Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive283

This is an archive page, last updated 30 March 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>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <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)

Missouri Republicans

Andy: Such massive republican caucuses! Were populist! the democrats handpick candidates!^img. According to the source; one was shut down by police after problems involving paul supporters and a fear for crowd safety. the other stopped admitting people because it could only hold 120 people. And im not sure what he's getting at with "democrats force hand picked candidates on people" stuff. --il'Dictator Mikal 19:59, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Anybody got a clue what he means with that Democrats line? --★uːʤɱ secularist 20:06, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Republicans are good and always do the right thing, therefore Democrats are evil and always do the opposite. Open your mind to the truth of this logical conservative insight! Sophie^{because liberals} 20:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, that explains why the 15th seeded Norfolk State defeated heavily favored (by lamestream media) University of Missouri in the March madness tournament. Aboriginal Noise ^{Theist, barely hanging by a nail} 20:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Wherein Rob Smith begins to troll people who should know better...

(a) "stopped admitting people because it could only hold 120 people" shows which party has the enthusiasm; and (b) "force hand picked candidates on people" probably is a reference to the Democratic Party's longstanding, anti-democratic, non-elected, elitist Superdelegate tradition (you know, where common primary voters count as three-fifths of a person). nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 22:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Bottomline is: Obama is only president today because he was hand picked by unelected Democratic Superdelegates. Primary voters can go fuck themselves as far as Democrats have always been concerned. The Democratic Party is not democratic. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 22:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

...I thought he was president today because a majority of voters elected him in 2008. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 22:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Nope. The States elect the President, not the People. And Obama only beat Hillary Clinton for the nomination with 'unelected Superdelegates, not delegates elected through primaries and caucuses. Oh, and did you know, since the Clinton's, you can buy a Superdelegate seat at the convention for cash, rather than just be a oldtime elected official too corrupt and lazy to face the party faithful at a caucus and be elected to the convention. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 22:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The States elect the president based on what, Rob? Were there any states that did not respect the popular vote in 2008? Idiot. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 23:22, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Jesus Christ are you really that dumb? Nowhere in the Constitution do the People elect the President, never did, and probably never will. Are you trying to make the same argument the idiots in 2000 made? "We're too stupid to understand the rules, so let's change the rules after we lost and the games over." And the fuck of it all is, where the fuck has any change in the Electoral Collage occurred after 12 fucking years now, or even been attempted to change, for all those fucking idiot's bluster? nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 23:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

So please give me a list of states whose votes in the electoral college in 2008 differed from the poular vote in that state in 2008, idiot. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 23:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Give me one state in the history of the Republic that ever went against its popular vote (or other alternative allocation method such as Maine has)? nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 23:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

So then why even bring up the Electoral College if it's irrelevant to my argument, idiot? P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 23:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Because the People do not elect the President in this Republic of the United States. Never have, and most likely never will. And that is something you obviously have trouble understanding. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 00:16, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I understand how the electoral college works, idiot. I also understand that Obama is President because the Electoral College, following the overwhelming popular will of the electorate, made him president, not because of a backroom deal involving superdelegates, idiot. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 00:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

He became nominee and eligible to run in the General Election only because he was hand picked by Democrat Superdelegate party insiders, not the choice of primarily voters at the ballot box or in caucuses. And the genius of the Electoral College is, it mandates the winner have a Constitutional 51% majority. It is one of the remaining rights delegated to the States, which they are loate to give up (especially to idiot Democrat majority States like California, New York, New Jersey, and Michigan, which almost solely would elect the President). But it is good to see after 12 years someone who self-identifies as a liberal or Democrat finally admit Al Gore & the Florida bullshit of 2000 was entirely just that -- mindless, partisan bullshit that served no other purpose than to cause harm to the Republic. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 00:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

P-Foster, you are being intentionally obtuse. RobS is referring to the primaries, and not the general election. He is saying that Hilary Clinton won the popular vote in the Democratic primaries, and that she would have won the election afterwards, whereas Obama was not democratically elected as the Democratic candidate, and in a fashion did not win the presidential democratically, since he skipped winning the Democratic primaries democratically. Rob, don't let yourself get sidetracked.--User:Brxbrx/sig 03:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

"Shut up, Brx."--il'Dictator Mikal 03:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, look, Mikalos totally just dissed me! Man, am I humbled. I mean, that there is some brilliant rhetoric. You take right after Socrates! You must be real proud of yourself.--User:Brxbrx/sig 04:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

"Shut up, Brx."--User:Brxbrx/sig 04:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

What's that got to do with the price of fish?

il'Dictator Mikal 04:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC) ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I DO NOT self-identify as a liberal or a Democrat. I would never support a party that hews that far to the right, thank you very much. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 00:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

" shows which party has the enthusiasm." Fuck, Rob, is your fetal alcohol syndrome acting up again? As compared to what, exactly? The non-existent Democratic primaries that aren't happening because they already have a candidate? P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 22:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Obama's enthusiasm gap. Donations suck too. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 23:02, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey idiot: taken from the story you linked to: "Nearly 50 percent of Republicans are not satisfied with their candidates and would prefer someone else." This is about more than the potential problems that Obama might have, idiot. Idiot. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 23:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Big fucking deal. Republicans do not worship men. That, my good man, is the difference between a Democrat and Republican. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 23:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

"Republicans do not worship men". Idiot. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 23:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Let me give an example. If I were to say, Steven Speilberg is just another Obama dicksucker, everyone, conservative, liberal, moderate, and non-American, would have an immediate understanding what I'm talking about, complete with an image of an army of millions of common Obama dicksuckers. The same idiom with any Republican, Reagan, Gingrich, Romney, McCain, Herbert Hoover, Alf Landon, etc etc etc, would make no sense. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 23:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Republicans' idolatrous cock-sucking of St. Ronnie is well-known and requires no further comment. As for a lack of any other cases, well, I think that says more about the soulless, elitist, cold, distant, unfeeling pricks that manage to come out on top in the Republican Party than it does about the party's rank and file. Face it, with the exception of Sarah Palin (who resonated with her party in great part because she couldn't name a single major US periodical), the Republican leadership has been a long line of cold-fish technocrats or base idiots (your kind of people) for quite a while now. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 23:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Reagan's hero and role model was FDR whom he imitated and inspired him to greatness. But one can forgive him for being a youtful idiot, as we all were at some time. Let's have a poll, If the election were tomorrow would you vote for:

• Adolf Hitler
• Josef Stalin
• Saddam Hussein
• Mitt Romney
• Rick Santorum
• Newt Gingrich

