likely. have little doubt the Republican establishment is working hard to prevent it right now. MDB (talk) 18:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, it's certainly unlikely, but still possible. And sure, having Jeb as #1 right now is certainly ridiculous. Just to make up some numbers, let's say the chance of an open convention is as high as 50% (it isn't), and, at an open convention, the chances of one of the current bunch not getting chosen by floor vote is 50% (it isn't), there's only a 25% chance of any of anyone not in the current roster being nominated, and those are extremely liberal probabilities. Then we have the fact that Jeb is only one of several possible last minute entrants, and probably less likely than Daniels, Pawlenty, or Christie (though the latter's endorsement of Romney might rule him out, in any case, it will not be Andy's #4 choice of Palin) and we're down to something less than 10%. Hardly frontrunner. Well, we all know Andy doesn't exactly live in the real world. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 19:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Given the track records of Daniels and JB, I would hardly qualify either as "compromise" candidates. -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

If it is Jeb, Obama would have the easiest campaign ever. Just print a poster with George Snr, George Jnr & Jeb and the word "Again?" --PsyGremlinSprich! 18:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

A better slogan might be "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me ... well, er... we can't get fooled again." --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I love how Andy has Palin as the number four Republican most likely to be nominee AND has in the Conservapedia proven right article the prediction he made that Palin wouldn't be the nominee because the Facebook movie lost the Academy Award to The King's Speech. Wow. If he's a Poe, he's genius. Otherwise..... --Night Jaguar (talk) 23:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe Zachary Taylor was a compromise candidate that was not actively running. And when he got the letter that said he was his party's nominee, it came postage due and he refused it. Czolgolz (talk) 23:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

LaunchBooty goes for broke

Hell, if I'm whoring ONE of my pay-me-per-view blogs on CP, I might as well whore BOTH of them... even if they carry exactly the same article.^img --PsyGremlinSermā! 18:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

As of late, I've been getting more entertainment from Terry's blogs than all of CP put together. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I found Andy's grade A ridiculousness over his "insight" of "Atheists hate Underdogs", and his total Rick Santorum flip-flop to be most entertaining, especially since Ken hasn't done anything worthwhile in months.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Obviously Ken is getting around to his Atheism killer he spent most of 2011 promising to write. Actually; from what i remember on the community portal; Kens busy for the next few years--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Very true. I guess I just just more mileage out of Terry's stupidity. Andy will say something terribly stupid, maybe give a little defense, and then move on. Terry persists in his ignorance, constantly paints himself into a corner, then just rolls around in the wet paint. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Did Terry flip flop on Santorum? I think it was just Andy who decided he was a covert liberal agent; Terry simply never contradicted him. Or am I forgetting something? Turpis 3:16 (talk) 21:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not talking specifically about that. More like the Obama birth certificate and creationism stuff where Terry persists in ignorancs. If you catch Andy in a lie, he might lie one more time and then shut up. If you catch Terry in a lie, he will never stop lying. Occasionaluse (talk) 22:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The Andy Standard

Normally this wouldn't be worth mentioning, but I read today about how January 2012 was the fourth warmest on record for the contiguous United States (that is lower 48 for all you CP folks). Now why I bother to bring this up is that I recalled, according to the Andy Schlafly standards of "proof" (not evidence mind you, but proof), all that it takes to declare Climate Change as falsified (and possibly Democrats as evil), is any single instance of monthly below normal temperatures, or a cold snap, or even a heavy snow storm in January. Using this same "Andy standard" of scientific truth, the single fact January 2012 was so above normal in temperature nation-side shall thus be declared proof positive that Climate Change is absolutely, indisputably true and any debate is now over. Deny this and lose all credibility!--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

That's certainly worth mentioning, astronomy guy. Godspeed! -- Seth Peck (talk) 20:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Heavy snow? snowing in Barrow is enough proof for andy. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 20:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but there was a snow storm in January. Proof that global warming is a lie. You lose. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 21:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I drove with my jeeps top down. I win.--Thunderstruck^{YOU'VE BEEN...} 22:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

" Using this same 'Andy standard' of scientific truth..." No but don't you see, you aren't using the "Andy Standard" you are practicing pseudo-andy standardist ways. The Andy Standard, when properly practiced, starts and ends with what is politically convenient at that point in time. You were just practicing the superficial trappings of the Andy Standard with out bothering to get to the heart of the method that makes the Andy Standard the dynamic and powerful foundation that modern society is built upon. Go back to your science and leave lying to the hypocrites you astronomical jerk!--Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 22:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

BMcP? One fuck you-note for BMcP?^img --★uːʤɱ kant 00:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes Andy, and here's why it's so cold: [T]he probability of cold winters with much snow in Central Europe rises when the Arctic is covered by less sea ice in summer. These results of a global climate analysis were recently published in a study in the scientific journal Tellus A.] --PsyGremlinRunāt! 03:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I feel the warm glow of his luv... or maybe that's just Global Warming. :) --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 05:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Massive disconnect between reality and imagination

This just in! Obama takes money from drug cartels!^img....Clicks link...Obama returns money from drug cartel. Ace^Moderator 20:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I saw the title of this section and thought, "that's CP all over basically." Sophie (talk) 20:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

"This is a conservative encyclopedia. Its job is to decry liberals and their ideas at every turn. By promulgating the idea that Obama may be a Muslim we are being good conservatives, because it helps to turn people off him."--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 20:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Rob doesn't mind thin propaganda. In his tiny mind, Obama should have never taken it in the first place. Of course, in practice, vetting every dollar before it comes in is not feasible. Even Rob would admit that. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• cough*Contras!*cough* Rennie McGreet (talk) 20:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

hey, the contra thing was totally justified! --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 20:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I was literally just searching for that. X Stickman (talk) 20:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Musta been a reward for capturing the Iranians who wanted to hire the cartels to make an assassination attempt on Obama. -- Seth Peck (talk) 21:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Admittedly, I don't know much about they guy based on this article, but he hardly sounds like a cartel. Someone's throwing that word around a little loosely. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

"Abortion-Contraception"

Republicans are getting some traction on Catholics' "we won't pay for immoral birth control" campaign, so Andy sees an opening to equate contraception with abortion. He cites an article about the contraception flap as "abortion-contraception"^img despite the fact that the word "abortion" never appears in the article. Ah, for the days when condoms were contraband. Whoover (talk) 15:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Traction? -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Wait... so no contraception... no abortion... no sex-ed... and hate on all the unwed mothers. Way to go, conservatives. --PsyGremlinParlez! 18:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it's one of the quickest short circuits in conservative ideology: We won't let single mothers have abortions, nor do we want to foot the bill for the financial burden of the child. For some bizarre reason, they care more about fetuses than children. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Psygremlin, be fair: It's "hate on all the unwed mothers, unless her mother is Sarah Palin." Reichhol (talk) 19:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Well, look at it from the conservative viewpoint:

