Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive279

This is an archive page, last updated 26 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>, <278>, <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)

JoMar goes completely off the rails

The Syrian rebels are "mercenaries" of Hillary-Obama.^img

Ok, ok. We all know Jomar gets a hard-on just thinking about any dictator, but saying the rebels are mercenaries (i.e. "getting paid for this") by someone is pretty out there. Second what the hell does he mean by "Hillary-Obama"? Did somebody fuse the two or does Hillary not have earned the right to have a last name? Why not a full name for both? I don't even… --★uːʤɱ kant 16:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

JoMar has always struck me as one of the most simple-minded editors over there. Others are stupid, but in a more creative way; Andy and Terry's ways they try to wiggle out of or defend the stupid statements they constantly make comes to mind. Joaquin, on the other hand, just seems to write crap without even understanding what any of it means, then go on and ignore it as if it never happened. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 16:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Really? I always thought Joaquin wasn't such a bad sort. He sticks to his art and doesn't join in much with the regular two minutes hates. Other than his weird support for dictators, I haven't really seen him perpetrate much idiocy. Nothing to compare with Ken or Ed, or even with Chuckarse when he's off his meds. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, supporting Assad, Qaddaffi and Mubarak is pretty extreme/hard to over look. Also, I can't be arsed to go through the archives right now, but he's posted some stuff that screams "crypto-antisemitism." P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 17:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Jeeves, that's just the thing, he doesn't get involved in political topics much, but when he does his views are so naive that I can't help but think he steers clear of them because he really is clueless about them (in the real sense of the word, not the Andy sense). So instead he posts pictures of sculptures and calls them paintings and goes about his business. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 17:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I must respectfully disagree; Jomar has more in common with AceMcWicked, as a non-American and coming from a country that feels the impact of American foreign policy decisions, yet they don't feel they get the recognition and respect from America they are entitled to as a loyal ally all these years. So Jomar's sniping at US actions is not unlike Ace's, at all. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 18:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Except this doesn't even really involve the US. The US is not engaged in Syria right now (though they obviously favor a certain side here). And Ace doesn't stick up for dictators who kill their own people. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 19:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Jomar has more in common with AceMcWicked Really, Rob? Must you? Cow...Hammer^time! 19:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The issue doesn't matter. The fact the US is looking at, or contemplating some sort of response, or for that matter ignoring or neglecting a response, the US will be criticized by non-US observers. At least or until their own ass is being threatened by beliigerency, disease, or natural disaster. Then they are all for US assistance. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 19:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

So Jomar's sniping at US actions is not unlike Ace's, at all. Hmmm I don't seem to remember ever sniping at US actions. How very strange. Ace^Moderator 19:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Shorter Rob: All foreigners are the same. USA! USA! --Night Jaguar (talk) 19:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

@Ace, not to derail things, but you think Bush did a bang up job bringing democracy to Iraq? (bring it to my talk page if you like) nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 22:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Rob just redefined "snipping at" with "disagreeing with" without any sarcasm. That's worth something. I think a bitchslap worth. --★uːʤɱ socialist 22:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Why is it we talk about anything, Rob pops in to take a cheap-shot at Ace out of the blue; dude sleep with Rob's girlfriend or something? WTF?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 03:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Rob is just deeply concerned about the influence of third-world backwater countries on the international rugby scene, he can't help himself if he gets mad at Ace for no reason. Cut him some slack. RachelW (talk) 07:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Reading RationalWiki's entry on Joaquín, I was dismayed to learn that he was a professor at the National Autonomous University of Mexico, home of my beloved soccer team "Pumas", and the alma mater of my father, who is, of all things, a physicist. Not really relevant to anything... just goes to show that idiots come in every language.

Britain controlled New York once

rob: perhaps thats why the economy there sucks?^img also a bet; who wants $100 from rob?--il'Dictator Mikal 01:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

How stupid is that guy? I don't think London has ANY "gay bath houses." --Fergus Mason (talk) 02:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

"or within a reasonable margin of error" <-- That is his escape clause, so if you show him wrong, he'll just use it to never pay up. Also where he said "wasn't Buffalo, and the Empire State, once part of the British Empire? perhaps that's why now they are not doing so good"; Buffalo wasn't founded until 1801 (Incorporated 1832); well after the Revolutionary War. So it was as much a part of the British Empire as Kentucky, which is to say, not at all.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 02:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's see, of those top 20 cities I believe Hartford, Bridgeport, Boston, New York, Dublin, and Calgary were all part of the British Empire at one point. Mightn't that explain why they are doing so well? No? It's an irrelevant factoid? Yeah, I thought so. Besides, all these statistics mean is that most of these cities managed to drive the poor people out with unaffordable real estate prices. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 03:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

You mean you'd take Paris over Des Moines? nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 03:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I've been to Des Moines; Omaha is better--il'Dictator Mikal 03:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Just to clear up the more important point, London has loads of 'Gay bath houses'. The gays refer to them as saunas over here. AMassiveGay (talk) 08:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Was mentioning how many gay bath houses Buffalo has a subtle dig at Kendoll, or am I giving Nobbykins too much credit? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 08:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Hang on, wasn't Rob just taking the piss out of Conservative with that post? Ajkgordon (talk) 09:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not so much a question of whether he was or not, as whether or not he was doing it deliberately. I really hope it was, we don't need another Kenny. -- 11:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The Word of God strikes again! See Rob deliver the old one-two knock out punch with Ezek 16:49. HumanGeographer is credited with the assist. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 18:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

wigoingt youreself rob? reallly?--il'Dictator Mikal 18:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Green Energy

Andy: Green Energy doesnt always work^img, therefor its actually more harmful then good. I dont think andy understands the concept of a secondary source of power/backup--il'Dictator Mikal 06:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Riiiight, because oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico are never impacted by Hurricanes, Katrina didn't touch Louisiana refineries, and a certain nuclear plant in Japan was immune to the forces of nature. Not that repairing windmills at sea is easy or cheap, but it's a lot better than decontaminating a county. I'd also like to see Andy eating Gulf seafood from 2 summers ago, or eating anything caught around Fukushima right now. There's cleanup, and then there's cleanup. --DinsdaleP (talk) 13:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

He also appears to not understand the concept of "inefficient". -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear Manchild at a right-wing hate blog

In regards to the "ex-thief, atheist and evolutionist converts to Christ, changes his life and then tragically died in a car accident" please see HERE. --PsyGremlinParla! 13:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Just sounds like a guy who always was a theist, but also was a world class asshole, and after he felt guilt-ridden about being a world class asshole, had a religious experience and now seeks to blame evolution as an excuse for his own past shitty behavior.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 14:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Please at least link to the original Depeche Mode version. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 14:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

....and to the relevant CP link? P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 14:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Added linkypoo. I thought God was supposed to prevent tragedies when people converted to devoting their entire lives, worshiping him out of fear? But here, some guy (never heard of?) "converts", according to Ken, yet still dies tragically, but is still an inspiration? And yet, the article basically admits creation ministries using the death as a plug to hand out magazines and tracts. Jeez! Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 14:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

He rode his motorcycle into a cow. Is that worth a Darwin Award nomination? Whoover (talk) 16:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I know, right? You can almost picture god up there laughing his arse off. "He says he's going to devote the entire of the rest of his life to serving me! Get the camera, Gabrielle. I can't wait to see the look on his face when he sees the cow!" --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Who is this Gabrielle bint of which you speak? Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 19:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Curse my spelling, and curse your pedantry! :D (And of course, she's the ditzy one that follows Xena around of course. Any good astronomer knows that.) --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

CMI states he died instantly, while Whoover's link says he died at the scene (colleagues tried CPR). Don't know whether they consider that instant death or if that's just to hopefully push that all-merciful belief. Either way, I'd hate to join a religious organization and they later use my funeral as a marketing gimmick. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 22:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I never knew JoMar was an atheist

But what other explanation is there for leaving the "Saint" out of "Saint Valentine's Day"? Turpis 3:16 (talk) 14:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, "valentine's day"? Dude you've gotta capitalize that shit… It's a proper noun. Now that I notice it, shouldn't there be a comma between Day and everyone? (Although, I realize I should be the last to bitch about these things… I'm tryin', dammit!) I guess Jomar got into the candy with liquor in it. --★uːʤɱ federalist 15:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Eh, his grammar's not exactly at native level, nothing new there. And we all know he's always been doing his own thing on CP without paying attention to Andy's pet peeves, so the missing "SAINT" in "SAINT Valentine's Day" shouldn't come as a big surprise - he's just using the term pretty much everybody else uses. --Sid (talk) 16:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Never fear, Andy set him straight.^img MDB (talk) 17:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Conservative in rare form!

Ken: Haha! Atheists and evilutionists are afraid to debate!^img
Peasant's Revolt: We'll take that challenge!^img
Ken: *Removes entire MPL entry after just 1 day*^img
Ken: (Just THREE MINUTES LATER) *uploads Backbone.jpg^img*

I say rare form because Conservative didn't even bother to troll the Main:Talk one bit, he just quietly removed the entry. Wasn't sure if it's worth a WIGO, but I thought the timing was worth a smirk. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 15:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Yo Dawg Atheism is gonna Burn! And be ran over by a runaway Train! and its gonna be paralyzed! And... uh... whatever else ken has promised will happen since summer last year! --il'Dictator Mikal 15:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Kenny's going to need to upload a lot more backbone before he tries challenging someone to a debate again. -- 15:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Ken is showing a lot of back bone. Took bad it's only because he is running away. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 17:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

More Launchbooty crazy

"The Bible, and specifically Genesis 1:20-23, says that God formed all swimmers at once, and also formed the flyers. The swimmers include a class of very large swimmers. The Royal Commission under King James I of the UK called them “great whales,” but the whales of today are a subset of these giant swimmers."

No, Terry... whales are mammals. The rest sort of goes downhill from there. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 17:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I very much enjoyed participating in these 'Days of Creation' conversations when they last cropped a few years back. I managed to get PJR to admit that birds probably just popped into existence in flight, and that penguins were probably created underwater. That was fun. DogP (talk) 18:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

And isn't Throwbottom a vet? Ajkgordon (talk) 18:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Clinical Pathologist - "Allow me to introduce myself fully: Terry A. Hurlbut, MD." -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 00:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I haven't read that before. I like the way he keeps saying carcinoma of the breast instead of breast cancer to make himself sound smarter than he is. - π 00:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The man could count to five and sound smarter than he actually is. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 04:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I can't get an interview at a medial school and launchass is an MD. The world is upside down :S --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 04:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

uh-oh

A user has just removed all of Conservative's "troll messages" on CP's talk: main page. Surely this will become interesting. GayGator (talk) 17:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

On second thought, she'll probably just be banned, reverted and forgotten. GayGator (talk) 17:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

"In other news, a squirrel that looks like Lincoln was found"--il'Dictator Mikal 17:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

She's gone. Imagine suggesting that not all sedimentary rocks are the result of dissolved sand precipitating from solution^img. I love when these guys talk science. Whoover (talk) 20:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

"Therefore, flood geologists point out, there is irrefutable evidence that at least 75% of the Earth's land was once covered in water." Awesome analysis, Ken. Of course, according to the Bible, the Great Flood covered 100% of the Earth's surface, so that assertion falls a little short. -- Seth Peck (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

and rather close to how things stand now. Nice one, Ken! Sophie^{because liberals} 21:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Creation "scientists" show the Earth had an atmosphere 21% oxygen, 78% nitrogen, and 1% argon with trace gases 6000 years ago, therefore the Earth is 6000 years old!--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 00:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

"A special bulletin, the Lincoln Squirrel has been assassinated. We'll stay with the story all night if we have to".--Thunderstruck^{YOU'VE BEEN...} 01:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Deconstructing Ken

My work has been cited by the LA Times, Chicago Tribune, USA Today and other major newspapers...jabber jabber, some un-named scholars^img. So lets look at this...