And let's not give any other choices, not even Goat. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 00:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Considering the first two brought countries up to greatness... id say hitler or stalin. --il'Dictator Mikal 00:16, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Romney, because he might just adopt my position for 5 minutes. But now to business, (1) delegates electing the President are voted for by the people, some of them are bound some aren't — that's technically not the people, but it's still called indirect democracy, which still is a form of people's rule. (2) If the Dems are undemocratic, does that mean the Founding Fathers (who came up with this indirect system for electing the POTUS) are fascists? If so, are they still conservatives? And how can you justify, as conservative, not fighting against this more than 200 year long oppression of the American people? (3) Stop pulling shit out of your ass, it stinks. --★uːʤɱ sinner 00:19, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Response (1) that's true in the GOP, but not entirely true in the Democrat Party were unelected Superdelegates dilute common people's primary vote down to three-fifths of a person; (2) the Founders (gender neutral term) were of varying political stripes, however partisanship was generally frowned upon. For the most part, wp:Whigs gained ascendency whereas Tories (such as wp:Benedict Arnold) become increasing unpopular during the period of armed insurrection. (3) Tell that to the President; the GOP hasn't even agreed upon a nominee yet he pulls shit out of his ass about Republican voters, Republican ideals, Republican candidates, and Republican officials daily. And we'll still be here, active, influential, and involved in politics long after he's retired and worthless as a third tit, as ex-president's are. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 00:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Four elections went counter to the popular vote. Andrew Jackson (1824, Independent), Rutherford B. Hayes (1876, Republican), Benjamin Harrison (1888, Republican) and George Bush (2000, Republican) became president despite garnering a smaller percentage of the popular vote than their opponents. Al Gore had a half million more votes than Bush. Guess which party likes the electoral college? Whoover (talk) 00:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, let's see now; the Democrats had a majority in the House, Senate, a majority of US governors and control of State Legislatures, and the Presidency from 2009 to 2011. What the fuck did they do? Did any of them, anywhere, at anytime, pick up the cause of Amending the Constitution to repeal the Electoral College? to right the wrong of how they were cheated? blah blah blah. I am so motherfucking sick of Democrat bullshit...goddamm lying cocksuckers... go fuck Rush Limbaugh, or George W. Bush, or some other slut.... nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 00:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Fish. Whoover (talk) 01:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

RobS don't be this stupid. The President is elected by the Electoral College. The Electoral College is chosen by the States. The States choose based on the voters. The only reason Bush won in 2000 was because of a corrupt Supreme Court and ballots being thrown out in Florida. Btw Whoover Andrew Jackson was before most states decided electors based on popular vote, so he doesn't count. And the Republican Party back then was not the Republican Party of today. The Electoral College will essentially be eliminated soon, as more and more states are signing treaties that allot their electors to the winner of the national popular vote. Mr. Anon (talk) 01:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the only relevant election to this discussion is 2000, but you're missing the point. The ten smallest states control 6% of the electoral college with 2% of the population. The problem is not the inaccuracy of elector allocation; it's the roundoff error. Small states will not agree to the inherent loss of this odd weighting in a true popular vote. This has always been the issue. Whoover (talk) 01:19, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a going point and I did not realize that most of the states that benefit from the electoral college are hard-core Republican states. So yeah Rob, now that we've established that the majority of Americans wanted Obama in 2008, what exactly were you wanting to say? Mr. Anon (talk) 01:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Bottom line is that a Wyoming vote is worth more than a New York vote. It's not brain surgery. Only facts. Whoover (talk) 01:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

(EC)The winner-take-all system has advantages, most notably, if no candidate has a majority of Electors and the decision is given to the House of Representatives, each State is given only one vote. Allocation of Electors by district would be meaningless. Under these circumstances, even a divided State delegation would have to choose only one candidate as each State has only one vote vote to cast. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 02:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

BTW, the unpleasant troll notwithstanding, Democrats don't call this "unfair." Giving each state two senators, and the electoral college, were compromises needed for the small colonies to agree to ratify the Constitution. It's not an accident. And since the thirteen smallest states (and/or red states who feel they are more competitive in small-population states) can prevent ratification, no sane person would expect any changes to the system. Whoover (talk) 02:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

One idea for fixing congress would be to get the house more in line the growing population[3]. This would renormalize the minimum representation - Wyoming would have 16 representatives with the latest census[4] and New York would have 629[5]. This would in turn change the size of the electoral collage and even out the disparity of voites (Wyoming would still be worth more because the additional two delegates would be a larger percentage of 16 than 629, but it would be much less than the ratio it is now). //// There is also an an attempt to bypass the electoral college in a number of states (Currently 132 votes or 49% of the 270 - one more state will flip it) by having the delegates of that state vote with the national popular vote rather than the state vote. --Shagie (talk) 02:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

They COULD expeand the house to where it naturally should be, excpet the logistics of a ever expanding group would make it impossible to have anything but a football stadium be the meeting place. --il'Dictator Mikal 02:15, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Sounds all well and good, and this is how you could make it work: move a couple of million voters from NY & CA to WY and 37 other less populated states, establish residency, vote, bring ACORN to help, take over the State House, and Amend the Constitution for those states to give up their Electoral rights. Then everybody can go home. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 02:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

But what's that got to do with the price of fish? Vulpius (talk) 02:35, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

And while we're at it can we fuck with SCOTUS too? I say increase the number of justices to thirteen? And each justice would be from a specific court of appeals and their successor would be a judge from that court. I think it is an elegant solution. Ayzmo (talk) 03:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

It always struck me that the electoral college (not a collage, Rob) is a bizarre system that is a sort of first-past-the-post on steroids thalidomide. Of course it is counter-intuitive to expect an incumbent party to change the system because that is the very way that they have just managed to get themselves elected. But then I don't really expect Rob to make a sensible point when he can take cheap shots at the opposition. What's the technical term people keep bandying about? Ah yes, idiot.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 09:19, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

From my understanding of the thought of the day, it stems from people not being smart enough to vote for a good leader. i think thats more true today though--il'Dictator Mikal 15:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The electoral college is a carryover from early American elitism, yes, but it's also a safeguard in a similar vein as the bicameral legislature, meant to prevent larger more populous states from overtaking the smaller ones. It is a safeguard against tyranny of the majority, although not a very good one.--User:Brxbrx/sig 18:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Not a good one at all. Under the Electoral College system, a candidate could win the eleven biggest states 51%-49%, come nowhere in the other 37 states, and become president. Sophie^{because liberals} 18:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The Electoral College mandates a winner carry 51% of State Electors; if the U.S. had direct popular election, multiple parties would flourish and a winner conceivably could get 25% while six others carry a combined 75%, making the country ungovernable. This is why States elect the President, not the People. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 18:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Or, you know, we could have run-off elections. That usually works pretty good--Brxbrx 19:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

That is true, valid, and interesting. However it's the Electoral College that basically gives the U.S. a two party system, cause it mandates a 51% majority. If a popular personality from a minor party were elected, he'd still have tremendous difficulties passing any legislation in Congress (this is a huge advantage the British system has) or getting any appointments requiring 2/3rds Senate approval. A recent illustration of the ineffectiveness of this was wp:Jesse Ventura's tenure as Governor of Minnesota. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 19:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The Consitution says "more than half." That is 50% plus one elector, not 51%. Whoover (talk) 20:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I openeded my mind and my brainz felleded out! --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Tah-daaaaaaah!} 11:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Amen. So the Constitution moreless mandates a two-party system in the United States. Hence the futility, (or stupidity), of Third Parties (like the Perot idiots). nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 20:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I openeded my mind and my brainz felleded out! --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Tah-daaaaaaah!} 16:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

What About Tebow?