1. Sex should be between a married man and woman.
2. Marriage allows you to care for all the children you can produce.

If you accept those assumptions, their beliefs make sense. Now, we all know how unrealistic the assumptions are... MDB (talk) 19:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Pretty much. Their "abstinence works" thing is actually true if you live in a fantasy land where people are emotionless beings who have no desire to experience fun and/or genital bliss. Their logic is fairly consistent internally, it's just built on shitty premises and assumptions. X Stickman (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It's actually much simpler than that:

1. Sex is a sin and should only be done if you want to reproduce and only if you are married (I think this comes from several things from the Bible, not sure which though)

2. Sanctity of human life in all forms (this comes from the belief that all life is created by God and that murder is a sin no matter in what case — except for when the Bible tells you to)

Based on these two most fundies operate. Not only in America but all over the world. European left or central fundies are very well able to give single mother money now. But through the third and final dogma

3. All goverment intrusion into people lifes is bad and will make things worse

is a speciality of American fundies with which we arrive at the point were not only have single mothers deserved what was coming their way, but also is government not able to help them. This makes this special breed on fundies look completely without empathy. But hey, now just call that woman an American hero for taking other people's jobs away working two jobs and never having time to spend with her children and all is fine. --★uːʤɱ atheist 20:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

If UHM were right in (1), then all Fundies would be opposed to contraception. This just isn't so.

As far as Andy's "Abortion-contraception" page, I assume that he's trying to persuade non-Catholics that this issue is important by tying it to the morning-after pill, which many people think is morally equivalent to abortion. Hence, Obama is forcing churches to pay for abortion, sorta. (I've no idea whether the morning-after pill is actually at issue here, but I do think that's what Andy is insinuating.) Phiwum (talk) 23:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

This recent article states that teen pregnancy and abortion rates have plummeted in recent years, thanks to the availability of contraception. http://www.huliq.com/3257/birth-and-abortion-rates-us-teens-hit-all-time-low Czolgolz (talk) 23:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

“The numbers showed that 98% of the nearly 750,000 U.S. women between the ages of 15 and 19 became pregnant that year.” is ridiculous, which ought to be a give away that you're citing a service that arbitrarily rewrites "news" articles that are already re-processed PR nonsense. Their "source" is a MSN piece which is straight off the wire and does a better job articulating particular statistic, but let's try the actual source: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/USTPtrends08.pdf

The authors of the paper are at least clear on what their 98% is counting (it's the 733,000 pregnancies in females under 15-19, as a proportion of the total 746 500 in those under 20). [ Aside: Yes that's more than 10 thousand girls aged 14 or under who were pregnant. Food for thought if you're wondering why "liberals" want sex education in primary school ] but they themselves aren't a model of clarity, writing things like “the overall teenage pregnancy rate includes a substantial proportion of young people who have never had sex” which is more likely to confuse than illuminate. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 00:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I assumed that 98% was a typo. Czolgolz (talk) 03:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The entire release has been paraphrased in the version you link, but in some cases the "paraphrase" is nonsensical, that could be the result of a human doing a bad job but it could equally be a natural language processing system screwing up because it doesn't really "understand" what it's doing. Either way the habit of citing some third hand report about the PR rather than the study itself is worth breaking. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 09:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh yeah? Well...you're a poop head! Czolgolz (talk) 22:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Combating Liberal Deceit -- aka Facts

S&P 500 on day before Obama inauguration, Jan. 19, 2009: 832

S&P 500 today, Feb. 9, 2012: 1352

How to spin? Easy. Post a 2-month old article, citing the end of the third quarter^img, when

S&P 500, Sept. 30, 2011: 1131.

It's the best we can do. It's only the talk page, but it give it time to ripen. Whoover (talk) 23:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't matter; if they enact the Buffet Rule they'll all sell before the new law takes affect, drive it back down to 832 and won't buy back later. nobs^Moderated 04:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I remember when you were almost normal and I was starting to like you. I even stood up for you. Fool me once... Senator Harrison (talk) 12:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Never mind that that logic makes no sense and flies in the face of all historical evidence. The theory is that investors will only be willing to make millions if they can keep 85% of it. If they can only keep 70% of it, it won't be worth their while and they'll never invest again to protest. Investors are looking for the possibility of huge returns. Another few points off the ultimate profits will not persuade them to skip it and take 1% at the bank. Low-low capital gains tax is pure political pork. Whoover (talk) 16:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Most of these are institutional investors who use program trading. Individual investors, including millionaires, don't drive the market. Once the software is reprogrammed to reflect higher cost vs lower gain, the selling goes on autopilot. nobs^Moderated 20:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

many books indicate teh existance of slavery, currently in the us.

such as Uncle Tom's Cabin and Huck Finn. Idiot. GodotGrow a vagina 02:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

the fuck?--Thunderstruck^{YOU'VE BEEN...} 02:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

This WIGO--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 02:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

One could argue Mary Poppins had upward mobility. Chuckle. Ace^Moderator 02:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Horatio Alger said it, I believe it, that settles it! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Britain currently has almost the same social mobility as the US. Furthermore, many "atheistic" countries of Europe (e.g, France, Germany, Denmark, Sweden) seem to have better social mobility than the US. --Night Jaguar (talk) 02:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, Ken has some long convoluted explanation why that isn't true but it makes no sense. Ace^Moderator 02:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, just read the discussion. As far as I can tell, he attributes some of it to "Protestant work ethic". I'm not sure why the US and UK, which also have a Protestant history, don't do as well as the Scandinavian countries. Also, France and Spain, which have more of a Catholic history, still finish ahead of the US and the UK. Anyway, it's irrelevant because you can work really hard and still not move up the social ladder. Workers in 19th century factories working 12 hour days didn't stay poor because they had a bad work ethic. --Night Jaguar (talk) 02:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

If Mary Poppins is an example of lack of social mobility, shouldn't My Fair Lady be a counter-example? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 07:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Ken's creation.com whoring

Ken's latest whoring^img from Creation.com made drive a screwdriver into my face, repeatedly. The conclusion is what really does it:

However, no amount of advanced technology could actually defy or ‘turn off’ the laws of physics that govern our universe...The problems in basic physics are insurmountable.'