• Chicago Tribune: Mentions evolution article, not "cited" as a reliable or particularly good piece of work. Merely mentioned
• LA Times: As we know not a very glowing reference. Not to mention it was followed up by criticism days later.
• USA Today Again no mention of the author and not a glowing review of Ken's work
• Other newspapers: nothing found to support ken's claim he is cited as any sort of authority.
• Other "scholars" and ken's "friends": ShockofGod and NephilimFree. Aside from blog postings, forum postings and places like this there is nothing to suggest Ken is anything other than an creationist internet troll
  

....But we already knew that. Ace^Moderator 01:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I've had letters to the editors published in more major newspapers than that. Of course, those newspapers are all published in either wicked blue states or atheist, immoral, declining Englandistan, so I guess they don't count. ... of liberals? (talk) 02:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Hell as a freelance journo I have been published, by name and for profit, in nationally syndicated newspapers and magazines not to mention internationally circulated travel websites. Ace^Moderator 02:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

He's so cute And here look! the same article which doesn't cite me at all.^img Ace^Moderator 02:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

His whole premise is stupid. Somehow, passing mentions of his psychotic musings, on a shitty pseudo-encyclopedia are supposed to somehow make him a "somebody". --Inquisitor (talk) 02:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Just being a christian fighting for the faith is enough in kens mind to make you a somebody; while being atheist makes you an obscure nobody, or a complete coward--il'Dictator Mikal 03:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Well here's the kick in the teeth for people who think like Ken... based on his precious scripture, God loves Richard Dawkins just as much as He loves Ken. --Inquisitor (talk) 03:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

yeah Ken, that Chicago Trib bit is hardly something to crow about. here's a hint - they're laughing at you, not with you. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 04:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Ring! Ring! Ken knows we're right. Butthurt much?^img --PsyGremlinSprich! 05:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Can somebody figure out what he meant to tell us in that?--il'Dictator Mikal 05:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

You mean besides, "Help, my prescription has run out!" --PsyGremlinPraat! 05:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Anyone else get an Emperor Palpatine vibe, e.g. "Your faith in your friends is [your weakness]". ? -- Seth Peck (talk) 05:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Not before but now that you mention it--il'Dictator Mikal 05:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey! I got a shout out from the world famous Debate King! That must mean I've risen up through the atheist ranks. Hey Ken wanna debate? No? Anyway Ken, your reference to Romans 9:13 is pretty weak sauce. Normally I'd expect to get hit with some Psalm 5:5 or a splash of Proverbs 6:16-19. But, on the other hand, many Christians do believe God loves us all, and would counter with the classic John 3:16 or 1 John 4:16. Hmmm... Christians don't seem to agree on the matter. Clearly this is a theory in crisis!!! :) --Inquisitor (talk) 05:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

careful inquis, he might plaster you're name on several debate/essay challenges and accuse you of cowardice for not debating him... and accusing you of being a firefighter who didnt stop a burning building--il'Dictator Mikal 05:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

By your "definition", Ken, Ted Kaczynski's work has been "cited" by the New York Times and other newspapers too. And he's less insane than you are. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 07:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

And people know his real name. He's not just "User:Unabomber" or "15 explosions for academics." --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 07:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Ha,Ken. My website was featured in the Wall Street Journal and I have the cutting to prove it. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 11:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Hell, a section I used to run on an internet BBS was cited in one of the first editions of .net magazine. At least that was a positive mention. Worm (talk) 11:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't think issue 37 of .Net magazine was important enough to mention, nor the Melbourne Age. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 14:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Karajou makes no sense

This kind of bullshit^img should get more than 48 hours in the brig^img, Angry Bear. You goin' soft in your old age? P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 03:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I was surprised by that too; what gives Karabird? --il'Dictator Mikal 03:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems that the sysops are reluctant to ban RachelW outright, I have no idea why. Didn't we already yell at her about this? Tesformes (talk) 04:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

More interesting than the fact she wasn't perma-ed is the block reasoning - "threats". There certainly wasn't any threat in the post he removed, unless some publicly available knowledge about Ken could damage his 'standing' or by association CP. Of course, KJ could just be being dramatic so he can have one of his 'liberals in court' fantasies. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 04:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Heh, only because we wouldn't let her do it here. I'm amused. RachelW, if you're gonna do it, do it where no one can revert you. -- Seth Peck (talk) 04:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

She's welcome to make use of my blog. I'm not above scurrilous gutter journalism. That said, I think Kara also want to know, given that even he doesn't know the Man of Mystery's real identity, but thinks he is notorious internet troll kdbufalo. --PsyGremlinPraat! 05:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Aww, you see, now I want to know what this revealing information is. And also, where the hell she got it from. If public records are that easy to access, I could have some fun mindfucking people. -- 10:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

There's plenty of websites that offer the service, but they cost like $20 bucks I think. Maybe she has money to throw around. Senator Harrison (talk) 12:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

https://www.intelius.com - search Kenneth DeMyer in the state of New York. You can find out his address history for 95 cents. Senator Harrison (talk) 12:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Problem is that all those sites are so sleazy I wouldn't put it past them to sell your credit card details. I don't think I want to find out what mental hospital Kendoll lives in that badly. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Tell, what sort of sadistic glee does one take after spending 95 cents to embarrass one's ideological opponent? is it that hard to defeat Ken DeMyer on the merits of his writings? nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 13:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know, ask RachelW. Senator Harrison (talk) 14:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

There used to be a site where you could enter a name and city and you could get a street view of their house. Or their mum's house, in Ken's case. And property value. All for free. So I heard. Of course, if we wanted pics of Kara's house, we'd just send Dumpling on a scouting mission... --PsyGremlin講話 13:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe the info RW intimates at was already posted here and swiftly memory-holed. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 14:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

So, the Red Wings have won 21 straight games at home. Speaking of Michigan, Romney looks screwed here; not supporting the auto bailout really bit him in the ass. Gonna get warmer this week. The article I'm writing is coming along nicely. Oooooh, and that Donald Harrison live CD that they were recorded when I saw him at the Blue Note last year is finally out. I should order that up. Or torrent it? What do you guys think about illegal downloads, anyway? Speaking of illegal, do you think that fire in the Honduran prison was deliberately set?P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 14:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow. Good. Yay. Good. Torrent. Awesome. Yes. --PsyGremlinParlez! 14:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I can confirm a few things without being overly invasive. Ken does NOT live with his parents. Ken does live in an apartment. And I have no idea what RachelW was hinting at. -Lardashe

Ohhhh.... I just found it. Yes, she did find something. -Lardashe

PM to moi sil vouz plais. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 14:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

There are a lot of people who read this site who are fat (atheists - you know) and lazy and whose skills at stalking are not all that good. But don't think that we're not interested or that we don't want to know. We do! I feel strongly that we mustn't reveal personal info about people at CP (even though they published my full name and where I work!) So what I'm asking is is there some way you could let us know the funny without knwoing the stalky? StarFish (talk) 15:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Mostly.... it's just not funny. - Lardashe

I'd be glad to reveal what I found out without releasing personal details, but I should point out that I did literally 3 minutes of work to find this information, I find it hard to believe that nobody has ever done a records search on him before, considering how obnoxious and notorious he is. I'm not a hacker or even a good researcher, I did two google searches and made the connection in no time at all. I'm more worried about getting permabanned here than hurting Ken's feelings. RachelW (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

As I said above - please PM me the info. That way you won't get permabanned, I get to gloat, and the info on the International Mug of Mystery still gets out there. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 16:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

What do you know, i learned something new today--il'Dictator Mikal 16:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, here's the thing: I don't want to find out that something we say about him is true and then feel bad. It like making a "so does your mom" joke, and then you find out their mom is dead. I'm not criticizing anyone though, because then I'd be a hypocrite.Senator Harrison (talk) 17:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I feel silly, but I don't actually know how to send a PM on this wiki. Help?RachelW (talk) 19:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

If you both have email enabled (in your User Preferences), "E-mail this user" will be in the Toolbox on the left when you're on their userpage. Cow...Hammer^time! 19:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

No worries, the cabal have already shared your findings with me. Thank you, although sadly I must admit that they do not come as as much of a shock as TK's homosexuality did. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 19:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Psy, I sent you some more info, all publicly available stuff, that make the picture a little clearer. Feel free to put it up on your blog if you like. RachelW (talk) 21:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

On the subject of Ken

Found this from May 2006. The statement "Non-creationist biology is truly a mess" followed by 7 quote-mines to back up his point. At least now we know he's always been an awful writer. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 15:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Did you find where I posted it in the section above? Ace^Moderator 19:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Nice find. That's so strange—I've always thought writing style was something that you get better at over time. I know my writing style has grown and improved (probably not matured; I love using semi-colons, dashes, ellipses, emphasis techniques and parentheses way too much), even after I left college...it's weird to think that someone doesn't get better at writing the more they do it. Even J.K. Rowling shows vast improvements in technique from Sorcerer's Stone to Deathly Halllows. I guess it just goes to show...-- Seth Peck (talk) 16:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

What you need to remember is that JKR does not publish unproofed material, she has had the benefit of professional writers critiquing and correcting her writing over the years. She will have learned a lot by this, whereas Ken has protected his oeuvres so that they have now become coprolites of the Internet. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 18:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

you can't really compare Ken to a professional writer or a college student though; because they have a reason to get better: grades, money or an interest to do so. Ken isnt being "graded" per-say on what he writes, he certainly isnt being payed (usually) for them; and what he does get payed, if anything, obviously doesn't care what quality it is. So that leaves "a reason to get better" And ken is already sure of himself that he is writing the height of comedy and criticism, So why improve? --il'Dictator Mikal 16:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I suppose other reasons are more explanatory. -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Well the quote mining isn't so much a stylistic fault as a thought process disconnect. Ken thinks that he is technically being honest when he packs implied lies into quote form, and that that means he hasn't made any error. In classic bad christian form he thinks that it's all about expert mastery of the rules and not about intent. In other words when he picks up his bible and reads about the Pharisees he takes notes on how they are doing things in order to instruct his own christianisty, not seeming to grasp that they are being given as examples of what not to do. Weasel Christians (as I have called them since I was 12) are a large part of why I became an atheist. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 16:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm stealing that term from you; --il'Dictator Mikal 16:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Go right ahead. The one problem of course is that I really like weasels and it sullies their name. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 17:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Ken can't seem to grasp the intent of the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life (2 Cor. 3:6). But that's an all too common ailment among way too many who call themselves Christian. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 17:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Coming from a man who believes he is allowed to break the ten commandments; what you said is correct but hollow. --il'Dictator Mikal 17:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Go ahead, shoot me for breaking the Ten Commandments. Or maybe you think beheading is more proper. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 17:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I thought stoning was the bible's prefered punishment AMassiveGay (talk) 18:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

And for that very reason many RW editors are forever stoned. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 18:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

ba-dum dish --★uːʤɱ anti-communist 19:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Is that some kind of Middle Eastern delicacy? Senator Harrison (talk) 20:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Whats with the Creation a day thing?

We are on day 6 now: dinosaur day; and im a bit curious as to what the point is; anybody reading CP from they're perspective is to lost or already believing it. --il'Dictator Mikal 03:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

It's just TerryH linkspamming, nothing to do with CP. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 11:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Elaborating a bit, TerryH is running a series on CNAV where he creates his own little rationalization for how Creation Week worked exactly. You know, with SCIENCE! My brain jumped off a cliff when the Day One deal (earth/universe, formless and empty, followed by light) was explained (by his idol Dr. Brown) to be God, in the beginning, creating protons, neutrons and electrons, which then were influenced by the elementary forces (strong, weak, electromagnetic and gravity), more or less instantly creating everything there is in the universe and giving off light as the electrons fell into place. --Sid (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Andy: Smarter than lamestream scientists

Oh look, Andy coined a new term^img. Not content with look like an imbecile every time he talks about a news story, now he's going to look like one when he talks about science too.

Silly lamestream scientists. They really wasted their time going to university to study fluid dynamics. Andy knows^img the true way to do science is just to make up whatever shit you like and thoughtlessly dismiss whatever real scientists come up with.

Incidentally, what is the non-atheistic explanation for Venus slowing down exactly? She had so much to do on Valentine's day that she isn't really feeling up to revolving fast? Lets ask Andy, shall we?

"Atheistic theories of science are, in a word, incorrect.^img"

Good answer, Assfly. That really explains it. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I rather liked the "devastated by atheism" bit. However, you're missing Andy's point - he doesn't need to provide a reason of his own, all he needs to do is cast doubt on the current way of thinking. Also countdown to new Example of a Young Earth - Venus is slowing down. If the universe as 14bn years old, Venus would be standing still by now. And 600m years ago, the Moon was orbiting 12 feet above the Earth's surface. This explains the extinction of the dinosaurs. Well, the tall ones anyway. --PsyGremlinPraat! 13:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that God does stuff like slowing Venus as a test for man's faith. The correct response is "Cool, God." The fail is to look for a reason, aka an "atheistic theory of science." Andy hasn't failed one of these tests yet even though God's pop quizzes are almost daily events now.