How is the firing of Saint Tim gonna play over at CP? Martyrdom? God's shining countenance on the team that picks him up? Silence? Whoover (talk) 20:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Denver was too liberal anyway. A conservative team could benefit much more greatly from Tebow's Christian values. And stuff. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Rumor mill says Jacksonville. So we won't hear much of him (outside CP) for a while.--Thunderstruck^{YOU'VE BEEN...} 20:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Denver's "Faith"ful clearly have no real faith, as they are all quite happy to see him gone. Godot What do cats dream about? 20:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

God is done working miracles through Tebow, so Tebow is of absolutely no interest for CP until he somehow manages to attract positive attention again. In short: "Tewho?" --Sid (talk) 20:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

He's not gone yet but GM Elway never did like Tebow's style. The end of Tebow has been greatly exaggerated, much like Conservapedia. --99.155.80.201 (talk) 20:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you clinging so hard to corpse of Conservapedia because it'd be a pain in the arse to change the name on your twitter account? It's really quite easy, you know. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:30, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Well he will be traded, so while he won't be quarterbacking for Denver, he will be quarterbacking for some NFL team. For Tebow, it is just a change of who he is working for, but he will still be there, just the colors and logos have changed.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 00:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Yep^img. It's martyrdom on the altar of the lamestream media apparently. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 01:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The irony is that it is purely a business decision by the Broncos. Everything else being even, who gives the Broncos a better chance of winning Superbowls, Manning or Tebow? The answer is Manning, and that is it, period. I thought Andy and CP were pro-business and pro-capitalism; well this was a capitalist business call, nothing more, nothing less. Tebow will continue to play, just somewhere else. That is what makes this whole martyr complex and conspiracy theory on Andy's part so damn hypocritical and pathetic. It also show Andy doesn't know shit about professional American football.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 01:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Tim Tebow is abandoned by the Denver Broncos, which picks the media-favored Peyton Manning instead. I think they mean "the good quarterback Peyton Manning instead". Turpis 3:16 (talk) 03:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Finally! Because liberals.^img Whoover (talk) 02:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Andy just stop... No on believe your faux martyrdom of Tebow and your conspiracy theories involving Manning. All you are demonstrating in front of the public is your ignorance of how the NFL and competitive professional sports in general work.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 10:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

LMAO...No, Andy, the goal for the Broncos (headed by Elway, who is anything BUT liberal) was to replace Tebow with someone who doesn't suck. -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

It's gonna get better. Saint Timothy traded into the Belly of the Beast! Whoover (talk) 17:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Good fucking riddance. -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Conservative Tim Tebow? How does Andy know he's not a RINO or Black Liberation Theologist? nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 19:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

What's that got to do with the price of fish?

-- Seth Peck (talk) 19:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The newest member of the The Best Of The Public is...

...Jesus Christ.^img

Words fail me. But I'll admit, Andy's Monday Night Insights are even weirder than his Weekend Insights. --Sid (talk) 11:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I think he's getting worse. If Obama gets re-elected he might totally snap. (Also, deserves a WIGO.) --Night Jaguar (talk) 11:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Yet more blasphemy from Andy. Calling Jesus the "best of the public" effectively denies his divinity. Andy, get your head out of your tradesman's entrance and learn about the religion you claim to support. Or, y'know, just dig CP into an ever-deeper hole, which is more entertaining. Sophie^{because liberals} 11:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I like how Andy pisses all over the sacred themes of the religion he claims is so important to him and the world whenever it serves his own pride and ego.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 11:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Pride, eh? What does that go before, again? also, half the right-hand column quotes seem to be preceded by "hey, Andy!" Sophie^{because liberals} 11:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Following the link to the 'best of the public page' and seeing 'THE BEST OF THE PUBLIC IS BETTER THAN A GROUP OF EXPERTS' makes me writhe in my seat in disgust. I have these fleeting visions of some kind of Andyworld where the ideal is to have no idea what you're talking about when you make decisions that effect other people. It is a bleak and terrifying vision. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{walls of text while-u-wait} 12:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The whole thing about the Best of the Public is that there is some legitimacy to the concept. The idea of the wisdom of the crowd or uncredentialed talent. The problem is that these aren't original Andy insights, and he takes the notion in incredibly asinine direction. "Best" is whoever he decides is best or whoever agrees with him. His idea of an "expert" is equally stupid. One NFL team will be "experts" and another will be "Best of the Public" because the former is favored to win a particular game, disregarding the fact that both get their players from exactly the same pool of people who have been highly trained since childhood. The fact that Kendoll qualifies as the Best of the Public, rather than an institutionalized manchild with an IQ around 80, sums up the concept pretty well. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 13:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Well, I just hope that the next time Andy needs some serious surgery, he'll call a bunch of people in from the street to perform it, rather than trust some nasty expert surgeon. --PsyGremlinPraat! 13:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

"Bleak"? Oh, there's nothing bleak about Andyland; it's filled with all kinds of colorful shit. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 05:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

No, but because his surgeon works out of this clinic instead of that clinic, or went to this medical school instead of the other one, he'll qualify as the BoP. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 13:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. A surgeon who went to Johns Hopkins is an expert; one who went to the University of Tennessee is best of the public. I'd really love to see Andy tell a surgeon that, because of where he got his degree, he's not an expert, an expect him to take it as a compliment. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 13:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I can't stop seeing something at the top of that BoP page: 'Best of the Public (redirected from "me")' It's fully an ego-puffing session written to somehow give the people he likes (including himself) as much qualification as the people he hates. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{longissimus non legeri} 13:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I am bemused by the paradoxes; Andy comes from an elite background - wealthy parents, politically influential mother, Princeton and Harvard degrees - yet he has been a singular failure in the professional world of his chosen subjects. So he ranks towards the bottom of the elite, yet he aspires to be a BotP in topics where he is either ill-informed or completely ignorant and shows disdain for those who do know what they are talking about. He should be sent to Golgafrincham. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 14:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

In the right hands, there could an interesting article about the phrase Son of Man, which has had many interpretations over the centuries. Instead we have a stub used to plug one person's pet idea. It's CP in a nutshell. Sophie^{because liberals} 14:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Jesus as the BotP

Andy listing Christ as the BotP reminds me of what someone (was it World Net Daily having a "blind squirrel" moment?) said about the Conservative Bible Project, that it made the Bible subservient to conservatism, rather than vice versa. And really, this is the same thing -- Andy makes his faith conform to his ideology. It's theologically insane. MDB (talk) 14:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Andy is the first rule of religion personified. ... of liberals? (talk) 16:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'll bite: what is the "first rule of religion"? MDB (talk) 12:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The Word of God, correctly interpreted, always backs up whatever the person interpreting it wanted to believe anyway (source). ... of liberals? (talk) 20:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

In all fairness

...aside from the whole "I am God and his son, believe in my magic" and the whole Luke 14:26/"I'm a cult leader" thing, most of what Jesus is supposed to have taught ain't bad (take care of the poor, be good to each other, etc.). But Andy might have well as listed Superman or James T. Kirk among BotP. -- Seth Peck (talk) 15:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anyone here is arguing against the idea that there are big parts of Jesus's ideas/philosophy that are quite positive. It's mostly a shame that Andy doesn't seem to favour those parts of the story. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 16:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Well duh. Those parts were added by liberals. Vulpius (talk) 17:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Yup, Andy's ConservaJesus preached about Hell while disproving liberal relativity with his quantum-powered non-miracles. --Sid (talk) 09:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Somebody hang a ^{[citation needed]} tag; it's the "perhaps" part that makes it WP:OR. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 19:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Dear Karajou