Yeah right, that is unless you are talking about the speed of light changing, or possibly nuclear decay being different in the past, the earth turning into a nuclear reactor during the flood, water from the flood reaching the moon and on and on and on....."Physics, only insurmontable for atheists". Ace^Moderator 02:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Unless you actually rammed a screwdriver in your face (I hear thousands of girls cry already), please read your first sentence again… --★uːʤɱ digital native 03:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps he did. A screwdriver is a popular drink. 184.61.193.172 (talk) 20:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Is Dawkins a scientologist now?--Thunderstruck^{YOU'VE BEEN...} 03:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Nothing can defy the law of physics (as far as we know), but our understanding of them can definitely change. <-- My two cents. F_ucker^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 03:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, seriously, I don't know exactly how much acid Kenny's taking, but it can't be good for his health. -- 08:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I must have missed the chapter in The God Delusion where Dawkins makes that assertion. BTW...as long as that screwdriver is made of vodka and orange juice, your face should be fine, Ace. -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Andy's version of the Scientific Method

Make hypothsis, , see results^imgif the results disagree, change the hypothesis so it fits and then claim you were right! --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 04:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The Texas sharpshooter fallacy and shoehorning are the meat and potatoes of most crankery. Also, a more detailed version. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Best line in that link: "Like a real encyclopedia" as said by Andy himself. I think hope he's finally caught on. -- 08:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The "a real encyclopedia" bit is fantastic, but my favorite line is "it's best to keep related information in one entry." In sort of the opposite of what Andy says, Ken can seize upon one brutally misinterpreted quote, wrenched from context, and spawn 10 or so articles, which are all almost the same wording and rely on the same bullshit quote. How many bestiality articles are there? 12? GayGator (talk) 13:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course, when actual real science does that - they are just flip flopping and hiding the fact that they know nothing.GodotGrow a vagina 15:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

First it was physics....

College math is not completely immune to liberal influences that have destroyed other subjects like physics. [1]^img Mick McT (talk) 07:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

There have been a few new editors that seem to be trying to fix the conservapedian mathematics stuff recently. e.g. "Bogart12": [2]^img[3]^img[4]^img[5]^img Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 07:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

If Jewish physics liberal physics produced the the most accurate theory in science ever, then I say send every scientist a copy of The Communist Manifesto! :P --Night Jaguar (talk) 08:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

"QE runaway train is gonna be released!"

ken: 50 page booklet!^imgcontinuing kens poor choice in analogies, He again assures us that QE will go into kill mode on atheism! Watch out you clowns!--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 07:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

My favourite part is that they plan to do a press release. "Dude! We've got a blog, and we're planning to contact some creationists at some point! That's big news! BIG NEWS! Call the Times! The Mail! The Telegraph! This is front page material!" --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 07:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

(P.S. Kendoll, you might want to tell your buddy Mariano that it's getting kind of obvious that he's only ever read one book about evolution. At some point he's going to have quoted the whole damn thing on your blog. I can't even work out what the point of those quotes are. Does he think they're somehow detrimental to evolution?) --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 07:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Apparently it hasn't even been written yet - and I thought I would be able to pick it up at my local creationist bookshop during lunch one day soon... Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 08:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I get the feeling that if Kenny had anything to do with making the booklet, it'll be about one page of unintelligible content then forty nine pages of irrelevent captioned pictures. -- 08:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

With a pullout supplement full of flying kitties. Rennie McGreet (talk) 08:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Considering their powerpoint presentation, I'm expecting the "15 questions" pamphlet but in a very large font. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 08:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

If it's anything like his other campaigns absolutely nothing will happen. We have seen Conservative promise soooo much and deliver absolutely zero. When I first started visiting CP years ago he was bangin on about the Ides of March about to destroy atheism. Stikll waiting. Operation afterburner? Nothing. Grassroutes? Not a peanut. I'm sure there have been others. What about the 1 million leaflets they were printing which were going to be followed by another 1 million? Any sign? Thought not. I would love to see his 50 page booklet as I think it would be pant soilingly funny (and train wreck is the right metaphor), but sadly like his religion it doesn't exist outside his head. StarFish (talk) 11:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

You're wrong! The runaway train of Question Evolution is going to derail, slamming through the puppy orphanage of atheism and landing in the children's hospital of evolution. Then the Question Evolution Blog Soldiers are going to disembark and systematically bayonet any small children (of evolution) that happened to survive. Then eat the puppies. Watch out, Evolution on the Internet! X Stickman (talk) 11:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

That was pretty awesome, sir. Ego (talk) 12:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

When I saw QE I thought of "quantative easing". Is Ken still drivelling on about that Question Evolution bullshit? In the words of Professor Cox, what a twat. Генгис^{Gum disease} 13:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Ha! They laughed at Ken when Operation Flying Fortress was launched, but then... oh, yes... nothing happened. They chuckled when somebody offered to translate CP's Atheism article into Spanish, and then... nothing. They pointed fingers and giggled when Ken launched the Question Evolution! blogs, without realising that the effect would be... totally non-existent. So the announcement of this 50-page booklet...nah, not going to happen. --PsyGremlinPraat! 13:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

"But that trick never works." "This time for sure!" "Rrrrraaaaaarrrrr!" "And now, here's something we hope you'll really like!" MDB (talk) 13:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Runnaway train? Running right off the tracks?--Thunderstruck^{YOU'VE BEEN...} 14:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it's a new theme song for their (or just Ken's) movement

Runaway train, never going back
Wrong way on a one-way track
Seems like I should be getting somewhere
Somehow I'm neither here nor there

Bought a ticket for a runaway train
Like a madman laughing at the rain
A little out of touch, a little insane
It's just easier than dealing with the pain
(Thank you, Soul Asylum) -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Madman laughing at the rain? Can anyone else see andy doing that next to a large boat?--Thunderstruck^{YOU'VE BEEN...} 21:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Obligatory. Vulpius (talk) 23:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Situation awareness fail²

You see that lovely picture of a train? Well, it's the German ICE. "And?" you ask. Well, you know how Kenny Boy always rails against government and Europe going deep into recession because it's atheistic? Well that train was not only developed when Deutsche Bahn was state owned but when it was a department of the German government. Fucking socialism, right? Well, the laughs don't stop. The ICE broke several speed records and is one of the technical archivements Germans are really proud of (you know, beside the car, aspirin, MP3 and protestantism). So, let's sit back and take in the irony of this. --★uːʤɱ anti-communist 19:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes but obviously you were more christian then... or something. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 19:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh that reminds me — about that protestant work ethic thing: So what is Kenny telling us with this? Basically that a good work ethic makes up for atheism. Just one problem, a good work ethic is based on values, apparantly atheist can have values then. --★uːʤɱ libertarian 20:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I have a pair of knipex bolt cutters. You guys should be proud of those too because they're easily the best tool I have. The story you told also reminded me of that time the BNP used a picture of a Polish squadron spitfire for an anti-immigration poster. X Stickman (talk) 20:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

"Godspeed" is spelled the same way in English and in German, apparently. Thanks for that highlight, UHM. Made my day. -- Seth Peck (talk) 22:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Freudian slip, Andy?