If Andru doesn't like science, that's his choice. If Andru doesn't try to understand science, that's his choice. He should recognize how he benefits from it, however. I for one don't understand how the gnomes in the magic box I'm looking at right now paint the images on the screen so fast, and I hate them for it, but at least I appreciate them for doing it. Also, "lamestream" was a play on "mainstream", you would think he could come up with a ryhme for "atheistic" to use with science. Lame Jimaginator (talk) 16:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I for one am I eagerly waiting for Andy's articles on lamestream film and lamestream music. Vulpius (talk) 16:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Venus slows down, Andy's spin speeds up. LIBERALS! I guess he figures that if a theory or science can be doubted, it can be somehow proven wrong, thus incorrect... ergo, incorrect science is liberal and atheistic. So all he has to do is doubt something, and that means it's incorrect. What an encyclopedic insight! Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 16:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Next he's going to deny that snipers have to take the Coriollus (sp?) effect and the earth's curvature into account when trying to assassinate liberal presidents leftist dictators from extreme distances, that they can make that shot on faith itself and God will guide the righteous bullet. -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm... -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Ya'll know I'm not the science guy around, but even I have to facepalm at this. How do you people that actually understand this stuff keep from flying to Andy and personally punching him? --★uːʤɱ libertarian 18:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Jesus fucking christ I hate the word "lamestream". If I met him in real life and he used it I'd spit in his goddamn eye. X Stickman (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I have to keep reminding myself that this chap is an 'Educator'AMassiveGay (talk) 19:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course he's an educator! He has writing^img assignments^img and everything! Just like a real teacher 'n stuff! Phiwum (talk) 20:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

He am not an educater, him am teechir! Jezsuz am prowd of he! Dam aytheeisks! Jimaginator (talk) 21:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, it is pretty infuriating. Its infuriating because looking for and hypothesizing a naturalistic answer is presented by Andy as ridiculous, even though that is exactly how science works, while just saying “GodDidIt” is supposed to be the more logical answer. Its infuriating because we all have to take time away from doing real science to refute the same lame BS creationists pull out again and again, and we have no choice because if we ignore their stupidity, they will sit there and declare victory and worse, people will believe them. It’s infuriating because Andy paints the hypothesis as stupid because of his own ignorance of Venus’ atmosphere, its air pressure, and the fact the tides and wind on our own planet have the exact same effect (to a much, much smaller degree, such as a millisecond a day). So yeah, I kinda do.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 05:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Homework oversight?

What's Andy hiding? It's just 8 characters, but damned if I'm not interested in why he had to oversight those edits. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 16:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

My black helicopter moment

Ever get the feeling you've just caught a glimpse of the rich old bastard behind the curtain pulling these crazy arseholes' strings? I did when I read Chuckarse's latest.

He's complaining about making a tax break on conservation easements permanent. This, it seems to me, is a very generous policy that amounts to what I might call "double un-taxation" where you get let off the inheritance tax on the land in exchange for contracting not to develop it, and if you ever sell the encumbered land then you're still compensated for loss of market value incurred by your earlier action in the form of a further tax break.

The government wins because it gets to see more land used for agriculture and recreation, the landowner wins because they get tax breaks. Who loses? Nobody. A good deal all round. Except apparently for Throwbottom who says it's (cue satanic chanting) "Agenda 21" in disguise.

But of course he really gets down to the nuts and bolts at the end. It's all "... Due to other policies that the government ought to rescind. Chief among these: the estate and gift tax. The only moral rate for either of those taxes is: Zero!"

Yeah, I think that's pretty much the real agenda behind this "Agenda 21" nonsense. Rich people want less taxes and regulations for themselves. I wonder who is feeding this craziness? It must all come from somewhere. I doubt that the New Jersey Tea Partians are poring over the proceedings of obscure UN committees. Doubtless there's a "foundation" somewhere that hit on this wonderful gem and spoon feeds it to select of their sheep. I almost feel like drawing a Glenn Beck style chalkboard.... --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

you don't really need a conspiracy to "get" it. Rich people like having money. They like keeping money. They have the power to keep the money. They write laws for themselves. And what's good for the rich in NJ is good for the rich in CA and is good for the rich in France, and is good for the rich in China. funny that, huh?GodotGrow a vagina 18:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

No. The conspiracy, if there's one to be had at all, is in how it is that people like Chuckarse come to be fired up about a law that will never affect him personally for total bullshit reasons. I honestly don't understand how this happens. I suppose it could be innocent kookery, where one particular insane person comes across an obscure fact and invents a whole outrage around it. Another possibility is this is actually an organised campaign by some thinktank or other who aim to get what they want through duplicitous means. It embarrasses me to even say that out loud, but sometimes I have to wonder if it isn't in fact the case. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey, he's citing didyouknowonline as a source for his legal conclusions, so he's got to be right. I'm actually not as enamoured of conservation easements as you are, Jeeves. The rich guys basically get favorable tax treatment (the two advantages you mentioned, plus they get a charitable deduction on their income tax returns) in return for not developing the land around their estates and keeping it as green space. ("Recreational use" is mentioned in the law, but as a practical matter, it is possible to avoid making these areas truly open to public use.) Well, what else were they going to do with it, put up trailer parks? Terry's gone off script here: the useful idiot teabaggers aren't supposed to oppose tax breaks for the "producer class." Godspeed (talk) 18:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I suspect the chief right that gives concern is the restriction in changes in land use, especially concerning intensity of livestock rearing and storage of associated, er, byproducts. For example, you probably couldn't sell the entailed land to a high intensity hog farming consortium. In that respect, my guess he's very much on-script here. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Does anybody have a clue were this general UN-scare is coming from? "OMG, the UN is grabing power over our country!" No, they don't. They aren't. Why would they even? You know you can leave the UN right? Why are these people behaving like there's some sort of international conspiracy to rob countries of their sovereignty? Countries don't have to participate, nobody is forced into these things… --★uːʤɱ structuralist 18:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

This particular issue (why poor people support conservative laws that will never, ever benefit them and only benefit the rich. I know terry's not poor but he's not super rich either so I'm lumping it in for the sake of this argument) bothered a friend of mine too (it never really stuck in my head as something I'd focus on) and he came up with an explanation (brackets). According to his theory, although people like Terry are not currently affected by tax breaks for the rich and such, they want to be. This whole idea of "land of opportunity" and such gets people living in a half fantasy world where they're convinced, in the future, these laws will apply to them. So they're not right right now, but they will be in the future, and they're effectively planning ahead or they're so lost in these fantasies (not in a literal delusional sense but they're so used to imagining themselves as rich that their instinctive response is to act as if they are in these circumstances) that they act as if the laws already do affect them.

I'm not sure I agree with that theory, but there's a seed of an idea in there that I can get behind. It's always somewhat confused me how conservative groups can get the support of people who are, by many definitions, poor, when they're talking about tax breaks and tax laws that will only affect the richest people in the country. Which is what I think Jeeves is talking about. X Stickman (talk) 18:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Jesus, I thought I overused parentheses.

It is my considered opinion that it is impossible to overuse either parentheses or commas. X Stickman (talk) 19:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

You really should give emdashes—those underappreciated non-hyphen thingies—a try. Whoover (talk) 19:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘@Jeeves: Read this. @UHM: UN scaremongering and conspiracy theories go back to the League of Nations. The sovereignty of the US and how that would affect foreign policy was the prime issue in the battle between Woodrow Wilson and Henry Cabot Lodge. The UN stuff reached its apex of nuttery with the John Birch Society. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)A

The underlying con is promising the poor "jam tomorrow" while the rich get the "jam today". I'm amazed they still manage to pull the wool over the plebs' eyes. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 21:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Careful now, sounds a bit too REDSREDSREDSREDSREDSREDS!!!!!! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Mmhh, so the basic reason why the US right-wing is so appalled by this is because than the US government wouldn't be able to wage war on countries that defy US interests. That sounds about right. --★uːʤɱ structuralist 02:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Ken: Pay attention to me!!!

Seems we have no problem with rape now... --Inquisitor (talk) 01:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

You know, I've been kind of coming to this conclusion for a while now... Ken's kind of a bit silly. Nihilist (talk) 01:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Boring, nothing to see here. Move along. All this does is give Ken's articles the hits he wants from here. Ace^Moderator 01:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we should start using the collapse template on these. Or maybe the whole Conservapedia section of the site. Fallacy² (talk) 01:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Can anyone find a specific case in which Christianity condemns rape? It certainly isn't in the 10 commandments. Keeping the sabbath holy, sure, but rape? Nah, God seems fine with that. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 01:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The Old Testament definitely doesn't condemn rape -- you could probably make a strong argument that it supports it. The New Testament might be a bit better in that regard, but saying that it condemns rape would probably be a pretty big stretch. An American Nihilist (talk) 01:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Quote the OT, if a woman is raped, and no one is around to hear, its not rape.--Thunderstruck^{YOU'VE BEEN...} 02:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Why don't we all just stay away from CP for a week and listen for the sound of Ken shitting himself all over Alexa as the hits evaporate? --Fergus Mason (talk) 02:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Haven't been here very long, have you? --★uːʤɱ secularist 02:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Long enough, and I like poking the crazies as much as the next man. However given how much Ken wanks over CP's traffic stats, it would be a nice way of showing him who really looks at his moronic blog. --Fergus Mason (talk) 03:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Nobody besides me sees the irony that this is argued on the wiki of the son of a woman who argued that wifes can't be raped? And yes Ken, economically speaking atheists have no direct reason to behave ethically, but you see there are such things like "societies" and "communities" in which it is beneficial for people to act "pro-social" — also, non-idiots actually have the ability to think about things rather than just follow orders. --★uːʤɱ libertarian 02:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

At least on these. We are giving him undeserved attention, again. He wrote that article specifically for hits from us; who else reads them, who else cares? Thing is we should only give him attention when he finally does something original and creative again, and not trotting out the same old tired quote mines and distortions repackaged with animal pictures.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 05:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Ken is just rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 09:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I fully support giving Ken attention. Why? Because it always causes him to shit all over CP, which in turn shows any casual visitor just how insane the place is. Ken is doing our job for us, so why undermine his efforts? --Sid (talk) 09:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Isn't funny? Honestly Andy's sincere crazy is far more hilarious then Ken's.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 10:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I really don't know why we bother with Ken. His essays have always been the same, and you don't need to cyber stalk the guy to know he has mental problems. It's funnier watching the other folk other there becaus they don't have the excuse of any illness for the shit they spout AMassiveGay (talk) 17:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about that. Whether or not Andy is clinically insane or an alcoholic has been discussed on these pages before.--Spud (talk) 09:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not that Phyllis dropped him on his head as a baby, it's more like she used to bounce him like a superball.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 10:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Thought this was odd

Hello all, this is my first (and possibly last) post--I like to lurk more than get involved. This isn't from CP, but it's a related curiosity. I checked out ol' Terry H's blog and saw a sidebar ad for...Iranian girls. The bottom of the ad said "Meet Now!" Got a screenshot here: [[1]]. Elbow (talk) 02:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Since Google (Adchoices) has compiled a database on you and you like single Persians. Your obsessive wanking gave you away. --plodd

All Iranian women are hot, I can introduce you to some if you like. Itis probably due to Terry's Israel having a war fan fic porn he write on his "news" site. When RW had ads they were all astrology woo misters and gay dating sites. Pi 3:14 (talk) 03:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Fuck me teh google is getting too good. I went to the same URL and the ad I got was Asian girls. Google do know what daddy likes. --Inquisitor (talk) 04:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing clever about that, all men like Asian women, except Asian men they prefer cartoon characters. Pi 3:14 (talk) 06:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

All the more Asian chicks for us! --PsyGremlin話しなさい 06:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I keep getting financial news and stock tips. Google is on to my secret plans. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I get "Brain training games." Hey! I like Japanese girls too, dammit! --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 08:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

As a resident of Taiwan, all I get on Hurlbut's blog is an advert for the Taipei Furniture Show.--Spud (talk) 11:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I know I'm stereotyping, but I expected eye-slitted turban-things (whatever the hell they're called) but instead I'm pretty sure that's Kim Kardashian in the second pic. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 13:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't get the ad there, so either my work is blocking it or google thinks I'm asexual. Cow...Hammer^time! 14:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Damn... just an advert for Sonic the Hedgehog here. Not surprising, considering my Facebook keeps giving adverts for the ポケモン株式会社 (Pokemon Ltd.) Doraemon^{話そう！話そう！} 17:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I would be suspicious of any ad that encouraged meeting Iranian or Muslim girls, it's most likely to be a CIA sting operation.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 10:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I remember karajou freaking out because he was being spammed by Russian brides and was wondering if he had report this contact by a foreign national to the FBI. If he starts getting e-mails from Muslim brides, his head will explode. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 11:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Advertisements? On the interwebs? How very 1998. 46.105.116.218 (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I missed these...

User politely shows Andy that he's pulling stuff out of his ass again.^img

Luckily for Andy, Kajagoogoo is there to back Andy up and to show that he still doesn't understand how IP addresses work. It always amazes me how Andy happily accepts that the person he was debating is suddenly gone. No doubt Kara (hey... if he puts on a yellow dress, would Rob go for him?) is simpering in the chat room by now "look Master, swabbie did good Master, pet me now please Master..." --PsyGremlinHable! 06:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Bonus marks for a classic Andy-ism:

“”The Ideal Gas Law has insights that extend beyond ideal gases. Ditto for the Second Law with respect to closed systems.