You, sir, are a lying swine. I note that you have blocked several accounts and claimed it was me. I have been in South Africa for a month with little to no internet access nor interest in the antics of conservapedia. So, as you well know, it wasn't me doing the trolling...not that it matters to a liar like yourself. Ace^Moderator 03:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

It's surreal seeing him repeatedly blocking accounts with Mc in them as "socks of banned user" Horace or Ace McWicked when he has 0 evidence that's true and the reality is neither of you has been near that place in a 'long' time. What other lies does that piece of shit find as easy to tell? Care to comment, Karaturd? 04:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

"Truth" and "evidence" is only something liberals need. You see, because karajou is a conservative and therefor correct, how can he be wrong. Obviously Ace's trip to S. Africa was just a cover so he could better infiltrate Conservapedia! --il'Dictator Mikal 05:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it's more of a guess than a lie. He's taking a stupid gamble. By stupid, I mean genuinely low IQ stupid. But yes, he might just be lying for some stupid reason we can't figure out because of how stupid it is. Senator Harrison (talk) 05:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I see you are online Karajou and I know you read RW but it seems you are not willingly to retract your lies. Your god will be very upset with you. Ace^Moderator 05:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I he is a liar Ace. He rotated between between Horace and Ace but I happen to know the particular person was in Australia and not Nz or SA. Care to comment Karajou? Rad McCool (talk) 09:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course he's lying. Have you forgotten his courtroom fantasies where he dreams about one of us suing him and him spectacularly turning things around in court with a "YOUUUU ARE A MEMBER OF A CYBERTERRORIST WEBSITE!", which will result in him laughing as whoever sued him is dragged to prison? --Sid (talk) 09:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

He's blocked two of my socks as "sock of Horace" and one as "sock of Sam Coulter." I think he just pulls the names out of his arse.--Fergus Mason (talk) 13:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Ace, you are the Goldstein of Conservapedia.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I was gonna say he was Conservapedia's version of Napoleon from Animal Farm. -- Seth Peck (talk) 15:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Karajou condones the murder of atheist teens

I notice Kara is spewing outrage at the threats leveled against 14-year-old Sarah Crank, who wants gay marriage outlawed for her birthday. I have no problem with that, I think that sort of behaviour is disgusting. However, I see he's remained silent on the threats of murder, rape and violence directed by Christians against Jessica Alquist. Therefore I can only assume he's in favour of this sort of thing. --PsyGremlinTala! 13:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

That makes me glad I bought an "Evil Little Thing" T-shirt. Hopefully I've paid for a few minutes of the fragrant Jessica's education.--Fergus Mason (talk) 13:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I personally have an issue with people threatening a 14 year old girl, no matter how much I disagree with her. Of course most of the threats are Youtube comments and thus fall into the "Internet Tough Guy" realm, and besides we all know Youtube comment sections are one of the deepest cesspools of the Internet.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 14:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. The people threatening Crank are pond life. Crank herself is clearly an objectionable little bigot and why a 14 year old is testifying before a judicial hearing baffles me, but there's no excuse for threats. Far better to just calmly and reasonably point out her errors.--Fergus Mason (talk) 14:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Given that Crank is home-schooled, I don't think it's so much her being a bigot, as being coached what to say. I doubt she's had any exposure to any view other than that of her parents/church. Which probably constitutes a mild form of child abuse. --PsyGremlinParla! 14:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Fair point. She's still a bigot, but because she's been turned into one by her parents. I still don't see why a 14 year old who's neither married nor gay is testifying to a judicial hearing on gay marriage, though.--Fergus Mason (talk) 16:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Apparently it's okay to testify before a government panel if you're thoroughly unqualified and conservative, but not if you're a liberal and judged unqualified by a bunch of conservatives. -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I haven't been following either of these stories, or anything much on CP lately, but I think saying "Karajou does not mention this, & therefore condones this" stands on very shaky logic. It's in the nature of CP to report selectively & make a big deal about stories that champion conservative causes &/or show liberals in a bad light, while ignoring or downplaying stories that might be embarrassing for the conservative movement. This does not necessarily mean they condone the bad stuff, just act like it's not happening. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Mitt Romney triumphs but fails in Illinois

Romney "Triumps in Illinois"^img, and even got back to #1^img, however, that liberal rino still didnt make it to 50%^img--il'Dictator Mikal 05:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

A transitional form between "liberally liberal" last month to "truest conservative that ever did conservative" next month. Jaxe (talk) 08:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Silly Jaxe, transitional Romneys don't exist. Romney was created in his current conservative form 6000 years ago. ^{ONE / TALK} 09:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Winner. Senator Harrison (talk) 12:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Nah, Romney's transition from RINO to True Conservative would be an example of microevolution, which is supported by God, Christians and Republicans, not macroevolution, which is only supported by liberals, atheists, homosexuals, Obama, college professors, people with Hollywood values, and Albert Einstein. Deny this and lose all credibility. MDB (talk) 12:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Romney fails to crack even 46.8%. Andy is the most petty motherfucker on earth. I love to hate it. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the most interesting thing is that Andy's claimed the media wants Romney to win because Obama could beat him most easily. Huh? I think pretty much any sane person would agree that Romney is the only Republican currently running that had a reasonable chance of beating Obama. Obama would barely have to campaign to beat Santorum. Gingrich would require some effort on Obama's part, but Obama would still probably win. Romney could mount a serious challenge. MDB (talk) 13:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Imagine Andy alone in the voting booth. His choices are the Christian Barack Hussein, the RINO cultist Romney, and the wants-to-legalize-heroin libertarian Gary Johnson. hmmm... nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 19:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Anyone around New Jersey?

If you just heard a loud sound, it may have been Andy's head exploding.

Jeb Bush endorsed Mitt Romney. MDB (talk) 14:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

THAT LIBERAL RINO BUSH IS A RINO--il'Dictator Mikal 14:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Today started out sucking dick. This made it so much better. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

That's so awesome I feel like I might cry. Quick, someone go troll Andy. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

BAHAHAHA. Cannot wait to see how Andy spins this bit of "stalking horse" behavior. Oh, and Occasional--less teeth, more tongue next time. The money's on the dresser. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 15:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep in "mind" that Jeb "left the door open"...although he endorsed Romney, he didn't say he wasn't running himself in the case of a brokered convention. This delusion brought to you in the spirit of Andy. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Ocockjuggleruse reminds me of an issue I've never seen anyone address: every single state requires a candidate to jump through some hoops to get on the ballot. Gingrich had his own problems in VA IIRC. Did Jeb do his petitions and get right? I'm inclined to look into this but I'm also remarkably lazy. Someone else tell me what's up. 15:07, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