No, it's best to keep key related information in one entry, like a real encyclopedia.^img (emphasis added) MDB (talk) 12:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Already mentioned four-ish topics above. -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that later. Still, though.... it's classic. MDB (talk) 17:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Joaquín is so Nice!

he even greets the talk pages of user sidepages!^img--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 01:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, what am I missing? He's just welcoming the guy on his talk page, per SOP. --Inquisitor (talk) 02:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not his talk page - it's the talk page of his subpage. He's already been welcomed on his real one. Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 02:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Fine. But to me this is akin to picking on people for typos and other innocent mistakes. But that's just me. --Inquisitor (talk) 02:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

i know its a mistake. thats also obviously not a username though--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 02:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Launchbooty's latest.

I'd just like to note, childishly, that Launchbooty's latest contains the following regarding Santorum:

"If cream always rises to the top, then Santorum may well be the cream of the crop."

Sometimes, immaturity is warranted. -- Gen. S.T. Shrink ^{That's what she said.} 23:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Such comments used to make me laugh so hard I shoot milk out my nose. But I don't drink milk anymore, so it's White Russians this time. -- Seth Peck (talk) 23:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

At least its not whiskey. ouch.--Thunderstruck^{YOU'VE BEEN...} 23:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The GOP is the cream of society - thick, rich and full of clots. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 05:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Is that a White Russian or Santorum shooting out your nose? nobs^Moderated 05:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

We all know the joke, Rob, you don't need to point it out. - π 05:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

is it truely a joke now? [Warning: TvTropes]--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 05:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

No, it is no longer a joke thanks to Rob. He has killed another thread through his lack of basic social skills. - π 05:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Two in one day

Launchbooty is an angry old man. I still won't read it but I think I know whats in it.--Thunderstruck^{YOU'VE BEEN...} 01:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

So if he didn't do something he was a tyrant threatening religious liberty, but by reaching a compromise, he is a weak because he didn't stand his ground and crush religious liberty? Why don't they just post a headline Obama is wrong either, no matter what he does? It would save time. - π 05:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

because that would be to simple; to lazy... to obvious... they wpuld be expecting THAT--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 05:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The comments section makes for some... interesting reading. I swear Terry is getting more and more unhinged with each post. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 15:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Intro to CP's Hollywood Article

Andy: "Hollywood -- best known for its harmful Hollywood Values" --^img...really? One would have thought it was best known for being the fucking historic capital of American cinema. --Night Jaguar (talk) 01:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

History? Pfft. Demography? Pfft. Geography? Pfft. Ramblings about an industry that has "mostly moved out", that's what an encyclopedia needs! --★uːʤɱ heretic 01:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

What does an american need to know about history, its not happening now it doesnt matter! same for demography and geography; if it doesnt tell us where and how to make fun of liberals or kill terrorists it doesnt matter! --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 02:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Borken

What's with the weird random characters and the message across the top? P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 02:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The antivirus on this computer complained when I tried to load the page. It was working fine a few minutes ago. Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 02:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Owned again? I don't think Andy is quite up to being a sysadmin. Perhaps he ought to move Conservapedia to Wikia or something. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 03:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Return of Global Warming

Anyone but me miss andy's trolling in this ridiculously warm winter?--Thunderstruck^{YOU'VE BEEN...} 23:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Irony overload

"If there were not tragic, we might suggest that God has a sense of humor:"^img The guy giving a writing course fucks up English grammar so hard it lies in a coma. --★uːʤɱ pirate 23:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Beat ya to it.--Thunderstruck^{YOU'VE BEEN...} 23:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, the law of making-a-typo-while-criticizing-someone-else's-writing strikes again. Ajkgordon (talk) 23:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Skitt's Law. And I gave you an "i". -- Seth Peck (talk) 23:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Damn you, Skitt's law! --★uːʤɱ socialist 23:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Annnnnnd commenting is locked on the page. Humiliating the Leader with your 'facts' will NOT be tolerated! DogP (talk) 00:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

And now the UK is the "land of the global warming hoax". Presumably God is telling my fellow Brits not only that climate change is a lie but also to support the underdog, encourage greater social mobility and lay off the bestiality. Andy, you are a bloody tit!--Spud (talk) 06:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

"bloody tit" -- that didn't bring to mind pleasant imagery. F 06:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Are we sure Andy isn't a parodist?^img --Night Jaguar (talk) 07:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

"Brits did not support the underdog in WWII, until they became one themselves." So the teacher of world history, doesn't seem to know that the Brits entered the war, precisely because they were supporting the underdog - Poland. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 07:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

But they didn't support the underdog CSSR. The logic of Andy's thinking: to prove that you are wrong, one example will be sufficient. But he himself is right until proven wrong in every single instance. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 07:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

EXCEPT... this morning where I live in the Welsh Marches it's cold but above freezing, no frost, no ice and no snow. Генгис^{Gum disease} 08:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

And here in Totnes it's been about freezing for a couple of weeks. Therefore, global warming is a hoax. Also, It'll be up to 7 C after the weekend. Sophie (talk) 11:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Going back to the underdog thing, has anyone shown him these adverts? They're built around people naturally supporting the underdog. X Stickman (talk) 15:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Blimey, Rex the Runt's career went downhill fast. Sophie (talk) 20:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Here in the 'Murrican heartland, it's actually seasonally cold and snowy for the first time this winter--I'm expecting Andy to announce this bit of winter weather as a sign that climate change is a hoax, disregarding the fact that it has not gone below freezing since Christmas. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 16:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

No! England supported Germany!^img And this man "teaches" world history? --PsyGremlinHable! 16:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Jesus, that's rich. Let's see, Chamberlain compromised with Germany in order to (he thought) ensure peace. The alternative was a war Britain was not prepared to fight. Fast forward a bit and Germany invades Poland, the UK and France go to war. What country is conspicuously absent from this declaration of war? Might it be in US, who really do have no problem with Germany running roughshod over other countries? It takes a direct attack on their military for them to get involved. So who's sticking up for the little guy in this scenario? Is Andy really this stupid? Turpis 3:16 (talk) 16:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't matter -- thermometers are a liberal conspiracy. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

He really is digging himself further into his own excrement to get attention, isn't he? Do you think he actually believes this nonsense about the British not supporting the underdogs and using the outbreak of the fucking second fucking world war to back up his claim? Or is he simply trying to get his laughable irrelevant blog noticed by making controversial claims? Whichever it is, he's still acting like the spoilt brat he so obviously is. Utter failure. Ajkgordon (talk) 17:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The man's level of stupidity is monumental. Also, what about WWI, Andy? Didn't Britain go to war specifically for the rights of small nations such as Belgium? Oh, that's right, Britain was a True Christian Nation back then, they didn't become atheists until the 1930s. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 17:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Andy needs a tag team reliever; how my doing so far? nobs^Moderated 20:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