--PsyGremlinKhuluma! 06:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

And this is what happens when a lawyer plays around with the laws of physics. *exasperated groan* --Sid (talk) 09:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

That is surely Andy's problem. As a lawyer he's accustomed to debating, manipulating and interpreting man-made laws but the natural world doesn't work like that. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 09:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Classic CP doublethink - Andy can use the 2nd Law Insight to "prove" anything he likes, while at the same time the article has a section on "Liberal abuse of the second law of thermodynamics". Cantabrigian (talk) 11:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

All this showed me is that Andy doesn't understand, nor has any real desire to understand, the physical or biological sciences; given how clearly laid out the Second Law of Thermodynamics was stated to him.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 11:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

God is like Andy and Reality is like Conservapedia. It doesn't matter if what God says makes sense; if God declares it it is so. It is not the job of minions (aka, people) to understand God's obvious nonsense, but to defend and rationalize it.

This viewpoint would explain many of the problems on Earth like global hunger, evil going unpunished or liberals existing at all. God, like Andy, is either too lazy to fix an obvious problem with his creation or is too stubborn to even admit that the problem exists. Andyspeed.--Night Jaguar (talk) 12:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, to be fair to lawyers, even they think Andy's ability to argue sucks. --Night Jaguar (talk) 12:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Andy's a CHINO -Christian in Name Only. Key passages of the New Testament that form the core of Christian teaching on unconditional love & forgiveness Andy trashes as fraudulent and liberalism. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 13:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how his ignorance here makes him a CHINO; its pretty par for the course for creationists.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Does Andy know you're a filthy liberal heretic, Rob? I implore you to tell him. We could all use a good laugh. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Anyone else notice that Karajou, having no activity in two days, suddenly reaches out and blocks the user trying to talk sense to Andy? Then, Andy immediately just reverts the edits to the Law of Thermodynamics article. Looks so fucking suspicious, or does Andy not have the login info of Karajou to just block editors while trying to retain his own innocence, and I'm just thinking this up? Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 14:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I think Karajou is a bit disillusioned with the project. After all, he spent all that time creating those blank Civil War, birds and sharks pages and the conservative masses STILL haven't showed up to finish them for him. He just lurks now, fingers stained from the 60 Texan plain he smokes a day, teeth stained blue from that "special" brand Mad Dog 20/20, trembling fingers hovering over the block button as he strains to remain relevant. And conscious. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 14:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Karajou lost heart a long time ago. He slowed his edits to a crawl when TK was unbanned, then stuck around after he realised there was nowhere else for him to go. Sophie^{because liberals} 18:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I just used Clarke's Third Law to prove that Sherman's Bow Ties did not exist, and thus the South won. QED. Kudos to me! Me be genius! Jimaginator (talk) 15:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

"There exists in society a very special class of persons that I have always referred to as the Believers. These are folks who have chosen to accept a certain religion, philosophy, theory, idea or notion and cling to that belief regardless of any evidence that might, for anyone else, bring it into doubt. They are the ones who encourage and support the fanatics and the frauds of any given age. No amount of evidence, no matter how strong, will bring them any enlightenment. They are the sheep who beg to be fleeced and butchered, and who will battle fiercely to preserve their right to be victimized." ~James Randi - This is Andy to a tee, and really all creationist to some extent, especially the YEC variety.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The sad part is that Andy would agree wholeheartedly with that quote... except that he would conclude that it was foolish athiest scientists and their disproven junk science of evolution who are the sheep. --Inquisitor (talk) 23:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The latest Republican Primary Polls Are In

Yes folks, the all-important Schlafly^img/PIDOOMA poll results are in!

Now in fourth place, Rick "Frothy Mix" Santorum, who has ceased to be a stalking horse for Mitt Romney.

Still in first place... a guy who isn't even running. MDB (talk) 17:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow. Santorum is more likely than Sarah Palin. You know, he could make a case for Bush being #3 at this point. Right now it's a two man race between Romney and Santorum, and it looks like the only way one of them won't win is with a brokered convention, in which case you could argue that Jeb might be the most likely candidate to come out of that scenario. But if he's third he's a very distance third. I know Andy is hesitant to drop he's buddy Newt down any lower, but he needs to realize that Santorum is at worst #2 right now. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 17:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and this is precious: Santorum is leading in several key states. Hmmmm. I wonder of he should be rated higher than #4? Yes, Andy, you idiot, he should. Instead of asking stupid rhetorical questions why don't you just adjust the stupid ranks? Turpis 3:16 (talk) 18:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

What's with all the totally irrelevant "candidates" like George Pataki? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

That's mostly historical, dating back to when most of the candidates hadn't even declared their intentions yet. MDB (talk) 18:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

"Santorum is fabulous in debates and television interviews." He he. --Night Jaguar (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely fabulous! Dammit I want him to win the nomination so badly... -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

In which alternate universe is Rick Santorum a "fabulous" debater? The one without shrimp? The man's an idiot. And Santorum's a reject from the 16th Century. Darkmind1970 (talk) 20:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Santorum vs. Obama would be an epic debate. Obama would fucking thrash him. Ace^Moderator 23:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, Obama's not even that good of a debater, but against Santorum it would be a cakewalk.--^talk 23:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

We should be careful in making these sorts of predictions. Santorum (or whoever) will have the full backing of a massive political machine in order to perform in the debates. McCain's simplistic Joe the Plumber stuff did not appeal to me, or perhaps to many of my education level or upbringing, but it was an extremely successful line that McCain was able use to appeal to people who are less likely to think critically. I have no doubt that come debate time, the republican candidate will have a simple and effective strategy to deal with Obama. Remember how everyone thought Sarah Palin would get eaten up in a debate with Biden, but as I recall, the polls afterwards indicated that the public thought it was close. Ditto for GWB against Kerry. Damo^Hi 00:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but Santorum believes that there should be no contraception at all, anywhere, anyway. He's a reject from the 16th Century. He's going to have his ass spanked.Darkmind1970 (talk) 00:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't assume he's stupid enough to actually say that crap on a national stage. I know the honest conservative narrative, but he's also a politician. He'd be smart enough to tweak his message ("if people want to live immoral lives, that's up to them and their states"). I would have some very sleepless nights up to an election with Santorum running. Whoover (talk) 01:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

It's making the Sunday talk shows, If Romney loses Michigan, "GOP insiders are floating the name of Jeb Bush". [2] nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 16:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Demise of Obamacare's Real Model (Hint: it's not Romneycare)

Obamacare is the American implementation of Britain's National Health Service, which is bankrupt and universally hated threatened with tweaks by a Tory government, to great public outcry.^img. What Obama adds to socialized medicine is the Death Panel. Liberal Deceit! Whoover (talk) 01:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Truly the fine folk at Conservapedia have never said anything similar ever before -- this is completely new and interesting to me. Stupid Troll Guy (talk) 01:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Holy fucking shit. Obamacare is nothing like the NHS. Not even a vague resemblance. What planet are these fucking dolts on? --Fergus Mason (talk) 01:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

If you haven't noticed, the conservapedia logo is vaguely planet shaped. Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 01:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

That's a circle, not a sphere. Of course seeing as they believe the bible, which says the Earth is flat... --Fergus Mason (talk) 01:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Footnote: Gingrich supported Death Panels. [3] nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 01:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

From the source article: Britain’s media, in particular the Washington Post–Huffington Post hybrid The Guardian WP: 1877; HP: 2005; Guardian: 1821. Why not just wirte left-leaning liberal, left-liberal, or just left leaning? Why do you have to explain everything in American terms?

But in the United States, left-wing enthusiasts of socialized medicine don’t seem bothered at the loss of a role model. Many won’t even acknowledge it. Government spending increased… bailout of banks… irony… stupidity… --★uːʤɱ netlabelist 01:59, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Question to the Brits: Why does the Royal College of General Practitioners oppose reform? Is it akin to US Public School teachers opposing wp:Merit pay, versus sitting on their asses and collecting paychecks from the government regardless of the quality of their work product? nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 02:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe because they, unlike the government who wishes to carry out these 'reforms', actually know how the system works and what shouldn't be done? Or maybe you should just look up their objections yourself? Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 02:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Didn't take long; here's a source that refutes the notion the RCGP oppose reform and says they have deeply divided UK general practitioners; Wikipedia says reforms were instituted to stem the "the haemorrhaging of GPs from the NHS". Why has the NHS been "haemorrhaging" General Practitioners? Low pay and shit-ass working conditions? nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 02:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

As a future Educator Rob; I'd rather have my pay decided at a normal rate then at the whim of me getting good or bad classes. --il'Dictator Mikal 02:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Um, Rob... are you really so stupid as to not realise that what you're talking about isn't actually the health "reforms" being discussed today? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 10:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Rob, are you really so stupid so as not to realise the quote you say refutes the RCGP comes from the RCGP itself? Or that the "reforms" are about much more than the management framework. Go share your quote mining and simplistic hate at CP if they'll still have you.

Does the RCGP oppose reform (as Daily Caller says) or are they "deeply divided, as the RCGP says? And the real story here is QOP (Quality of Performance) reforms already were implanted the Labour Party, of all things, not just being proposed now by the Conservatives. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 20:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

If you knew the first thing about British politics, you would not be surprised that the last government had started the process the current government has made its own. Not in health, not in welfare, not in education, not in finance. Stick to what you know, Rob.

Santorum and charitableness

Any word from Andy or commentators about recent revelations that Rick Santorum, the most ardently Christian person in the GOP race, is also the least charitable by a wide margin? 2.2% of his income in charity vs. Obama's 14.2% and Romney's 13.8% (the latter mostly from tithing).--^talk 02:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Silly Liberal Atheist, don't you know? Only liberals have to do charity, for conservatives it's only a "you can if you want" deal. --il'Dictator Mikal 03:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Those stats never mean anything - they're always based on one or two years most recent tax returns. To get a better picture a candidate would have to release a lifetime of filings. Otherwise you have only have the distortions of a Gingrich or Obama who, knowing they're gonna run in two years, increase their charitable givings. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 03:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, this is one of the biggest abuses preached from the pulpit. The law of tithing is based on increase in net worth, or capital gains. Not 10% of wp:ordinary income, which is only re-imbursement, or compensation for costs. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 03:13, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Only thing of note I see in this is how it highlights Andy's political flip-flopping. Before Santorum was nothing but a pro-abort RINO, now he is suddenly becoming the Christian conservative Golden Boy in Andy's eyes.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 08:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Wasn't he claiming a few days/weeks ago that "a vote for Santorum was a vote for pro-abortion RINO Romney?" I'm guessing that Newt's been thrown under the bus. Maybe now his affairs won't be "gossip." --PsyGremlinHable! 08:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

That's the sort of flip flopping that would embarrass even Romney. And how can he leave Newt, after Newt's campaign has turned terminally ill? What sort of person does that? --Night Jaguar (talk) 08:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

You mean besides the obvious answer? --PsyGremlinSprich! 08:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Facebook

• The most successful entrepreneurial endeavor in years is correlated with underachievement in school and disruption of social relationships^img.

More evidence Andy doesn't know the difference of an online community from a oyster clamshell. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 15:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

He also can't string a sentence together. It's a Liberal-promoted what? Gah, probably better not to wonder which thought processes go through those sluggish synapses. Darkmind1970 (talk) 16:13, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

There have been studies saying things like facebook (so any media ever) are destroying school grades... which they are, but thats expected, and Facebook destroys social relationships just the same as most media does. --il'Dictator Mikal 16:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

What the fuck is Rob's point? That an endeavor that is successful for its investors can't be correlated with bad effects for its users? (I've no idea whether Facebook is bad for its users' social lives, but it's not all that implausible to this old fart.) Phiwum (talk) 16:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

It can be bad depending on how they use it. I use Facebook as a way to talk to friends that either no longer live here, never have or i just cant meet (i have an absolutely shitty phone plan, so phones rarely an option); others use it like a video game, ect. According to Rob though, smoking isnt bad cause its a successful business. --il'Dictator Mikal 16:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

That's right. If we could get the whole planet up to three packs a day, we could plug the ozone hole. And if everyone dropped dead of lung cancer before age 62, think of the Medicare savings. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 18:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow, can Andy's jealousy of the popularity of Facebook be any more obvious?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Facebook is liberal trash that allows people to become immoral, lazy slackers by posting unproductive trash in the site.--Elvis is King (talk) 01:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Never forget who's king.