So i looked at that endorsement article; Santy is still marked as going to endorse Romney.--il'Dictator Mikal 15:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Nutty: I imagine that what you're talking about is to get on the ballot for a primary/caucus--since Jeb is going to win in a brokered convention, he doesn't need to get on the ballot in any state. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 15:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Serious question, not about CP or andy. I've heard all this talk about a "brokered convention". Is there any precedent for it? --Godot What do cats dream about? 15:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Here. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 15:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I read that as soon as this talk of "brokered conventions" came up. but from WP it would seem that you just release the delegates, not that you get a chance to vote someone who's not in the running, into the seat. That's what I'm curious about. Palin seems to think she could get "in" that way, lots of republicans think Bush could - but i'm not seeing it from this little article. Godot What do cats dream about? 15:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm skeptical. Sorry buddy. I'll report back. 15:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Please do. I grew up under a proper parliamentary system and this whole primary thing is alien to me, having never taken a basic US civics class. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 15:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

In Illinois it appears to be by primary and getting nominees on the ballot is controlled exclusively by the state party nominating convention. Caveat: my research is admittedly pretty slovenly so yeah. 16:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

A prediction

Jeb bush, well known as the third bush, spent the last many months dancing around the idea he could be the nominee, therefor trying to woo conservative votes from true conservatives while in truth he was a stalking horse for romney this entire time! --il'Dictator Mikal 15:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I think Jeb is known as the smart Bush. Supposedly, George Bush the Elder supposedly wrote a letter talking about how smart his son was, and how proud he was of him, and how he was sure he'd be President some day. That was Jeb, not George. (And supposedly Neil, who has stayed out of elective politics, makes George look bright.) I've never figured out why George ran for President before Jeb, unless they just decided to let the older one have his turn first. MDB (talk) 16:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

As this is a conservative family I guess the old Bush didn't hold back his opinion for this pussy feelings thing, which would probably motivate and piss off most people hearing their whole life how fucking incredibly brilliant their brother is, so that would have given Georgie a whole freaking truckload of motivation to make his daddy love him. I predict if Jeb ever becomes President Georgie will hit the bottle hard. Now I feel sympathy for GWB. That feels wrong. --★uːʤɱ atheist 20:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

From GWB's memoirs, he really pushes that Jeb is admirable and driven, that while GWB screwed around at Harvard you don't get that about Jeb. There's nothing to say that Jeb was more favored or even that there was any rivalry there though; George seems to admire him. GWB actually sees the unconditional love from his parents as helping him develop to become president. Gomedog (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

He should tell us once he gets there. --★uːʤɱ secularist 08:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Brokered Conventions

I've remarked before that both parties set up the current primary system to make it very likely a nominee would be clear before the convention -- if not having a true majority, at least a commanding lead. However, I didn't realize something at the time. The Republicans watched the Obama/Clinton fight in 2008, and said, "hey, that was good for the Democrats; it kept attention on them after our nomination was settled." So, they jiggered with the party rules to make the process go longer.However, that's turned out to be a bad move in retrospect. In 2008, the Democrats had an interesting choice between the candidate with experience versus the candidate who was dynamic and inspirational. The Republican choice is between a bland guy the party base doesn't trust, and some flakes the base likes, but have no chance in the general election. Now, I suppose if the Republican nomination does go all the way to the convention, they'd get lots of media attention, especially if they do end up nominating someone who's not currently running. But it's just as likely to end up with the reason they fear a brokered convention: they create the impression they can't even run their own nomination process, much less a country. MDB (talk) 15:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Why does everyone say Clinton had experience. Being the wife of a president isn't "experience" and she had only sat as Senator for 7 years at the time of the election. anyhow... i liked your comments, but how do the rules allow you to bring in a non-candiate, candidate?--Godot What do cats dream about? 16:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the point was Clinton had more experience than Obama, not necessarily that she had this great degree of experience. (Anyway, I've long said that the only way to get experience that qualifies you to be President is to be President. There's no other job like it. I think the closest you'd come would be to have been a high-ranking military officer, a governor, a major Cabinet officer, and an ambassador to a significant country.)

As for how you can bring in a non-candidate candidate, the delegates are generally bound to their pledged candidate on the first ballot. However, you have to win a clear majority to get the nomination. If no one gets a majority the first time, they can vote for anyone. And I mean anyone, declared candidate or not. (It's no where near that simple. For instance, a candidate can drop out and "release" his delegates, and they can vote as they choose, even on the first ballot. They can still vote for their original candidate, even, and might do that to say "we hate all the other guys." And there's lots of arcane and esoteric rules. They have lawyers for this.) MDB (talk) 16:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Rules Schmules

Jeb Bush, as well as all those other "Candidates In Waiting", should brush up on their RNC rules before the convention. If Newt, for instance, thinks he'll swing in and grab the nomination:

Nominations(b) Each candidate for nomination for President of the United States and Vice President of the United States shall demonstrate the support of a plurality of the delegates from each of five (5) or more states, severally, prior to the presentation of the name of that candidate for nomination. (RNC Rule #40)

Basically, if you can't win at least 5 states in the primaries (delegate-wise, not popular vote---sorry Santorum), your chances are miniscule that you'll be able to steal a win at the Big Show. Here's the article, describing the hurdles faced by long-shot candidates in terms of RNC rules: RNC rule means hurdle for Gingrich convention strategy Jared (talk) 17:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, but they can try for a change in rules at the convention. MDB (talk) 17:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

That would be unprecedented, I can't think of any time a Republican has ever tried to change the rules for their own benefit. -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination takes place at the convention right? Jeb could conceivably get the plurality of five states from released and super delegates. Newt's got two states which Jeb could have and if Frothy thinks he stands a better chance as the bottom of a Bush ticket he could release his. It's a possibility, remote obviously, but they'd still have to hope to win it in a drawn-out process after the second ballot when Romney's delegates are free to vote as they want because even Newt and Frothy combined don't have enough to knock Romney out on the first two ballots. It might be interesting to look at the rules for faithless electors in the RNC rules and history. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 19:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Once the delegates are released they can nominate anyone, even if that person is ineligible to run for office. Bush wouldn't have to jump through any hoops, he would however have to be tremendously charismatic to convince all the delegates to go for him. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 19:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

In other words this rule says that bush has to win over 5 states worth of delegates before his name is announced officially as a candidate along with the others. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 19:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

All the hub bub about delegate counts only refers to a First Ballot win. A brokered convention would proceed (after an interval) to a second ballot with unbound, split state delegations. No big deal. In 1924, it took the Dems something like 125 roll call ballots to get a nominee; in 1940 the GOP also had multiple ballots, if memory serves. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 19:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Tebow goes to the Jets

And Andy loses his mind. It'll be interesting to see andys treatment of very liberal New York now.--Thunderstruck^{YOU'VE BEEN...} 20:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

But now, since the Jets actually play in New Jersey, he will be closer to Andy. I contend the Jets just gained a fan. Aboriginal Noise ^{Theist, barely hanging by a nail} 20:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, you beat me to the NJ part. I love how CP says that the Denver Post "laments" them losing Tebow/Tebowmania, when in reality we are fucking glad to be rid of both of them. -- Seth Peck (talk) 21:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Tebow is a menace to any team he is on. He is a below average quaterback with an insanely loyal fan base. If the starter struggles all the tebowphiles will be screaming for him and putting up billboards. He is a distration the likes of which TO and Moss never achieved. Pi 3:14 (talk) 22:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Not so fast, folks. Apparently the Broncos want $5 million more for Tebow. Personally, I suspect the Jets see Tebow as a replacement for Brad Smith—i.e., a Wildcat formation QB.--_transResident Transfan^form! 21:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

LOL, the Jets are not going to give that $5 million to the Broncos. Either Denver is going to have to take him back or just accept what the Jets already offered.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 21:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Pint sized denver??? What the hell, i knew he liked the 50's... but i didn't realize he lived there.