You need to figure out how global warming is false, dispite the warm weather.--Thunderstruck^{YOU'VE BEEN...} 23:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

He was getting beat up on the WWII stuff and I think I turned the tide on that; time to send the starter back in. nobs^Moderated 23:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

If, by "turned the tide", you mean "looked easily as stupid as Andy", then yes, you turned the tide. Good job! But why do you care? Why are you pretending that the UK hates underdogs? This is surely not an opinion you had ever considered before Andy uttered it, so why invest so much into it that you're willing, nay eager, to look like a complete dumbass? You're a weird guy, Rob. Phiwum (talk) 00:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not pretending the UK hates underdogs, that's an argument someone else has with Andy. I'm challenging the assertion the UK guaranteed Poland's independence, which as an historical fact can be proven was utter bullshit. nobs^Moderated 01:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, what you're doing is reminding us that you're an idiot and a prick, but I guess that can't easily be avoided. WeaselNation (talk) 05:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Look, Rob, there could be a tendency from us Brits to indulge in a lot of indignant dick-waving in the face of all this nonsense about the UK being quite happy watching all the other countries being invaded by Nazi Germany somehow proving the point that the British don't support underdogs. And yes, we are all very aware that the "official" British version of history is laden with propaganda and pride.

But that pride is based in reality. Sure, there are loads of examples of questionable and downright immoral behaviour by Britain just before, during, and just after WWII. These were after all incredibly dangerous times for the UK as they were for Europe and indeed the rest of the world and there were many very difficult decisions taken that were never going to please everyone.

But writing off Britain's stance against Hitler by throwing around stupid claims that Chamberlain was a "leftist" (unbelievably ignorant comment however many quotemines you can rustle up), or that Britain's attempted defence of Poland (by declaring war on one of the most powerful military forces the world had ever seen no less) was negated because Poland ended up in the hands of the Soviets or that some petty-minded politicians had refused to allow some Polish servicemen their place in a London march, is just plain unadulterated stupidity.

While you might possibly share Aschlafly's hard-on for bashing the the Brits (there's an image I thought I'd share), you would have more success at looking even half-way sane if you picked other topics like Britain's treatment of the sub-continent. Dumbing down to your master's level just to try to curry favour makes you look like a fucking dickhead. Ajkgordon (talk) 09:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

You forget. Rob is desperate to curry favour with Andy, in a futile effort to regain his rights. Therefore whatever Dear Leader says is true and you must twist reality to make sure is stays true. At least Karajou, despite having read Rise & Fall of the Third Reich several times, knows it's better to turn tail and run from such insanity (as usual for him) than try to make shit up.

I agree with the earlier assertion - this is just another attempt by Andy to fling shit around, to see if anybody will pick up on it, and keep his blog relevant. The fact that he drives off his conservative base whilst doing so, seems to escape him. --PsyGremlinParlez! 10:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Jesus, do I have to explain this twice. I retract the term "leftist"; it was late, I was tired, I meant to simply say "pacifist", but threw in the obligatory, TKesque, "leftist" to suck up to Andy to keep his interest cause he was doing so badly until I rescued his ass. And no, I don't hate the Brits; like the rest of the planet I share a love-hate relationship with them, and as an American, only a little moreso. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 13:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Rob, you do realise that whatever "sucking up to Andy" you do, is immediately undone by your running over here to tell us, right? After all, karajou is watching... always watching. --PsyGremlinParla! 13:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

View it this way: that posting was groundbreaking. I was ready to throw in the towel and quit all over again when JonM removed portions of the conversation on Andy's page; now he's even got a promotion. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 13:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Exactly what ground was broken with that posting? WeaselNation (talk) 17:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I openly said on a talk page I used the term "leftist" without thinking only to suck up to the boss. Very TKesque. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 17:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I have to say, Rob, I find it very difficult to follow your postings on here. It's almost like you're having another conversation about something completely different on another site and just c&p random bits of it in here. Ajkgordon (talk) 17:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Here's the edit; it's not unlike last summer when I, for the first time in several years, referred to Rationalwiki on CP as RW rather than "vandal site" and went unreverted. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 18:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Well done! Please hold still a moment while I pin a medal on you. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 18:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I still don't understand why you want anything to do with that site. You seem to agree with the overall RW view that CP is a fucked up mess beyond repair, and yet you still keep trying to get back in there. To do what? X Stickman (talk) 21:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Because his views are accepted there; few others would put up with it--il'Dictator Mikal 21:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

WIGO4881

There's a problem with this one in that it keeps appearing in a pretty fucked up way on the RSS feed. Whoever added it did so as "wigo4881?", and it could be that that's causing it. When I previewed a change to plain old "wigo4881" all the votes were lost. Can someone technical fix this? TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 10:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

This is what I'm talking about. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 10:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I suspect there's nothing to be done about it. Some moron put a question mark after the wigo number which seems to make the pipe used to generate the RSS unhappy. Someone would need to go in to the database and rename the row, and possibly mandate that special characters in WIGO names are URL encoded. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 12:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Changed it to plain old wigo4881. All votes are lost, but that's better than no votes appearing at all. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Yah, I could have done that myself. I was hoping that one of the people pretending to have database competence could have sorted it out properly. It seems there's nobody here with those qualifications. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 20:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

There is nobody left to do that. - π 00:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm the one who made the RSS feed via yahoo pipes. It doesn't use the database, but takes the actual HTML page and slices and dices it up. Because of the way it's done with regular expressions, it will be messed up if the standard format isn't followed. I don't have access to the database, and Nx was too uncooperative at the time to help out making something more legitimate. Now that it is in the correct format, the feed will right itself, but the wigo in the database requires a tech to fix, and probably isn't worth it. sterile^talk 16:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Countdown to Grave Dancing

3...2...--Thunderstruck^{YOU'VE BEEN...} 01:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

We actually prefer to not deal in the pre-emptive dancing on graves that you've just engaged in. You doing it is in some ways worse than Andy doing it. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 01:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Not really grave dancing. More of a warning. You know its coming, I know its coming.--Thunderstruck^{YOU'VE BEEN...} 01:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm with Thunderstruck. I'm counting down too. Senator Harrison (talk) 01:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

You're using someone's death to score a cheap point against an unrelated person/issue, to point out that someone is an asshole before they've even done anything yet. That makes you as much of a grave dancer, I'm afraid. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 01:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I still don't think its grave dancing. Trolling, maybe. Me being an asshole, oh hell yeah (never liked her anyway. Music was terrible).But grave dancing. No.--Thunderstruck^{YOU'VE BEEN...} 02:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