Fuck you, Joaquin. This is my house!^img I guess that shows him who runs Conservapedia. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow. Moved from spot #1 to #6, the first five all being KenKrap^TM. ^{ONE / TALK} 20:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I wonder how long he'll be content riding the back of the bus. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 21:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Until the day he realises that wordpress offers free blog hosting I'd guess. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

If he keeps a track of this site (which I think he does, based on the fact he has an account) then you just told him that and he's going to get his own Kenblog. As I don't want to live on that world, I'll be the first on the space elevator to Titan when that happens. -- 23:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

He already does, what do you think the "Question Evolution" blog is?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 00:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I think Rob was talking about Joaquin, but then again you can never really tell what Rob is talking about. Anyway, did you know Kendoll still carbon copies his question evolution crap to the shockofgoat blog? He's completely annexed old shocky, and it's just the Kendoll blog now. You'd think he'd be at least a little concerned that this raving maniac is blogging under his name, but apparently not. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh good, now Ken can get twice the comments; too bad zero times zero is still zero.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 01:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

JM takes his ball and goes home^img. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 06:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The Kendollisation of CP continues unabated. So far he's made Rob, Kara and now JoMar his bitch. How long until he brings Andy down? --PsyGremlin말하십시오 06:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, that's it, I'm leaving. At least on Titan I can amuse myself by throwing Ewoks into lakes of fart. -- 08:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if I could get away with calling Ken a fat theist without getting banned for "incivility" by Karajou. Probably not. RachelW (talk) 17:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I guess you need "proof and evidence" he is chubby first. :P --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Silly rabbit. Every member of the Kendoll collective is a blond-haired, blue-eyed, 7 feet tall svelte superman/woman. They also most definitely don't live in their mothers' basements, nor do they have severe mental problems. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Just thought I'd take this opportunity...

...to recognize the 50th anniversary of probably the most famous use of "Godspeed", before it was turned into a private joke by one Andrew Layton Schlafly. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 06:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Famous yes, but funnier was "Godspeed, Aquaboy" in Seinfeld Jimaginator (talk) 14:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Rob Smith: Defrocked for our sins.

Oh Rob^img, you really don't need a martyr complex to add to your other major malfunctions. You aren't Jesus, and you weren't crucified at Conservapedia for our sins. You were crucified because that's what Conservapedia is, a site full of petty dictators jacking themselves off to their own power. You used to be one too, and probably can be again if you didn't slag off Andy so much over here. What does the Bible say about Backbiters again? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Rob, you were defrocked because Karajou held you down while Ken made you his bitch. You made the mistake of telling a sysop - actually not just A sysop, but the craziest, most self-centered, egotistical and idiotic sysop - that he was wrong. For that you had to die. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 19:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Not only that, but (in purely my own opinion - and some guy else's words) a sysop who happens to be one of the most pernicious little odious reptiles that nature ever suffered to crawl upon the surface of the earth. </ad hominem> -- 19:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I hear he's a demon too. Maybe we should hold an exorcism at CP. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

*pours gasoline* Rob, not only were you called a "pawn and a "useful idiot""^img by Conservative, but also an "unstable egotist". But you gave as good as you got, telling him that he "damaged the reputation of... Conservapedia". Also, good for you for calling Karajou a "piece of shit" and a "worthless little cocksucker". --Night Jaguar (talk) 20:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

He was removed because he attempted to bring glasnost and perestroika to the North Korean style state that is Conservapedia and that threatened Great Leader's and Dear Leader's control over the masses (such as they are).--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

No I think "masses" is right. </another ad hominem> ^{ONE / TALK} 21:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Andy Gets Excited Over Gay Marriage

NJ Governor Chris Christie vetoes the bill passed today by his state's legislature, Andy reacts predictably.^img This took a lot longer than I thought it would to reach CP's Main Page. Also, Andy basically saying "give it up liberals, go build a hospital" reminds me a lot of this^img. --Tabrcg23 (talk) 01:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

One victory against... several states which look to be passing gay marriage/cheap cope out civil unions? I'd say the liberals are on the run.--il'Dictator Mikal 01:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Is Andy suggesting that we liberals should strive to construct some sort of free, accessible-to-all healthcare system? Hmmm... I think he might have a good idea going there. ^{ONE / TALK} 10:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I think someone linked to this ages ago, but in case newcomers haven't seen it, this is a great debunking of the whole "atheists don't build hospitals". Not that it really needs debunking, but still... TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 10:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I just feel sad for Andy. He cares deeply about this, but he can't but see the numbers on this issue: in 20 years, gay marriage will not just be law, but will also be happily accepted by America. The old bigotry is dying a slow and twisted death, and its adherents can see their belief system wither on the vine.--^talk 11:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Now there, I disagree. I delight in Andy's discomfort - purely because he's one of those evil little men who thinks that granting other people the same rights as he enjoys, will somehow erode his own rights. The man is a small minded bigot and I delight in watching his world crumble around him. --PsyGremlinParla! 12:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure he's really experiencing discomfort though. Isn't he of the belief that the world is getting more conservative? ^{ONE / TALK} 12:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Nah, that's just a brave face he puts on to keep the sysops at his blog and to keep the children he mentally abuses coming to his basement. Deep down Andy knows the liberals have won and he cries himself to sleep over it. --PsyGremlinFale! 12:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that the government calls a union "marriage", when it's not. Marriage is something that happens in a church; a secular government-issued piece of paper is a union. As an NJ resident, I hope Christie is happy that he just spit in the face of 10% to 15% of the states population so that he can be a strong VP candidate for Romney. He is a self-serving prick. Senator Harrison (talk) 16:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Marriage is something that happens in a church; a secular government-issued piece of paper is a union. No. Wrong. Wrong wrong wrong. Wrong. No. Cow...Hammer^time! 01:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I know it's called a marriage. My point is that the government should stop calling it a marriage and call it a civil union. Senator Harrison (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The government? So I'm not married and my kid's a bastard. Only Christians can get married? Or will you allow other religions to bestow this gift from their gods as well? Whoover (talk) 18:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Bastard? What? Stop reading into what I said so much. The piece of paper you get from the government is just that. Do whatever your religion allows. Senator Harrison (talk) 19:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

It may have something to do with the entire-magnum-of-red-wine hangover I have, but the CP main page seems really fucking whiny today. "ooooh, go build a hospital, Gays!" "oooh, NO ONE at USA Today talked about how much Jeremy Lin LURVES Jesus. Liberals!" and so on. I do think we ought to build a hospital (St. Sebastian's) where we recruit children to gaydom and refuse to allow straight people to see their spouses. In fact, we'll make them divorce their spouses and force them to marry goats and dogs. Mother of Shit-Fuck Space Overlord Xenu. I'm going to find my sunglasses. GayGator (talk) 16:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm wondering if Christie is being shrewd here in an effort to have his cake and eat it too. His response to this has been "you want gay marriage? Put it to the voters." Well, I believe polls show in New Jersey it might well pass (though the anti- side will likely have a better ground organization and more money). And if the voters do support it in the end, Christie will sort of have to sign it, or he'll have to face that his "put it to the voters" stance was a cheap ploy. In such a case, he can say to conservatives "yeah, I signed it, but only after promising I'd support the will of the voters" helping him save some face there. To the other side he'll look like a good guy for being the only Republican governor to sign such a law. Could be a win/win for him. Or it could be a lose/lose, if the conservatives don't think the will of the populace is a good enough reason to sign such a law, and if the other side still condemn him for his initial veto. But I think this might be a clever move, though, should he eventually sign it, it might doom his chance for a Presidential run in 2016. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 16:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

It may appear to be shrewd election-year politics for Christie, because it gives the appearance of Conservative credibility while he's being considered as a VP candidate and party leader. If it passes in a referendum, it also allows him to say, "Hey, this was the will of the people - what can I do?". Unfortunately, he really just comes off like George Wallace in the 1960's saying, "Hey, if black people deserve rights then it's up to the white voters to give it to them, not me". Like Rick Perry, he's more popular with conservative strangers from other states than with the residents who know him better. He'd never make it in the big leagues. --DinsdaleP (talk) 19:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

As an aside, I don't think there's much of a contest for VP; it's either Santorum/Romney or Romney/Santorum. Time will tell. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 00:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Romney seems like he might be an ideal compliment to Santorum, but I have a different theory. Santorum is polling very badly among one of the most important demographics: women. That's more than 50% of the population. He needs the woman vote, so I'm guessing he'll pick a female VP. Right now I'd wager the current governor of New Mexico or Arizona. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 01:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Here in NM some say Susana Martinez is in over her head (kinda Palinesque) but she's got enough smarts to know her own weaknesses; Jan Brewer would be like nominating the Wicked Witch of the West. The GOP needs a unity ticket, kinda like the GOP in 1980, the Dems in 1992 & 2004, you know, where the nominee picks the loser. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 01:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

If Martinez has any smarts at all she's head and shoulders above Palin (and Santorum too). She can also appeal to the Hispanic voters (another place Senator Frothy is lacking) and can probably move NM back into the Republican column (which it's been out of for a little while). The Wicked Witch of the West seems she'd appeal to the Republican base quite well. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 04:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Arizona's a peculiar state, and the anti-immigrant thing doesn't really even exist there. The redneck law 'n order, plant EIDs & landmines, build a fence, and shoot em at the border thing is more of a Texas thing, and Southern Baptist anti-Catholic thing at that.

The borders fears down here have more to do with the ongoing siege warfare and potential to spill across the border. Juarez, a city the size of Chicago, has had 1600 homicides per year for the past several years. The violence is very real, and is not a racial-ethnic thing at all. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 09:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Um no, you're wrong. I know from first-hand experience (as an Arizonian) that the redneck law 'n order exists very strongly here. Ever heard of Sheriff Joe? Cow...Hammer^time! 15:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

"Arizona's a peculiar state, and the anti-immigrant thing doesn't really even exist there..." Rob, you are such an idiot. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 15:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

SARAH PALIN?!?!??!??!?!?!1111?

Really, Andy^img? REALLY? Sarah Palin? He's off his fucking nut. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Did it ever occur that Andy's against global warming, because it's nice and cool on his personal little world? --PsyGremlinSiarad! 19:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

... well then. --il'Dictator Mikal 19:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

He's trying to give a "voice to the people", but it's nice the STOP MITT movement admits that Romney's bought his way onto the ticket. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 19:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Rob, nothing you ever say makes any god damned sense. Either in context or as a standalone statement. Your brain is defective. Go get it fixed. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

You better hope Mitt is your candidate, no one else is going have a chance.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

@Jeeves: Punditry 101: Inside the GOP, Palin is regraded by some as a "voice of the people"; Andy is the forefront of the anti-RINO, STOP MITT movement. Romney has the biggest campaign warchest of all GOP candidates. It would be foolish for any GOP nominee to overlook this fact, given Obama is well ahead of even Romney in fundraising at this point. Similar considerations were used by Democratic nominees in 2004 & 1988. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 20:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't know know that Andy was at the forefront of anything at all. I thought he was still bewailing the introduction of gunpowder and that electric zappy stuff by them durned libruls. As for Palin being seen as the voice of the people by the GOP, pardon me whilst I laugh myself sick... Darkmind1970 (talk) 20:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

No, Rob. No one in the GOP believes Palin is a "voice of the people." Everyone has realised by this point she's a self-serving grifter. She has no chance of being elected to any political office ever again. The only people who still like Palin are weenies like JPratt, for whom Beck-Palin 2012 is the dream ticket. These people are morons who nobody takes seriously. Also, Andy is not at the forefront of anything. The only thing foremost about Andy is resplendent size of his ego. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

"Andy is the forefront of the anti-RINO, STOP MITT movement." BWAHAHAHA! Usually, delusions of grandeur about Andy come from Andy. We and FSTDT are pretty much the only people that pay attention to him and that's just to point and laugh. All those Republicans voting 'NOT ROMNEY' haven't even heard of the guy and would be embarrassed if they did.--Night Jaguar (talk) 20:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

(EC)Per Palin: You know that. I know that. I know you don't know jackshit about the GOP. As to Jeb, last week this page had several lengthy discussions about why Andy was touting Jeb (see Archive); this morning, Chris Wallace (FOX News) and David Gregory (NBC) both talked about GOP insiders touting Jeb (probably from here). So maybe Andy knows a little bit more about GOP politics than you give him credit. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 20:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Andy doesn't know anything about anything. ^{ONE / TALK} 21:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

A governor unprepared for a Presidential campaign being unexpectedly put on the ticket? Please, GOP, be stupid enough make that error twice in a row. Hell, forget Jeb, you can use the original mistake! --Night Jaguar (talk) 21:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Rob whats it like living in you're world?--il'Dictator Mikal 21:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Christian Science Mumbler from one week ago: Sarah Palin wows CPAC, but godvoter.org disses her, "pending evidence that the Lord is blessing her with Presidential intellect. But in all this you can't forget, She is not Barack Hussein. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 21:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