Okay, I just learned more—turns out the Jets aren't the only team gunning for No. 15. The Jacksonville Jaguars are also in pursuit.--_transResident Transfan^form! 22:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The St. Louis Rams also want him. None of this is a surprise, he is still a decent backup quarterback in the NFL. Both New York and St. Louis would use him as a second stringer (to Sanchez and Bradford respectively).--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 23:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

It's official. Tim Tebow is now a Jet. --_transResident Transfan^form! 08:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

One of the reasons being he rather be in "liberal" New York than good ol' fashion conservative Jacksonville. Gotta love it! --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 10:25, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I like how the Broncos and Jets split the 5 mil for Tebow. I know it was some contract thing, but it sounded like "Fine, we'll pay half, just take him." Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 10:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

It would have been sweet if they had settled at 3.16 million dollars. 03:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

Not even hiding it any more.

CNAV goes outright racist. Terry decides that an article including the sentence "... appeasement of a howling mob of raghead barbarians in a landlocked cesspool that claims to be the sovereign nation of Afghanistan." is just what his site needs to keep it klassy. If you previously had any doubts that Chuckarse's crusade against Obama was entirely racially motivated, I think that's a settled issue now. What wonderful people the Conservapedians are. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Is that sarcasm I detect? GodothasArrived ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 21:07, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Me? Sarcastic? Noooooooo! --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Called it. -- Seth Peck (talk) 21:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

What kind of commentator thinks it's okay to write that? I mean okay fine, think it and believe it and talk about it with friends as much as you want, but writing it in an article for public consumption when you're trying to be a relatively mainstream news source/opinion... thing... is just moronic. X Stickman (talk) 21:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

No one here ever claimed they weren't morons. -- Seth Peck (talk) 21:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Wow. After reading that I needed to sit back for ten seconds. Wow, that is disturbing. Not that he compared these to horrible crimes, but the sentiments behind them are deeply unsettling. "Once more he was shipped off to a cesspool where our military is obliged to fight with a collective arm tied behind its back according to rules apparently set forth by Lewis Carroll." hit me quite hard. Should they start shooting every Afghan with a gun, or what? Do these people understand that international war crime laws have been established for a reason? To saveguard the innocent civilians caught between enemy lines? I mean... Jesus Christ, that's just fucked up.

Do these people know any muslims? The picture I'd get from conservative media are blood-thirsty beasts, just waiting to kill Americans and rape some women for fun while screaming "allah akhbar!". I know Arabs that scream that when their favorite soccer team scores a goal. I don't understand people like this, how can you just hate a whole people because they have the audacity to protests after 16 people were slaughtered and called for Americans to get out of their country... Does one need to be mistreated as a child to get that, or? WTF? --★uːʤɱ constructivist 22:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

wow, that was quite a read. TerryH is a disturbed man. Ace^Moderator 22:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

TerryH didn't write that. Does he edit the website? Is he at all responsible for that article? P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 22:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

CNAV is TerryH's blog. Whoover (talk) 22:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

People are blasting the article in the comments section and Terry's only response is some projection of his belief being the right belief. Job well done, Terry. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 10:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd just like to add that Terry once deleted all my comments from CNAV and threatened me with a lifetime block for calling the Taliban beardy weirdies. No such problems with saying "raghead barbarians" apparently. Or could it just possibly be because I don't agree with him about very much?--Fergus Mason (talk) 17:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I'm misreading this: Is it Consevapedia or Afghanistan that is the cesspool? nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 02:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Andy's Google Alerts list.

So I use Google Alerts to find me daily media stories related to my research and send them to me in one convenient e-mail. Andy must do something similar, 'cause there's no way I see him being so interested in African issues that he goes this deep into a Seffrican paper by chance. Between that and the gay paper he cited the other day, I really wonder how he gets his news. It's not like CNN didn't cover the story. I can just imagine him trolling the net, looking for random stories with his preferred buzzwords. It's kind of sad. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 03:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

You just said you do the same thing. 05:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

For my research. I get paid good money to read and write about the shit I ask Google to troll the net for. Ain't nobody paying Andy shit for his opinions of liberals, Sean Penn, or Nobel winners. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 14:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

You're **paid** and in **good money**. What the hell was I doing wrong for 10 years. --Godot What do cats dream about? 15:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Atheists Can't Unite

Ken's latest essay features this gem.

In short, "atheists can't unite on a common belief like us Christians do!"

Okay, being a nominal theist, I can't really comment on whether or not atheists are "united".

But claiming Christians share a unity of belief beyond "we think this Jesus fellow was pretty cool"?

Excuse me.

AAAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!

Ken, you fucking moron, wars have been fought over what's the right form of Christianity! People have been executed for espousing "incorrect" doctrine! You don't even have to look back to the Middle Ages for examples of that; look at the early history of the Mormons!

Is he really that stupid? MDB (talk) 12:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes. --★uːʤɱ heretic 12:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Atheists can't unite on a common belief? Well what's all this, then? *pokes Rationalwiki* Not only have we united on the common belief that Conservapedia is a load of excrement, but we seem to unite on a regular basis with other people of practically any faith here who think the same, too. Heck- isn't atheism in general a common thought among people that unites them, rather than a religion? Atheists do a lot of uniting, really. At least more uniting than Ken is doing, who is huddled rabidly, badger-like, in the tiny and hateful dark cave of his thoughts. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{yeah, well you fight like a cow!} 13:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Atheists have in common one thing, the view that no god or gods exist due to lack of any real evidence that stand up to scientific scrutiny. Beyond this it is silly to assume some great common cause. This is where the theist who follow organized religion fail to understand. The theist's beliefs is based on a system of dogma complete with a series of commandments, holy writ, and rules that just are and should be obeyed. That is how they conduct their life (sometimes) and it often causes them to assume that non-theists view the world in much the same way. They have difficulty conceiving that non-theists have no dogma, no commandments, no holy writ, no sacred truth that must be accepted. So they can't understand why there is no uniting set of beliefs beyond "no supernatural".

When it comes to Christians, being united is far from the truth. Christians may revile atheists but they revile each other's denominations as well. Ask a fundamental baptist what they think of a Catholic, or a traditionalist Catholic think of a protestant. Ask either what either think of Mormons. Christians have traditionally bled each other white in wars over doctrine over a period of centuries. They don't do it now only because the calming influence of secularism.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I can't comprehend what "atheists can't unite!" bullshit means, but I know for sure it's far, far, far less than the ~38,0000 demoninations of Christianity. Ken, if you're going to lie, at least lie more inconspicuously. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 14:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

38,0000? That's a lot. BTW I unite with atheists all the time...we call it "free beer night" and "Sunday brunch". -- Seth Peck (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Snork.