No, no, you are trying to score a cheap point from Andy, how is that different from the cheap point Andy might try to make against Hollywood values etc? - π 02:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Whitney Houston's rendition of the Star Spangled Banner at the Superbowl is among one of the greatest and most memorable performances ever at a time stars are often criticized for butchering it. I was all tingly and damn proud to be an American that day. Andy should tread carefully. nobs^Moderated 02:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Not grave dancing, taunting, but not grave dancing. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 02:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Nope. Using a death to score cheap points = grave dancing. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 02:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Theres no talking to you, is there?--Thunderstruck^{YOU'VE BEEN...} 02:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure there is. But I'm right and you're wrong, so there ain't much else to say. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 02:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree compleatly. Except the "You are right, I am wrong thing".--Thunderstruck^{YOU'VE BEEN...} 02:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

@Thunderstruck, you might have more success if you advanced an argument on how your behaviour is different from Schlalfy's rather than just trying to give it a different name. - π 02:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

For starters, I'm indifferant to this womans death. I was pointing it out like one points out 10 o'clock at 9:55. Andy on the other hand is giggling with glee at the news. If you are taking pleasure at some ones death, its grave dancing.--Thunderstruck^{YOU'VE BEEN...} 03:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

How do you know he is "giggling with glee" he has posted nothing about it or edited her article? For all you know he could just as well be downcast as one of his favourite artists died. I hope you are not claiming to be psychic. - π 03:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, have you ever seen andy after a celebrities death? When Charlie Sheen dies, I can already read the headline involving the word "Losing".--Thunderstruck^{YOU'VE BEEN...} 03:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I would assume hes basing it on precedent. Not that we can know atm, what with CP not existing atm--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 03:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

When Walter Cronkite died, Andy wrote, "Walter Cronkite, RIP". If ever he was going to vent his spleen, it wouldv'e been there. nobs^Moderated 03:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Ugh, I hate it when people post this shit at RW, it makes us all look bad. The woman has just died, lets wait a few days before we try to score cheap political points out of it. Sheesh. Damo^Hi 04:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I would say a lot of people suffer to an extent from the effects of what Nietzsche would term "gazing into the abyss". The sheer amount of repulsive grave dancing, laughing at the suffering of innocents, and overall douchebaggery that emanates from Andrew Schlafly and his flunkies means that there will be invariably some who are so disgusted by what they read, that in firing back they unknowingly and unintentionally move closer to the line which separates Andy from humanity. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 05:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Here it is [6]^img nobs^Moderated 04:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Why is it such a big deal to point out something that is obviously going to happen? I can totally understand thuderstruck's POV. Andy is a dick. We're counting down to his latest example. We're not using someones death to advance a retarded, fucked up, deranged, low, moronic, idiotic, etc, social theory like he is. All we're doing is guessing how long it will be until HE does it. Senator Harrison (talk) 07:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

"something that is obviously going to happen? " Several hours psssed, still no grave-dancing from Andy, only from a few RW editors. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 14:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I haven't seen any grave dancing from RW editors. Senator Harrison (talk) 14:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

See above--people using someone's death as a way to score cheap points against Andy. Whether it's Andy using someone's death to score cheap points against "Hollywood values" or RW editors using a death to score cheap points against CP/Aschlafly, it's still using a death to score cheap points. And that's grave dancing. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 14:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

P-Foster is correct. While in mitigation most of us expect Aschlafly to do what he has done in the past, until he actually does it, using Houston's death to taunt or troll him is little or no better than what he is likely to do anyway. Although the very existence of this thread may persuade him not to. Which is either a good thing or just makes RW look stupid. Ajkgordon (talk) 15:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Whitney's Youtube Star Spangled Banner's had 5 million hits overnite, probably driven by cable traffic. Give Andy credit for enough sense to stay away from this one. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 15:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll give Andy credit for not jumping the gun here, but if drugs are involved in her death (and let's face it, that's not a hugely remote possibility) do you honestly think Andy won't make a "Hollywood Values" post? I wouldn't bet against it. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 15:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Can we at least wait until he actually does it? Sophie (talk) 15:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I am waiting. I doubt I'll comment at all if and when it happens, as it's so old hat. I'm just objecting to Rob's premature "look, Andy did the right thing!" comment. Let's not pin a medal on him yet, Rob. The most we can say for Andy now is that he's learned not to make Hollywood Values comments when the cause of death is unknown, as that's bitten him in the ass in the past (so yes, he's doing better than he has in this department). Let's see what he does say when the cause of death is known before we condemn or praise him. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 15:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

There's a vague connection between drugs and violence, but in the case of Nixon's buddy cp:Elvis no one ever implies violence. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 15:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you ever say anything that makes sense, Rob? Turpis 3:16 (talk) 15:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Andy's implying a connection between drugs and violence in reporting Whitney Houston's death. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 16:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe? Or he's just saying that she wasn't murdered. I don't know why he mentioned the absence of violence, except I guess that was all the information they have. Maybe there's an implied "pssst...it must have been drugs!..." but that's reading a bit into it. No idea what this has to do with Elvis. The cause of Elvis's death is known, and it wasn't violence. No one implies violence in the deaths of Hendrix, Winehouse, Morrison, etc. What's your point? Turpis 3:16 (talk) 16:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes that would be a headline: "Whitney Houston dies without being murdered or decapitated by a Mexican Drug Cartel which recently donated to Obama." nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 16:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear (because you never are) you're saying that Andy's headline about Houston's death is implicitly stating she died of a drug overdose, correct? Turpis 3:16 (talk) 16:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

He vaguely making a connection between illegal drug use and violence, leaving it to the imagination the cause of death. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 16:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

If anything, wouldn't he be making a connection between drug use and the lack of violence? He doesn't mention drug use (to his credit), if he's implying it, it's because he sees it as the only viable alternative to violent death for a 48 year old (or at least you do, because you're reading that into it). I'm still not really sure what you're getting at here. There are other possible causes of death, you know. That said, if it does prove to be drug related I doubt anyone here will be completely flabbergasted. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 16:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

What's unstated for CP as an educational resource is, "kids, stay away from illegal drugs because of the potential for violence. See, Whitney only escaped decapitation from a Mexican drug cartel (which recently donated to Obama btw) because she had money, was off the streets, and could afford an expensive fancy hotel room." nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 16:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Answer me honestly now, Rob, are you retarded? Turpis 3:16 (talk) 17:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Are people here still doing this crap? Gloating that Andy will say something crass and ugly when someone dies is, itself, crass and ugly. Stop it please. Sophie (talk) 15:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

No one is gloating, dancing, or celebrating. I don't see what's so hard to understand. Senator Harrison (talk) 16:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Person dies. RatWik editor's first thought upon hearing news of that death: "Imma post about how I use this to imply that Andy is a prick, before he's even said anything about that person's death?" That's cheap, crass, horrible behavior, and I call it grave-dancing. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 16:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