She also isn't ever going to be a candidate for the 2012 election. We all know it, and deep down you know it too Rob. Why are you defending Andy's delusions here? You know he is just fantasizing and his Palin dreams have no rational basis. He isn't on the "inside" of GOP politics, he is nobody in GOP circles.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 22:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Lemme 'splain GOP thinking: there remains great affection for Palin. She, like all noble Republicans. is the a victim of the commie press -- which is a badge of honor. Nevertheless, if she has to be thrown under the bus to achieve victory over the anti-Christ, we're grateful she's goes willingly. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 23:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

You for real Rob?--il'Dictator Mikal 23:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

A victim of the 'commie press' Rob? Oh wait, you mean those gits who reported actual facts don't you? Damn their reality-based focus! Darkmind1970 (talk) 00:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Osaka Sun (talk) 00:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Thrown under the bus by who??? SHE. IS. NOT. RUNNING! She has no plans to. She is intelligent enough to know she couldn't win anyway. Besides, she lacks presidential mettle; she quit part way through her gubernatorial term. If she couldn't handle that job, no way she is going to handle being the POTUS. She instead found her perfect niche, being the rallying speaker for social conservatives, because she knows the truth: She can make a whole lot more money off of speaking engagements and books while avoiding the enormous pressure of responsibility of running for, let alone being president.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 00:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Soooo who doyathink a Palin endorsement would help most? nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 01:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Obama, I'd have thought. Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 01:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, though, a Palin endorsement could help Romney. I doubt it'd impact any other candidates much. Either way it won't carry the weight it did a couple years ago. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 04:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

In numbers for Romney, for Santorum more enthusiasm. For Gingrich its a wash. They both have the GOP faithful already. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 05:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Here's the thing about Palin, and I've seen this 10,000,000 times with supporters of prominent GOPers who fall victim to bad press. They bite their lip, and cuss under their breath for allowing themselves to be intimidated by a hostile media and vocal opponents. They plot their revenge, and are willing to vote against persons and ideas as much as for anything positive. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 05:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

You do realise that she's probably one of the single biggest reasons Obama's in the White House, right? Every voter with a functioning brain took one look at McCain's VP (who was only a heartbeat away from the Oval Office) and said, "Not a fuck!" --PsyGremlinSnakk! 06:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

One of them, sure, but I wouldn't call her the #1 or #2. In any case, the question Rob posited was which candidate her endorsement would make the most difference for. Considering there are plenty of Republicans who still for some reason think she's all that and a bag of chips, her endorsement could be quite meaningful. Should Romney somehow get it (he won't, until he has the thing sewn up) it could help him among the voters he's had the most trouble connecting with. In the general election it'll be meaningless, and she won't be on the ticket. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 06:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Do I think Palin's endorsement would help a candidate? Yes, at least among the social conservatives. However Andy's original post isn't about how helpful a Palin endorsement is; his post is the chance Palin herself would be the nominee. That is what makes it so mind-boggling.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 07:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course. I don't think anyone's arguing that Palin stands a chance, not even Rob (are you Rob?), even as a VP candidate. The topic sort of shifted to whether she has any standing in conservative ranks and of her endorsement would mean anything. I think it's pretty clear that she still has a fair amount of support among the wingnut branch of the GOP (which is not an inconsiderable proportion), but it's not what it was. She was a flavor of the week, in a way and is less relevant every day, in my view, but she still has some influence. She'll likely endorse Santorum, but it won't make much of a difference because her lackeys already support either him or Newt already. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 07:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Likely scenario: she'll hold out til it becomes obvious one candidate or other is inevitable, then cut a deal. Her public endorsement before the convention, in exchange for a speaking role at the convention. If she held out endlessly, and the unlikelihood of a brokered convention ensued, she'd become just another of dozens of prominent figures the GOP faithful would disinherit for not having the balls to stand up when an important decision needed to be made. Someone who just panders to popular perceptions. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 09:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Bachmann, Palin, Christine O'Donnell, just a bunch of nutball wingnut woman with shit for brains. Ace^Moderator 09:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

You forgot Angle. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 09:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

She probably will just get invited to speak and won't have to resort of making such deals. Besides her endorsement doesn't count for much. If she endorses Gingrich or Santorum, it is minimal, because those who like Palin, already support one of those two. A Romney one may give him a bump, or may cause TEA party types to view her as selling out.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 10:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

She'll probably speak at the convention, because, fuck it, everyone speaks at the goddamn convention. Those things go on for days. It won't mean jack. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 10:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Ya see. If she were a negative to the GOP or America, they'd kill the idea in the planning stage. But she's a great asset as a speaker, and few Republican garner the enthusiasm from the crowd in a rousing speech as well as Palin or Obama. She's the Jesse Jackson of the GOP, an embarrassment but indispensable. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 13:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Rob for the most part. I could ask you what don't you like about Palin or what did she do that you hate her so? But that is worthless. Random names out of the phone book would do much better than the politicians we currently have but Palin, OMG the sky would fall, she couldn't do all that Obama does. LOL. Palin Tebow '12.--99.102.193.84 (talk) 16:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Palin Tebow? Wow, JPatt you must really hate your country. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 17:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Bonus points for CP's King of the Birthers not knowing Tebow's not a natural born citizen... --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 17:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Once again you all are missing the point. It isn't that we all hate Palin, it is all about the fact she isn't running, nor is she ever going to run for president in 2012, but you CP guys are too chickshit to call Andy on his bullshit.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I haven't given it much thought, but Rob's "Jesse Jackson of the GOP" statement might be the most astute thing he's ever said. Not that it's a high bar to clear. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 18:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting notion: the confusion among GOP primary voters may to an extent be linked to Palin's absence in the lineup. And Dick, I got a good make-the-democrats-look-like-racists spiel I could give vis-a-vis Jackson and a recent discussion about a GOP unity ticket in 2012 you may be interested to hear. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 18:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

If the opinion polls pre-primary season were anything to go by, the only thing Palin could have been a rallying point for would have been an "anyone but Palin" movement. Maybe that's the way Romney could have got people behind his business-as-usual, not outwardly insane campaign. Pointing at Palin and saying "It's me or that people. Think about it." --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Palin injects something into a campaign the GOP envies, but is common, among Democrats -- the ability of a loose-lipped airhead rabble-rouser to energize a crowd in decibel level beyond their actual numbers. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 20:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

While I think you've accurately pinpointed her skill set, I'd be curious as to which Democrats you think encompass the same abilities. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 21:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't call her airheaded Rob, just not Ivy league. Find me a good female politician because there are so few. The Daily Caller conservatives see the Palin strategy. [4]--99.102.193.84 (talk) 21:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

My wife, who really was a hockey mom when she lived in Oregon, calls La Palin a useless, brainless fuckwit. Which is milder than it used to be. Let's just keep in mind that Palin thought that the Queen had a say in keeping British troops in Iraq (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/sarah-palin/9094048/Sarah-Palin-believed-Queen-was-in-charge-of-British-forces-in-Iraq.html). I think that brainless fuckwit is being on the generous side. Darkmind1970 (talk) 21:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Africa is a country. Cannot name a single newspaper or magazine. Dinosaurs. Idiot. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 21:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Here's the thing about Palin. She was one of the biggest names in the Republican party for a while, and milked that for all it was worth. Then election season came around, and when it was clear she wasn't going to be a candidate her popularity waned as the spotlight centered on people who were actually running. Now, when you're the political version of a Kardashian, someone with no real talent but who is simply famous for being famous, you can't let your fame slide, as that's all you have. So now she's trying to seem relevant again, but it isn't working too well. As long as there's talk of a brokered convention her name will be spoken here and there, though no one thinks she stands a chance of coming out of the convention with the nomination. But it gets her name mentioned in a press which is quickly forgetting about her, and is seeing her as more and more irrelevant, so she takes what she can get. When they talk about VPs they'll mention her name here and there again, but no one will seriously consider putting her on the ticket. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 22:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Actually I have about as much regard for Palin as Barack Obama. The two really are very similar. They're about the same age, which means they are not of the Vietnam generation. They haven't seen the country at war with itself. The came of age in the 80s, so the Recession of 2008 is really the first big economic setback they've experienced. I've often said the '73 and '79 Recessions made me the person I am today, but they were just kids. The two are fabulous speakers, and have fanatical, cultlike followings. They're also naive, simplistic in outlook, hard partisans, inexperienced. Neither one seems to have developed a political outlook on their own, but were brainwashed in the households they grew up in. Both their careers owe more to identity politics than solid accomplishments, a purpose, merit or ambition of their own. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 11:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Really Strange Bedfellows

Obama is screwing up in Syria. We know because the Chinese say so^img. As reported by Russian TV. Whoover (talk) 23:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Standard Joaq. hes the one who says libya was illegal and everybody hates us for it. i dont think he understands the US isnt NK yet--il'Dictator Mikal 00:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

What branch of loony is that? Neo-Paulitan? CPedians support each other so long as they complaining about Obama, regardless of how internally consistent it makes them as a "movement"? Whoover (talk) 01:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

You're new here, aren't you. 06:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't mind me, just using this section to save a copy of this.^img -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 06:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

And only three and a half hours to fix it, well done Kenneth. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 14:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. That Gallup poll that's the top item in that screenie. According to Gallup, you can be a 'very religious' and 'moderately religious' atheist. How, exactly, does that work? Also, it's interesting to note that, according to the same poll, it's actually Jewish folk, not Christians, who have the greatest wellbeing, despite being the least religious of the religious groups. So, by the argument apparently being offered, does this mean Conservative is going to convert to a not very religious Jew? 86.167.241.151 (talk) 15:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Watergate was an inside Democrat job

Remember kids, when there's a republican in the office^img, revealing he did something wrong is totally bad. Especially when you "did it for the democrats"--il'Dictator Mikal 00:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I've been taking five from both here, conservapedia, and pretty much anything political because its all giving me a headache. Seeing that post brought it all back. See you next week.--Thunderstruck^{YOU'VE BEEN...} 01:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Karajou's point would actually be very valid if watergate were a made up scandal. Since it wasn't, what exactly is his point? "Desire to prove himself drove Felt to investigate, then reveal, the president's corruption"? What part of that is bad, exactly? X Stickman (talk) 01:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Shit like this makes it hard to be a Republican. Suddenly someone doing the right thing for self advancement is a bad thing now that the guy who did the wrong thing for self advancement is a Republican. In spite of Andy's complete and utter inability to understand the concept this is really what the real invisible hand is all about. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 02:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

What on earth does andy have to do with this one?--il'Dictator Mikal 02:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

That's why assuming makes an ass out of you and... oh fuck it. Also, I honestly don't care what someones intentions are. If a good thing gets done, so what? Senator Harrison (talk) 05:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

"Well, when the republican President does it, that means that it is not illegal."--il'Dictator Mikal 05:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Not quite the exact quote from Clear and Present Danger but your point is made. I just think it's amusing that Karajou et al honestly believe that authorization to break the law in the interest of the party is acceptable ([insert Orwellian reference here]) and supporting cronyism is fine...so long as you're a member of the party, and not the opposition. -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually i was quoting nixon--il'Dictator Mikal 17:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Quote mining. more like. That statement was about bombing, not about Watergate. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

didn't say it was about watergate; it still works though, and either way it was about them and the "reps do no wrong, dems do all wrong" world; not nixon. --il'Dictator Mikal 17:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Felt was just another self-centered self-indulged bureaucratic civil service AFSCME apparatchik careerist whose only loyalty was himself. Did I mention he wasn't a team player? nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 20:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

short rob: watergate never shoulda been revealedil'Dictator Mikal 20:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Mark Felt's role in Watergate was peripheral, at best. He didn't even work in the White House. He spoke to two Post reporters covering Watergate, but the information he gave related more to the case against John Mitchell and wp:Maurice Stans.

What's odd in all this is, Woodward & Bernstein said for forty years they'd give up the identity of Deep Throat after he died; then suddenly one day before the Democratic primaries of 2008 (after, incidentally, Bernstein trashed Hillary, the presumptive nominee, in a series particles) Voila! Mystery Revealed before the man's death. Why? Felt was convicted of violating the civil rights of Jennifer Dohrn, cp:Bernardine Dohrn's sister and wife of cp:Bill Ayers by breaking into her apartment without a search warrant trying to find information on the the Pentagon bombers.