OK, so just more of Kendoll^img revelling in being an arsehole, but I really got a chuckle out of the story he linked to. The anti-gay pastor that's so gleeful is called Randy Rodney. Snork. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Ken is so hip! Hey man mon! Whoover (talk) 15:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Is that sarcasm I detect? An American Fallacy ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 15:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Did somebody say Snork? Sophie^{because liberals} 16:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

How could you possibly read that sentence and detect sarcasm with so little certainty as to feel the need to ask for confirmation? ^{ONE / TALK} 20:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Where's the etch-a-sketch talk?`

I don't get it. CP claims that Romney is a RINO and then one of his campaign advisors says that Romney will reboot just after the primaries, in order to appeal to the middle. Shouldn't CP be trumpeting this? Or have they concluded Romney will win and so they should be silent about his flaws? (I doubt it.) Weird. Phiwum (talk) 12:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

It might not be wise for them to point this out, because CP is also going to reboot after the primaries to become dyed-in-the-wool Romney fans. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The reboot is a flop-flop speed bump. The reboot is an attempt to appear conservative in the primaries and appeal to moderates in the general. The fact that he takes so many damn contradictory positions, like Obama, you can never nail down who Romney really is. This pisses off conservatives more than anything. Romney made a damn good conservative sounding speech after his Illinois win. Right when he attempts to pull in the rightwing, his dumb ass adviser shows who Romney really is with the Shake Up. AJ is right about Romney, we will promote the most conservative candidate. Even if our candidate was Dukakis, he ismore conservative than Obama thus gets our support. Will we scrub his page? the Mormon page? No. But you can expect additional support not criticisms added to his page.--99.155.80.201 (talk) 16:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Shorter JPratt: I don't care that the people I vote for don't believe a word they say, as long as they keep saying they hate abortion! --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's beautiful. Honesty is so overrated. Phiwum (talk) 16:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I find this incredibly telling:

But you can expect additional support not criticisms added to his page.

Jpatt confirms (as if we didn't already know) that Conservapedia's articles aren't the place for objective facts but instead need only be decorated with support or criticisms. Nice encyclopaedia blog notepad file full of dishonest shit you got there, Jpatt. ^{ONE / TALK} 20:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I did it first, JPatt. Suck it. -- Seth Peck (talk) 20:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Bullshit JPatt, you won't be supporting 'the most conservative' candidate, you'll support the Republican candidate like good little sheep. CP is hardly going to decorate its article on Mittens with criticisms if there's an independent or TP candidate that rates higher on the 'conservative scale'. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 07:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

"Romney will reboot." Hah. I always knew he was a robot. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 09:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

What the holy fucking fuck!

Nowhere is safe!^img. I almost didn't catch it, but Jebus H. Crunchy Frog. What the hell is Kendoll doing? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

-looks inconfusion at that--il'Dictator Mikal 02:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd guess he's found a new spot to put things he wants us (and only us) to read. Peter ^{tanquam ex ungue leonem} 03:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'm confused here--the link shows Andy adding a bunch of Ken's material, but what's the point? P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 03:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

That's not a great link - point is that Ken is (or at least, was) adding a bucketload of his finest to the bottom of MPL. Peter ^{tanquam ex ungue leonem} 03:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, never mind. He moved it all to the top, with special emphasis on the MOAR HITLER. Is Andy ever going to put a stop to Kendoll's antics? Even someone as blinkered as him must realise this isn't what an encyclopaedia looks like. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 03:12, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Should I feel guilty for recently lamenting the lack of crazy pictures in MPL? Vulpius (talk) 03:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

No. I am enjoying this; right now the front page is a complete clusterfuck thanks to Ken's ramblings. Truly Conservapedia is simply "Ken's blog" and should be referred to as such. There isn't even the pretense of it being "encyclopedic" anymore.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 08:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

EC--MPL has been his playground for years, unless he wants to let Jomar share. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 03:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Hitler right there at the top, and the Masterpiece section was moved UNDER the "Popular articles at Conservapedia" list. Ken fails in so many things, but nobody can deny his success in showing just how hard Andy fails as a leader. --Sid (talk) 09:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Jomar has an opinion

about MPL^img...but thaen uses his sock to undo it^img. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 14:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Heh heh heh. "in the bottom". Cow...Hammer^time! 14:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Really shows what a coward JM is, how indifferent JP and Karajou are, and how impotent Andy is. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

LOL how many times has he used that phrase. -- Seth Peck (talk) 14:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Joaquin, there is something you can do. Stop taking it in the bottom. Resign and leave. CP isn't salvageable. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Karajou's response to JoshuaB amuses me. "JoshuaB, learn to ignore the colleague." That's another way of Karajou admitting Ken's crap all over the front page of CP is total fucking crap but no one can do anything about it. SJ ^Debaser 16:46, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

But... if he leaves he can no longer spout his love of Fascist dictators! --il'Dictator Mikal 17:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Or to say rather that the one person who could do anything about it is too spineless to even address the issue. It wouldn't even be that hard, just hint gently to Kendoll that his sysopship was jeopardised by his constant spamming and he'd come to heel before you could say "good dog." He's painted himself so far in to a corner by locking all his articles, if he were demoted he wouldn't be able to touch anything. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Joaquin, I don't know if you read this page, but what you need is a Tumblr. Joaquín, no sé si lea usted esta página, pero lo que necisita es un Tumblr. Y para decir "demasiado abajo", es más usual decir "too low down" o algo así. "In the bottom" es como decir "en el culo".--

Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 18:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

LOL. -- Seth Peck (talk) 21:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

How dare they?

that isnt how question marks work terry^img--il'Dictator Mikal 02:46, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

His outrage? Please. Michelle Malkin expressed hers first in a way that suggests zero brain activity. -- Seth Peck (talk) 03:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

She looks incredibly annoying. An American Fallacy ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 03:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

A politician invoking the founding fathers? Say it ain't so! Vulpius (talk) 03:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Uh she's not the speaker of the house any more. Nice headlinin', Terry. Cow...Hammer^time! 14:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Kendoll's bewildering confession of love for Putin, and imminent culture war in 2020

Seems Kendoll^img has quite a lot of admiration for former commie, dirty russian, evil anti american Vladimir putin, enough to glorify him in a MLP paragraph showing how he SMASHES the disgusting evolutionist Larry King by proving gays are evil because they cant have babies. Is it just me or does twattyflaps seem to spew exponentially more gibberish and drool when discussing his various mancrushes?