You are an incredibly over-sensitive person. --★uːʤɱ structuralist 16:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I didnt think like that! my first thought was "well thats sad" then "back to the stream im watching!" then "andys probably going to end up grave dancing; make mental note to sigh when/if he does"--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 16:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

If anything it won't be Andy. Johnny X-Ray's the one who gloats over Hollywood values these days. --PsyGremlinSprich! 16:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

What you call grave-dancing is not what I would call grave-dancing. What irked me, and what caused me to comment, was that you said "we". Senator Harrison (talk) 18:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Grave dancing is a specific response to the dead, when you gloat over their death because you enjoy it. Andy Grave danced on Garry Coleman, Andy did not grave dance on the death of Steve Jobs, He Grave robbed that one. You private language is much less important than what words and terms actually mean. I privately call people who like feet pedophiles, that doesn't make them pedophiles. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 22:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

"The Star Bangled Spanner"

Rob: She sung an amazing star spangled banner once; which is exploding in youtube views!^imgtherefor you arent allowed to say anything bad about her. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 16:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Might be barking up the wrong tree here

Andy might be setting up the local girl who got her start in church for canonization. Or he could be looking for the proper words with which to throw her under the bus. Hard to read. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 21:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Nah, he gave her his stamp of approval, a church goer can do no wrong. If it comes out to be something like a congenital heart defect it will be sad, if it was her well known coke habit then it will be the negative influence of the hollywood crowd. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 22:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Ho Ho Ho

Sometimes you'll just be link clicking through CP and find some wonderful unnoticed parody. Obviously I am not going to out it but my point is some real nuggets still remain. Ace^Moderator 05:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Poor things, they really know fuck all outside their teeny tiny worlds. They can't even spot the parodies in *** let alone anything not in the US. It must be an extra-ordinary mind that can have a world view written on one side of a piece of paper. And poor rob hasn't managed to train his voice recognition software either, see "How my doing" ^. dreadfully sad. 82.23.210.230 (talk) 06:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)Arse

That was deliberate-I even paused and backspaced over my correction("How am I doing" sounded to formal; "How'm I doing" looks self centered and isn't a contraction) to maintain my hillbilly shorthand. But I'm not a hillbilly nor even from the South, so I have to work at getting in character to keep non-Americans amused and maintain their stereotypes. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 13:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Shorter Rob: "I'm a fucking terrible liar." --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Shorter Rob: "I'm a fucking terrible liar person." P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 14:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

How'm my a terrible person? maybe your just prejudiced against the underprivileged and disadvantaged. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 15:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Your disadvantage is that you're a terrible person. ^{ONE / TALK} 17:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 18:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Rob's main disadvantage is that he is incredibly thick. See "How my doing" ^. 82.23.210.230 (talk) 21:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)Sphincter

Andy's socks

Andy runs socks. JonG shut off editing and is cleaning up right now. His user page says, Never take to heart what users say on that site. You'll become obsessed with everything they do (a critique of the late TK, and perhaps Ken too). If you're going to edit here, care about constructive edits alone. "Constructive edits" is also interchangeable with "productive activities". When he fails to respond during protracted arguments, he's usually engaged as one of the minor editors some mistake as an suck-up infiltrator or parodist. nobs^Moderated 00:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The fact you missed that it is also a critique of you speak volumes. - π 00:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

One point I'm making is Andy's word is what becomes CP policy; sometimes I think Andy forgets he laid down a rule under a sock name, and forgot he didn't do in his own. That's why actions and decisions can be so arbitrary. nobs^Moderated 01:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The only point you are making is that you are an idiot. JonG does not have account rights to turn off the database and he has made only one edit in the last two months and that was two days ago. The only one cleaning up over there is Jpatt, if the database if turned off it was probably him. - π 01:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

You're right. It's JonM cleaning up, whose first edit was this. nobs^Moderated 01:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

"Andys word becomes law". NO SHIT. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 01:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Here's an example of Andy laying down a standard of civility, conduct, and blocking through a sock that only Andy and his socks understand (with the possible exception of Karajou, who Andy regards as over-eager, but won't undo or call attention to his mistakes). nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 13:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Somehow, Andy doesn't seem like the kinda guy who socks up. But it is kinda cute to see you calling him out as a deceitful person. Why, two-faced, almost. Phiwum (talk) 12:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

WW II

What is it with the spectacularly thick Andrew that he thinks the Brits were happy with Germany invading most of Europe? Sphincter82.23.210.230 (talk) 22:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

you should read his world history lectures someday.--il'Dictator Mikal 22:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Some day, one of us Brits is going to go over to NJ and write a strongly worded letter to him. -- 22:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Cant you do that via email or international postage?--il'Dictator Mikal 22:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Personal appearances are always more impactful. -- Seth Peck (talk) 23:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

do you honestly want to talk to him?--il'Dictator Mikal 23:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear Britain: My father was in WWII, stationed as a medic at Pearl Harbor (he enlisted after the attack), and he made it home. He often talked to me and my brother and sister about the bravery of the Brits, and the unfathomable hardships they endured during The Blitz and in southeast Asia. In no way, shape, or form, does a turd of an American like Andru speak for us. It was truly your "finest hour". Jimaginator (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Ken picks up the gun... aaaaand shoots himself in the foot...

Plus actual grave dancing!^img

While Ken takes the piss at England (I guees he means the UK but we don't want his brain to explode), he misses that Oslo, Stockholm, Zurich, Dublin, Prais and Munich are also in that list. Oh if you wonder what exactly is going on in Hartford, a quick look at Wikipedia gives you a clue: "Hartford is the historic international center of the insurance industry". Well then, there's nothing better than insurance companies who's profits go right back to the community… oh, wait… --★uːʤɱ pervert 23:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Cheap shot at Hitchens, AND he berates Richard Dawkins for being married three times (sound like anyone we know?), even though his current marriage to Romana Lalla Ward is twenty years strong. -- Seth Peck (talk) 23:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, keep in mind the only people left in Buffalo are the Bills, and the NFL dictates a minimum salary in the hundreds of thousands. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 23:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

More 2012 flip flop!