What does this all prove? Woodward & Bernstein have been working with the wp:Weather Underground to topple the United States Government for forty years and replace it with Ayers & Dohrn's hand picked successor, Barack Obama. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 20:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Remember when you were the "Sane" one at CP rob? What happended to those daysil'Dictator Mikal 20:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you actually believe these things you say, Rob, or are you just the world's most wonderfully creative troll? Because that's a flight of fancy worthy of an oscar or two. If they gave out oscars for best paranoid delusion in a wiki format. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Rob, technically Felt's identity as Deep Throat was revealed "one day before the Democratic primaries of 2008," but that day was way back in May of 2005. And it was Felt himself who made the big reveal, so that kinda pokes a couple holes in your whole conspiracy theory. Congratulations for making me fall over laughing, though. --Tabrcg23 (talk) 23:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh Rob, I can no longer tell when you're taking the piss or not. Can you maybe post in red when you're serious, and in black when you're just trying to be cute? I assume this is the latter, because it's over the top even for you. You do realize that Felt wasn't outed, right? He announced he was Deep Throat unprompted, presumably because he was dying and wanted to be noteworthy one last time while he was still alive. Woodward and Bernstein kept mum about verifying his claim until they spoke to him and got his permission to confirm it. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 06:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm serious. This is how historical narrative gets written (the big blank track between 1973 & 1995 can be filed up with excerpts from Fugitive Days & Dreams from My Father). And there seems to have been some contact between Woodward and Felt before outing, probably as a way to maximize publicity for Felt's book. Footnote: As there is some controversy Felt may have exaggerated his role, as a way to promote a book, as a way to maximize an inheritance for his children, with Woodward's help, which is a way that helps maintain the confidentiality of other sources, weasels, rats, and snitches, which is why some claim Deep Throat was a composite character. But an Historical Marker has now been erected outside the parking structure marking the stall upon which the historical event took place. Myths, legends, and historical questions shall always persist. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 11:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Timeline

• April 1972, Mark Felt in charge of FBI high priority program to locate cp:Weather Underground fugitives. [5]
• October 1972, Felt defects to the commie left. [6]
• 1995, Obama anointed spiritual heir of Marxist Revolution. [7][8]
• January 2005, Obama takes office in Senate. Tom Daschle, a leader in the Stop Hillary movement, recruits Obama to run & hands over Chief-of-Staff Pete Rouse to organize operations. [9]
• June 2005, Felt outed by Bob Woodward. [10]
• March 2006, Bernstein delays publication on Hillary book. [11]
• March 2007 - March 2008, Bernstein publishes series hit pieces on Hillary.[12][13][14]
• May 2007, Bernstein unflattering book on Hillary appears. [15][16]
• May 2, 2008, Bernstein defends Obama's commie ties by calling Hillary a Stalinist. [17][18]
• August 2008, Obama defeats longtime presumptive nominee, Hillary Clinton.
• January 2009, Obama assumes Presidency; Ayers & Dohrn are avenged. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 02:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

... AHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHA--il'Dictator Mikal 02:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

And the timeline can be extended backwards:

• June 1945, Six arrested after illegal break-in. [19]
• 1948 Congress investigates the administration's illegal domestic spying, misuse of the FBI, and cover-up.[20]
• December 1948, Nixon puts away liberal Golden boy Alger Hiss. [21]
• 1953 President claims Executive Privilege in failure to reply to Congressional subpoena. [22]
• June 1974, Impeachment articles pass, some of the more bogus charges fail.
• August 1974, Nixon resigns; Hiss vindicated. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 13:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey Kendoll...

If you want to get pissed off at zealots who upset old people, you might start with Ray Comfort. While the holy oracle CMI might be telling you to be upset about Free Inquiry, what the hell is so bad about it that it qualifies as "evil"? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 12:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, leave The Special One alone. Can't you see he's busy turning MPL into his own personal, bad written fiefdom? --PsyGremlin話しなさい 14:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if this is a typo, or if he really doesn't know the word snarky^img. Perhaps the QE! Campaign is a bloodthirsty Great White, swimming furiously towards the beachgoing children of atheism. GayGator (talk) 20:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps he's alluding to this abortion? Or maybe I'm giving him too much credit for an awful play on words. Cow...Hammer^time! 21:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I love this question evolution campaign, it just highlights how dysfunctionally useless Kendoll and friends are. The whole idea to start by concentrating on Texas came about because ShockOfGoat really hates Matt Dillahunty from the Atheist Community of Austin. So they called a bunch of Texas churches and achieved... er... er... Then ShockOfGoat decided he was going to go "full throttle" on the campaign and hand out one million.. no! no! TWO MILLION! leaflets. And he wouldn't rest until it was done. So far they've handed out... er... no leaflets? Then they were going to do powerpoint presentations, and Kendoll just copy-pasted the 15 questions in to OpenOffice present. White on black, default font, no transitions. Then one of them was going to do man on street interviews... and er.... Then a "thirteen year old" was going to make some atheist defeating videos... and Kendoll knocked some shit up in five seconds using YouTube's create a video garbage, and they were bad even considering the tool used to make 'em. Then they were going to do a million international blogs... but they just ended up with random posts from the main blog copy-pasted to them. And now they're supposed to be doing a booklet. Given this impressive history of utter incompetence, what odds will you give that it never appears? No takers for it being fucking terrible if it ever does appear, that's a dead cert. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I hate to compare these people to actual mentally_handicapped individuals, but really, all you're doing is picking on the slow kids in class, Jeeves. You should just leave them to their idiocity. Nihilist (talk) 22:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Kendoll may be functionally retarded, but there's no one brighter than him left at CP. If we didn't pick on Kendoll, we might as well shut up shop here at WIGO: CP. They're all fucking off their nuts. Witness what Rob just wrote in the section above. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

"If we didn't pick on Kendoll, we might as well shut up shop here at WIGO: CP."

You read my mind. And concerning Rob, all you're doing is feeding the troll. Nihilist (talk) 22:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

You're not the first tedious little fucker through here, you know. You probably won't be the last either. Go ruin someone else's fun. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

If you find stalking and then subsequently making fun of the mentally handicapped kids that are homeschooled next to you fun, then by all means, don't let me be a party pooper. An American Nihilist (talk) 01:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you (a) trying to make a point, or (b) incapable of reading context, or (c) a totally witless fuck, or (d) an intolerant elitist who thinks it's beneath you to engage people/ideas different from your own? nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 03:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd put my money on 'a', 'c', and 'd'. Nihilist (talk) 06:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Funny, intolerant elitist who thinks it's beneath you to engage people/ideas different from your own was not a description of CP that I had considered before. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 11:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Sharky Ken

User apologized for Ken-induced snarkiness, so Ken is sharky too^img. He must have been bullied something awful in school. Whoover (talk) 23:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Look up two sections....Stick Boy (talk) 02:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think Ken ever went to a school. Otherwise, a social skill would have rubbed off on him. ^{ONE / TALK} 13:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Someone told him that the class clown is always popular so he's trying it and partially succeeding - just got that "popular" bit to crack Scream!! (talk) 13:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC).

The thing is that Ken sees himself as a satirist who uses ridicule in the tradition of Swift and Mad magazine. Importantly there is enough support for him at CP to support this illusion. He almost certainly sees himself in partnership with Andy. He provides the comic relief to Andy's cutting analysis of current affairs. And, within their little bubble, it's working. Jack Hughes (talk) 13:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The real story is Andy and Karaturd's appalling lack of concern for a verifiably profoundly mentally ill man. Karaturd, go do some simple due diligence and learn this one important fact people have known about your unwell colleague for a long long time. 14:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

He's too much of a coward to do that. It would validate and prove the concerns given from RW for years, hurt his pride for trying to keep it a secret for so long, and then force him to actually do something. He can't let that happen, so he takes the coward's way out, juuuust like Andy. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 16:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

JPatt on GWash

Washington sacrificed "all" for a free America.^img

Okay, Washington was a great man, the Father of Our Country, etc etc etc. And he did give up a lot.

But sacrificed "all"? Sorry, no. First, sacrificing "all" for your country generally refers to dying in it's service, which Washington did not do. Even putting that definition aside, he died a wealthy man --his estate was estimated at being worth $1 million at the time. And he's pretty much the most respected of the Presidents.

And then, of course, JPatt goes on to assert that "A failure to honor Washington is a win for liberalism. So, liberals hate Washington? Huh? True, we do avoid the near ancestor-worship that conservatives heap on ol' George and the rest of the founders -- we do things that point out he owned slaves, and I've heard it argued he wasn't as great a general as the myth presents him as. But I've not heard anyone saying that we should, oh, tear down the Washington Monument or some such.

In other words, JPatt is an idiot. But we knew that already. MDB (talk) 13:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Not true; the earthquake that broke the Washington Monument was because liberals; "In the last days there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes , in divers places. All these are the beginning of the end" nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 13:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

"And there shall in that time be rumours of things going astray, and there will be a great confusion as to where things really are, and nobody will really know where lieth those little things with the sort of raffia work base, that has an attachment that will not be there." Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 14:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, he did give up a cushy (albeit incompetent) position as a general in the British army, to lead a rag tag bunch of rebels against the British and thus face execution for treason. His record in the war wasn't great (and the less said about his record in the French and Indian war, the better - Fort Necessity, anybody?), although he did win the battle that mattered, albeit with the help of the French. He was probably better at rallying the troops than actual military strategy. Countdown to Jpatt's head exploding in 3... 2... --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 13:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

George Washington is the greatest because he was anti-abortion (he never once said anything in favor of aborting babies), he didn't believe in global warming and he wasn't the lamestream media's bitch like Barack Hussein Obama is. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

How to make a conservative's head explode when it concerns George Washington: What did he do when faced with an armed revolt over taxes? Order it crushed by military force. MDB (talk) 14:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

What about them there slaves Washington owned? Did he give those up? Well, yes, only after he died (dower slaves continued in service for his wife). Give it up, liberals! Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 15:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Occasionaluse (talk) 15:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The First Sedition leader deserves accolades until the day his country dies. --99.102.193.84 (talk) 15:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Then shouldn't the southern states stop honoring Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee? Last I heard, the CSA died. Reichhol (talk) 16:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

How dare you impune our illustrious heritage! -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, "A failure to honor Washington is a win for liberalism" should be enough to make anyone facepalm. Even Glenn Beck. Senator Harrison (talk) 15:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Silly JPatt, you can't outcrazy the boss when it comes to anything, including Washington's birthday. Remember, Andy held that President's Day was an example of the secularization of language, that George Washington was a SAINT (perhaps of the Church of Satan!) and atheistic liberals try downplay his record^img. That last thing is why the US doesn't honor Washington at all.... except for naming the capital after him, a state after him, a giant monument in the capital named after him, putting his face on Mt. Rushmore, having his face on the dollar AND quarter, frequently ranking as greatest president (or in the top 5), named several cities, colleges, universities, counties after him.... but we don't celebrate his birthday! --Night Jaguar (talk) 16:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Even by Andy standards, that one was bizarre. A saint in the Church of Satan? MDB (talk) 17:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

So if ALL THAT is a win for liberalism and secularism—mind you, one that neither liberals nor secularists fought for—what do we call changing his namesake airport to be named after a known criminal? -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

"Sacrificing all"...I don't think there's ANY president that ever did that. Alan Turing, maybe. Socrates, perhaps. Job, definitely, if he was a real person (which I doubt), and even then he got it all back. -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

What was Washington suppose to do with the slaves? "You're free, pal! Good luck!" No severance package, unemployment compensation, GED, housing, dinner tonight, etc. etc. etc. "Oh, hey, and get you're shit out of the shanties right away, they've been rented to cash paying tenents." nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 20:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Smith, um...do you know there're classes you can take? They like, explain history. You can just go there and ask "what was slavery like", "what happened to freed slaves", anything... 99.50.96.218 (talk) 20:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, so this is the "Washington did'em a favor argument for not freeing his slaves. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 21:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ But let's look at PsyGremlin's argument: Washington was a half-wit commander who should have freed his slaves. Ok. So he free's his slaves, destroy's his business in doing so (Washington remains the richest President ever, adjusted for inflation) can't afford to raise an army at his own expense to fight the British, the British win, and we all (like South African's & kiwis) remain slaves of the Queen. What a tradeoff. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 21:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Rob, you really need to get over your kiwi hatred. Kiwis are either cute, delicious, or FUCKING AWESOME. Sparky! ^{I forgot to put something here, as you can see.}

Really, Rob? You're arguing against freeing slaves? Really? Anyway, Washington had slaves long after the revolutionary war was already won. He could have freed them then. And why didn't he attempt to end slavery as President of the United States? Also, by your logic, I guess by freeing them in his will (after Martha died) he was a job destroyer. There's so much more wrong, but I'll stop there. --Night Jaguar (talk) 22:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The slaves of the Queen thing had me in stitches. Washington's namesake may have had a throne and a crown, but the Americans weren't his slaves by anyone's estimation, and the same certainly applies to his descendants. Parliament was sovereign by this point, but as we've covered previously the American "revolution" made no substantial difference there, it just meant a different bunch of rich white men were running things. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 22:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it would have been terrible to be a "slave to the Queen". Washington probably knew some people who could have told him how horrible it was to be owned by another person. --Night Jaguar (talk) 22:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Great idea Rob, counter the GW had slaves with "slaves to the Queen". It'd work beautifully except for the fact that we outlawed slavery way before you lot, with Royal Assent no less. If GW hadn't won that war you'd all actually be like Canadians now, which would mean that Americans abroad wouldn't have to pretend to be Canadian. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 23:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's see, the founding colonists felt King George was taking away their rights as Englishmen and British subjects, making them slaves. So they rose in armed rebellion with George Washington as Commander-In -Chief. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 23:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

. Rob doesn't believe a word of this. Why are people continuing to cross examine him about beliefs he's only pretending to have? Damo^Hi 00:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

First through his conspiracy theories on Watergate, and now this: Rob may be more batshit crazy than Assfly.