Damn rinos calling an election early^imgConservatives never do that!--il'Dictator Mikal 06:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Wait...didn't they do EXACTLY that on caucus night? -- Seth Peck (talk) 06:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Yep. And here they pretend they didn't announce the results not because they didn't like the winner, but over concern that the results weren't complete. Didn't stop them from calling Colorado for Santorum when about 70% of the results were in, and Santorum was only up by about 1%. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 13:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

that was different! it wasnt a calling, just a prediction!--il'Dictator Mikal 06:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Why are we even worrying with an election? Andy already created an article for the Gingrich administration^img. Gingrich will be president. End of story. --Night Jaguar (talk) 07:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

You have to admit that Andy's clever on his "predictions." He's asserted that the only one that counts is his ranking article. And since that conveniently changes according to the political winds, he's certain of being "right." I'd be curious to see a table of the changes in the top five ranking, though, over the months.--^talk 07:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Making such a chart now.--^talk 07:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

	19/11/10	18/1/11	12/8/11	4/2/12	12/2/12
1	Gingrich	Romney	Romney	Romney	Bush
2	Romney	Gingrich	Bachmann	Gingrich	Romney
3	Paul	Bush	Paul	Bush	Gingrich
4	Bachmann	Rubio	Gingrich	Palin	Palin
5	Palin	Palin	Pawlenty	Paul	Santorum

We can see from this chart that Andy's rankings have little predictive power, but instead have fallen pretty closely the most recent set of trends. Incredibly, he still has Bush in the running (at first no less!) despite the idiocy of such a prediction (Obama would love nothing more than to run against another Bush; Jeb cannot get into the race at this point, because of simple mathematics; at a brokered convention the GOP will certainly not engage in what would be perceived as disenfranchisement of all those who voted). Depending on whether they're the flavor of the month, figures like Santorum, Pawlenty, Bachmann, and Rubio all appear and disappear. Essentially a worthless article at CP.--^talk 08:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Now with 95% of the precincts reporting in, Romney is still the winner; think Andy will acknowledge his victory once it hits 100%?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 08:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Feb 2012, Palin ahead of Santorum? I wonder if he understands anything at all about GOP politics. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 12:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Jeb #1? When your best hope is somebody who's not even running, you know things are pretty desperate. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 13:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Best hope? This isn't about hopes, man. This is about disinterested reckoning of the facts of the matter, about making predictions based on the keenest understanding of political science. How dare you claim that this is about hopes? Phiwum (talk) 13:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

And Jeb ought to have about $1.50 in his campaign coffers by June, too. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 13:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Here's a slightly more complete list of rankings I made late last year, showing how often he changed his mind, based on god-knows-what:

Jan 1 - Mitt, Newt, Rubio, Palin

Feb 15 - Mitt, Newt, Rubio, Bush

March 30 - Mitt, Newt, Bachmann, Rubio

April 22 - Mitt, Trump, Newt, Bachmann

June 1 - Mitt, Newt, Bachmann, Bush

July 3 - Mitt, Bachmann, Bush, Newt

July 22 - Mitt, Bachmann, Bush, Ron Paul

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

Sept 1 - Mitt, Perry, Bachmann, Paul

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

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

Nov 3 - Mitt, Bush, Cain, Newt

Nov 20 - Mitt, Newt, Cain, Bush

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

Jan 25: Mitt, Newt, Paul, Santorum

Feb 1: Mitt, Newt, Bush, Palin

Today: Bush, Mitt, Newt, Palin

The fact that he has Palin anywhere near the top 4 proves he's a moron. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 13:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it's pretty sad that despite spending SOOOOOO much time talking about politics he is so utterly clueless about it. --Night Jaguar (talk) 15:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The most you can say for him is that he was bullish on Newt when no one else was, and Newt's performance has exceeded beyond what any pundits thought it would a year ago. Of course, I don't credit Andy with any real insight here, he picked Newt among the top rank because he was his favorite candidate. I'm still not sure why Andy's been such a Newt guy and lukewarm, at best, on Santorum. Santorum seems tailor made for Andy (pun slightly intended). Turpis 3:16 (talk) 17:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Believe it or not, Santorum is too "pro-abort" for Andy. Amazing, eh? I think Andy's hard-on for Gingrich might have something to do with Gingrich having been a spoiler for the last Democratic president--he might figure that he's the guy best equipped to do that again. Also, Newt had histurn as the ABR guy, but he's really fallen off the map since South Carolina. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 17:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the whole "pro-abort" thing is a rationalization, not a reason why he doesn't embrace Santorum. It's just based on Santorum's support for Specter back when he was still a Republican right? Senators support their colleagues in their party all the time, particularly when they're from the same state. Pretty flimsy excuse. I think there's more to it (my theory is he's following his mom, but I can't back it up). Turpis 3:16 (talk) 17:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I see it more as a projection-type thing. Newt is what Andy wants to be (while ignoring his adultery, of course), and so Newt gets his support. They both have gigantic egos, are slightly stupid, a little bit prejudiced (that "language of the ghetto"-thing really reminds me of something Andy might say) and both see themselves as massively talented to do basically anything. It's a bit like the highly class-havy Brits supporting the underdog (well, as everybody went so batshit about it I'm just assuming support is a bit heavier then in the rest of Europe) or people liking super-heroes that don't kill, because most people would. --★uːʤɱ socialist 17:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

By why Newt over Santorum? I don't buy that it's just because he once supported a single pro-choice colleague. Santorum seems more ideologically pure, and has less baggage, including Newt's condemnation of the Republican budget last year. Both Andy and Santorum are papists too, as well as being two of the most anti-gay people who don't belong to Westboro Baptist. They're even similar geographically. It seems a perfect fit. Hurlbutt gets it. Why doesn't Andy? Turpis 3:16 (talk) 18:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

It only makes sense when you realize Andy is a rabid anti-RINO ("Stop Mitt at all costs!"). I though for years CP's Alan Simpson was ratvandal parody that needed a cleanup only to recently discover Andy wrote it. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 18:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

So, as an administrator you let what you thought was parody stand for years? --Night Jaguar (talk) 18:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

It was a question of priorities, where to begin cleaning up parody in CP and replacing it with what? nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 18:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Reverting is so difficult? Anyway, if parody is so rampant and Poe's law makes it difficult even identifying it, the question becomes: why bother with CP other than for the laughs? But I guess people have asked you that plenty of times. --Night Jaguar (talk) 19:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Dick, "geographically similar"? You mean Western Pennsylvania and New Jersey? I tend to think they're pretty different. (Remember, Santorum isn't from Philly!) Phiwum (talk) 21:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm talking about the states as a whole. Santorum represented the state of Pennsylvania, Andy is in New Jersey right next door. Sure, it isn't a huge issue for just about anyone, but it's something. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 22:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Consensus seems to be growing that Santorum is the Anyone But Romney candidate. This could be the death knell for our beloved Newt. Poor Andy. Now I wonder when he put Senator Frothy back in his top 4. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 22:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

You got it. Newt has too much baggage, and Andy as the premier anti-RINO analyst, figures Palin & Jeb have more name recognition than Santorum. Also Santorum doesn't have any bucks to lead an effective "Stop Mitt" movement. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 23:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

This just in - the Lamestream Media now agrees with Andy. Kind of. Who's laughing now liberals? Tielec01 (talk) 05:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Or not. Yes, that article says it's possible, but we knew that already. I'd wager Jeb is probably more likely to be the nominee than Ron Paul, in fact. Ranking him #1 at this time? No. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 14:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)