How were the causes of the American Revolution in any way worse than the subjugation of millions of blacks? Osaka Sun (talk) 02:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, they did discuss it in formulating te Declaration of Independence. In a long list of particulars of King George removing colonial settlers rights (i.e making them slaves) and making them slaves, one of King George's sins was engaging in the slave trade. That can, in true American fashion, got kicked down the road. [23] nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 03:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

... ladies and gentlemen, history being rewritten: the US condemned slavery in the early 1800's. --il'Dictator Mikal 03:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

See, that's what happens when formerly less developed, undeveloped, undeveloping, non-align, post-aligned, currently graduated to rank as First World school systems get infected with commie text books. The US did deal with the question of slavery early on. Senator Mason and Senator Dixon compromised on the Mason-Dixon line, slavery would not exist north of the Mason-Dixon line. South of the Dixie line, another matter. And the problem of extending the Mason-Dixon line west of the Mississippi River, that can got kicked down the road.... nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 03:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Pedantic point: Mason and Dixon weren't Senators, they were surveyors. In fact, they couldn't have been Senators, since they surveyed the border prior to the revolution. It's the border between Virginia, Pennsylvania, Maryland and Delaware (and West Virginia today, but that state didn't exist.) Slavery really had nothing to do with the line at the time. MDB (talk) 15:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

that's what happens when formerly less developed, undeveloped, undeveloping, non-align, post-aligned, currently graduated to rank as First World school systems get infected with commie text books. Which countries you talking about this time? Ace^Moderator 03:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Rob theres so much wrong with what you said. --il'Dictator Mikal 03:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

He didn't even try answer my question. So I'll ask it one more time: Were the socioeconomic conditions in the Thirteen Colonies responsible for the Revolutionary War comparable to the British slave trade?

And apparently the Fathers didn't give a shit enough about the abolition question to put that clause into the Declaration anyway. If they did we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place. Like Thomas Day said: "If there be an object truly ridiculous in nature, it is an American patriot, signing resolutions of independency with the one hand, and with the other brandishing a whip over his affrighted slaves." Osaka Sun (talk) 03:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

That's right. What unstated here, and a matter of interpretive history, is the underlying racist sentiment that both slaveholders, and colonists above (what later became) the Mason-Dixon line, blamed King George for bringing black Africans to American shores for economic exploitation. A consensus majority, north and south, may not have liked it at the time, and most probably wanted to stop the growth in numbers of African slaves brought to America (perhaps because they were racist, or other reasons), but regarded the British ships unloading slaves for sale as a large part of the problem of being part of a political system (the British Empire) in which they had no rights, (or themselves becoming slaves). nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 04:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Except it was a spanish priest who suggested using black slaves in masse in the americas... and there was slavery north of the mason dixen line... in some states til the 1810's. --il'Dictator Mikal 04:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Were black slaveholders north or south of the Mason-Dixon? nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 11:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Stop arguing with Rob. Don't you lot get it? Rob is pretending to be a pig-ignorant dipshit with an immeasurable degree of self-delusion. It's an act. ^{ONE / TALK} 13:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you need Punditry 101 as well; we are brainstorming for talking point. It's best to vet your material before a private audience to see how well it works before going public. It's the give-n-take from diverse viewpoints that hone's the material. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 13:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

If that's what you're trying to do, you can save yourself time. The reaction to everything you say, or probably ever will say, is silent stares of disbelief. Don't air your views in public, just mutter them to yourself when you're whittling on your porch. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

You're denying yourself. I speak for millions. Listen to what some ratwiki editors say about Palin, Romney, Gingrich, pulling their hair out of their heads & banging their head against the wall trying, trying to comprehend. In 90% of the speculation bantered here, most of you guys could not be more wrong. Sure, you aire your petty grievances, and snipe with snide remarks about the people and ide3as you despise, but if you want (in the immortal words of Spiro Agnew) instance analysis of what it all means, my services are available. And I'm not even charging a subscription fee at present. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 21:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

lolwut? The bacteria on your skin don't count, Nobski, not when you're claiming to speak for others.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 21:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

"would these millions include those mysterious pro-Rob CP admins you spoke about back in the summer?". --il'Dictator Mikal 21:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Case in Point: About may of this year, while others on this page indulged their obsession with their fear of Palin presidency, I alone (it's a matter of record in these Archives), ahead of media reports, etc., came here & told you against the countervailing wisdom, that Plain would not run. This is a matter of record. Now, in an above thread discussion on Palin, someone is trying to convince me' that Palin is not going to run.

Sooo, my fingers are close to pulse and heartbeat of America, at least GOP America. Remember when Obama-commies tried to convince us America was nolonger a center-right nation? In your wetdreams. JESUS FUCK, Obama today proposes cutting taxes for greedy, evil corporate polluters because somehow, someday, someway, some crumb is supposed to trickle down on the rest of us. [24]

We've had 19 Republican Presidents, and only 8 Democrats. And one BIG explanation the past 160+ years is the utter intolerance, and explicit disdain for political opposition expressed by left-leaning assholes such as are common in a discussion forum like this. You don't think your own fundamental disrespect for you fellow human beings who think differently from yourself is not heard by a majority of you fellow citizens? You think for instant they regard your ideology a fair, or just, in any regard? Go ahead, live on in conceit, self deceit. In the end, your cult heroes you bow down to, like Obama or Clinton, if they hope to function in office, adopt conservative positions and attitudes. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 23:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Really, Rob? I count 16 Democrats and 19 Republicans, not that any of that matters since you're just going to have a clever explanation for why 8 of those democrats weren't "real" democrats. And the party ideologies have changed so much over the years that any kind of comparison is completely useless. And if you think that disdain for the opposite political side is a liberal exclusive, you haven't been paying attention. So yeah, you haven't been paying attention. RachelW (talk) 00:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, you're counting the wp:segregationists. Thank you. Shows how fucking ignorant you are of America. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 01:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

If you'd said "Conservative" instead of "Democratic" you would have a point, but you didn't. You are free to define words however you like, but you must let people know if you are going to use words in a different sense to the one it is usually used. Damo^Hi 01:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I said 19 Republicsn and 8 Democrats in the past 160 years! Fuck you. I was clear in what I said. The Democrats, ahhhemm, don't wanna talk about the Democrats before the Rwpublican party was founded. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 01:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

You said "We've had 19 Republican Presidents, and only 8 Democrats. And one BIG explanation the past 160+ years". And I'm not disputing that Party labels are not misleading throughout history, just you need to be more accurate. And why are you hurling obscenities? Damo^Hi 01:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Along side one indy, 1 federalist, 4 whigs and 4 democrat-republicans. And an interesting thing to note is the fact the parties only because the current form of politics relativly recently; skewing the "liberal and conservative" charts--il'Dictator Mikal 00:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Hahahahaha are you fucking serious, Rob? Segregationists? (That's how you spell it, btw.) You mean like everyone in the fucking country up halfway through the last century? Give me a fucking break, you're like Ken without the mental illness excuse! RachelW (talk) 01:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

You think so? Ever been to America? Ever been to America in the 1950s or 60s? nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 02:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I do think so! I have been to America! I was born in the 80's! Any more irrelevant questions, not-mentally-challenged-Ken? RachelW (talk) 02:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, ya having trouble reading, Rachel? Ken is in one of the threads below (or above). nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 03:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Nope, no trouble reading over here! Thanks for asking, Ken! RachelW (talk) 04:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Um, Rob...

You know what else is a "matter of record" in the archives? You saying this: "And Bachmann's gonna be the next president (despite all the bigotted misogynists who can't hang with having a sister president)." Same post.

Yes. You said Palin wasn't going to run at at time we all knew that was true. You're very good at reading a newspaper. If you're trying to hype yourself as a great predictor of the future because you have your ear to the ground with the common people, you're failing fucking miserably. Your predictive talents seem to be on a par with Andy's. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh hey. Look what else we can find in the archives from you, Rob. "I'm not saying I'm for Palin, but we all know 60% of Americans say Palin's views are more like thier own and only 40% say Obama's are. That makes her a strong contender."

A strong contender, eh? Oh yeah, you've been saying for YEARS that Palin didn't have a prayer. You fraud. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I was just feeding the trolls. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 02:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

No you weren't. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Hahahahaha, what a fucking fraud. Rob can't help but shot himself in the foot at every opportunity. Comedy gold. Ace^Moderator 02:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

"I was just kidding about my predeliction for barely-legal porn as a joke to you guys" "I was just feeding the trolls" "I'm a profoundly stupid man and a bad person." Third time's a charm. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 02:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Now now, for all we know Rob is only an asshole on the Internet. It's a lot harder to be Ken in real life, which is why there's only one, thank God.

PS tee hee! RachelW (talk) 03:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The bottomline here is, you guys don't really have much in the way of analytical skills, and it's no wonder, cause you observational skills ain't worth a fuck. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 03:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

So, when rationalwikians were saying Palin wouldn't run while you were still saying she as a "strong contender", that's because our observational skills ain't worth a fuck? When we noticed Bachmann was crazy as a loon and made her our presidential pick, you'd flip-flopped from "president Palin" and were seriously touting "president Bachmann" because you're so in touch with the common man. Well, don't keep us in suspense, o prophet Nobbykins. Who's going to be the Republican nominee? I reckon it's going to be Romney, but I'm just a blinkered liberal. I'm sure you can help me out with your common wisdom. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 03:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Santorum. But I'll be as proud as the day I voted for Ronaldus Magnus pulling the lever for either Santorum or Gingrich. Romney's ok, but just another Bush I or II, really. Could do more harm to the party than good like those two idiots. But I know, Democrats don't give a fuck whether a GOP or Democratic President does any good for the countgry or the goddamn planet for that matter, it's what they do for their party that ultimately tghey are judged. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 04:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Not Jeb Bush then? The dear leader will be disappointed. So how did you come to overlook the frothy mixture in your deep deliberations on the subject in the past year? It's funny how now he's the designated not-Romney of the week, suddenly your highly trained analytical mind suggest he'll be the one isn't it? Would that be because he's fucking unelectable like all the other not-Romneys? Anyway, we'll remember you said that once it becomes clear you're wrong yet again. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 04:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, Ken, take those Democrats down a notch! They don't care about ANYTHING, not ANYTHING! RAWWWWR!! RachelW (talk) 04:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

You know what? this site really is going to hell. It ain't even funny anymore. For intelligent conversation, user outta be encouraged to go elsewhere. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 05:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

If you're looking for a place to go, why not try this place? I hear they have lots of great debates and the owner's a super cool guy! I'm sure they'll take you in and make you and your wonderful ideas feel right at home! Bye, Ken! Don't forget to visit us dummies once in a while! RachelW (talk) 05:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh my god, is Rob really Leaving and never coming back? And are we really going to call him Ken from now on? Cause we all know he's not going to leave, and I would absolutely love it if we had our own Ken Jr. to fuck around with. Tesformes (talk) 05:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

HEY GUYS! We all know that popular vote is the best way to decide the fate of minorities, and Rob's a minority of one if I ever saw one! I'm taking a vote in the Saloon, drop in if you think Rob should be declared Ken-by-proxy, or if you're afraid having two Kendolls will only make them powerful than we could possibly imagine. RachelW (talk) 05:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Is this how you treat minorities? Figures. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 13:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Its not because you're a minority, Rob. It's because you're being a dick. ^{— Unsigned, by: 82.198.250.4 / talk / contribs}

Rob, you've been "oppressed" at every wiki you've ever signed up for. You know what the motivational poster says, the common factor is each one of your failed relationships is you. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

That's what my ex-wife said. If I wanted that kind of abuse I'd go back to her. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 19:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Rob's Ken's ex-wife

Poor Ken, he thought he finally found a fellow RINO to spend his life with, but it turns out even a rhinoceros can tell when an H is missing. RachelW (talk) 22:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)