Also apparently the long awaited culture war will finally break out in 2020, apparently because his favorite masturbatory site says it will Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 11:12, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Also I was just wondering, exactly how old is Kendoll supposed to be? Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 11:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Knocking on nearly 50 now I reakon. Pi 3:14 (talk) 11:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Is that when this shit is FINALY going to go "Full Throtle"? Also, way to show love for the ruski, kenny boy.--Thunderstruck^{YOU'VE BEEN...} 12:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Aw. I was expecting a picture of shirtless macho Putin. Vulpius (talk) 12:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Andy! Be a leader for a bloody change and clean up that sodding main page. Remove the crap about the coming cultural apocalypse in eight years time and get Adolf off it. Try to salvage whatever tiny scrap of decency your looney site might still have left in it.--Spud (talk) 14:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

You guys still suck for tweaking a mentally ill man. You know he just does this stuff to see you talk about it. 15:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Which is why I nominate the WIGO:CP be archived and all future updates going into WIGO:Clogs. -- Seth Peck (talk) 15:31, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

You know,considering the image Putin likes to project: strong, manly, incredibly good looking despite his age, ect, it isn't a surprise ken would side with him. --il'Dictator Mikal 14:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that unless they've been sterilized through surgery, medication or illness, gays can have babies. -- Seth Peck (talk) 15:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but they live a deathstyle, so they won't have babies -- and what's the point of life if you don't have your own babies? GodothasArrived ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 15:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

They also are bad role models, having sex with so many men unprotected. dont want gay babies do you?--il'Dictator Mikal 15:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Gayz can't have babies because gayz can't have babies because gayz can't have babies because gayz can't have babies because gayz can't have babies because gayz can't have babies because gayz can't have babies because gayz can't have babies because gayz can't have babies because gayz can't have babies because gayz can't have babies because gayz can't have babies because gayz can't have babies because gayz can't have babies because gayz can't have babies. --★uːʤɱ federalist 15:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

And even worse if they adopt an orphan because not only are they gay, they're turning perfectly good orphans gay, too! That's almost as bad as kicking puppies! Or something. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{sufficiently advanced argument still distinguishable from magic} 15:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, that explains the number editors you guys have.

Andy explains^img why Conservapedia is an abject failure. Concise! --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Using the term 'E.L.A.' to describe yourself just sounds embarrassing. An American Fallacy ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 20:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I love how "free from liberal bias" is a euphemism for "overloaded with conservative bias and bullshit". -- Seth Peck (talk) 20:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

And RationalWiki is where obvious statements are made. GodothasArrived ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 22:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Conservapedia proven.....to still be wrong

Andy: Uh Uh We were proven right!^img
Reality: Um yeah, not really.
Ace^Moderator 01:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, Andy. Bad, naughty Andy. Did SamHB, BradleyS, JudyJ, QPR, and AndyFrankinson not take you out to the woodshed for a sufficiently sound thrashing on the rebuttal page? Did they not point out that the difference between neutrinos moving at nearly the speed of light (which is what relativity predicts) and moving at the speed of light (a violation of relativity) is a quarter of a yoctosecond? That's a quarter of a millionth of a billionth of a nanosecond. The clocks used can't measure better than a nanosecond or so.

I know you read the rebuttal page. I expected you just to silently ignore what was on it, not plaster your wrongheadedness on the main page. Really. Please take it away. You're embarrassing yourself. Your readers know all about the rebuttal, and the quarter yoctosecond difference. Gauss (talk) 04:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Wow. It's one for them to distort and deny reality, it's another for them to lie about it altogether. -- Seth Peck (talk) 05:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

This is CP we're talking about. They've been lying out of their arses for five years. -- 08:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes Neutrinos travel practically at the speed of light, with the speed difference being virtually immeasurable. However this is because Neutrinos are in real terms, massless. They are not truly massless like photons, but their mass is incredibly tiny even in comparison to the next lightest fundamental particles, the Up Quark and the Electron, so much so that they are often listed at having "zero" mass. In Relativity objects with practically zero mass should be able to come within a hair's breath of light speed, and 'lo and behold this is what happens. That isn't what Andy originally claimed as a "counterexample", he claimed they exceeded the speed of light^img. He is now saying different only to cover his own tracks and pretend he was right all along. Andy will ignore and censor the rebuttal page (or one of his loyal acolytes will do it for him), and claim victory because he is the Kim il Jong of Conservapedialand. This is why kids you should never use Conservapedia as a educational resource. Put aside Ken insipid failings about Question Evolution, Launchbooty's whoring, and JPatt's Klansman like racism, the main reason they shouldn't be used is that they overtly lie to you about science.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 10:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

You are such a nerd BMcP. I guess it's true what they say about you. That you had two dads and no mommy growing up. --99.155.80.201 (talk) 17:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

But wait -- wouldn't two dads provide double the machismo a growing boy requires, and no mom would eliminate the effeminate, nerdy, homo-ism? An American Fallacy ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 17:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Double the machismo, I sorta like that statement. Two gay dads has less machismo than a female truck driver. 99.155.80.201

After seeing this, I'm thinking machismo is something you can pay $4 for at Starbucks. -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh i likey that. 5’4” at 110 lbs with 1/5 of her weight coming from her jugs.--99.155.80.201 (talk) 19:15, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

She has to carry water from a well? Wow, that's tough. An American Fallacy ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 19:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

So, lesbions have more machismo than gay men, and by necessity, real women? So wouldn't that make it best for a boy to have lesbion mothers? An American Fallacy ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 18:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Lesbion? Is that a kind of robot? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 09:04, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

LOL, you make it sound like being a nerd is a bad thing in that homophobic screed; well at least you didn't call me a half-breed in some racial insult so that's progress! OLAY! --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Conservatives bashing education? Well, I never! Occasionaluse (talk) 19:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Conservapedia is where ignorance is lauded as a virtue.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 21:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

And RationalWiki is where obvious statements are made. GodothasArrived ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 22:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Andy getting beaten up on Talk: Main Page

The^img peasants^img are^img rising^img. The walls protecting Andy from reality are cracking. --Night Jaguar (talk) 20:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Without TK and Rob, there's only so much Karajou can do to protect the man behind the curtain. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 20:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The walls of ignorance will never fall; they will only be replaced with progressively crazier quilt-like patches--il'Dictator Mikal 20:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

At least he was right to apologize to Emerson (who was not exactly a Kinsey Zero). -- Seth Peck (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeesh, he's such a spineless little prick. Why the hell can't he address this issue that is totally fucking up his website? He just seems so desperate trying to ward away the questions with threats of the banhammer. At least TK just fucking did it. Andy seems torn between his complete unwillingness to address the hard questions and his need to appear like he isn't just banhammering people who ask them. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I especially love Andy's claim "I've found that once someone falls for Relativity, they almost never open a Bible again." (The advantage of mostly avoiding CP's craziness is that, when you do get around to it, it's just so startlingly batshit.) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 21:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Oh look, night mode has been switched on. You can practically hear Andy groaning in relief as he pushes himself away from his desk, thankful for his wiki-wide mute button. --Sid (talk) 21:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Andy's doing his old "Do you object to classroom prayer, even when everyone wants to say a prayer?"^img shtick. Apparently, the answer is "far more significant than whether someone gives something to charity". --Night Jaguar (talk) 22:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Number one rule of Conservapedia - Andy is never wrong. Even when he states you have a better conservative insight, it is only because it builds on an idea of his; it never contradicts it.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 03:24, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

And RationalWiki is where obvious statements are made. GodothasArrived ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 22:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Andy's claim "I've found that once someone falls for Relativity, they almost never open a Bible again," is easy to pick apart. In Andy's own lifetime, the official teaching of the Catholic Church forbad independent bible study not under supervision and control of the Church. I doubt very much if he ever opened a bible as a kid, since it was contrary to his church's doctrine. Independent bible study still is discouraged in the Roman Catholic Church. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 20:56, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Still not a citizen! And some British guy agrees!

thank you for reminding us about "IT WAS A FAKE" terry^img--il'Dictator Mikal 04:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

"Some British guy"—that's Christopher Monckton, Mikalos.

And I vote CNAV for clogs, btw. Peter ^{tanquam ex ungue leonem} 04:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

i should care who he is?--il'Dictator Mikal 05:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

"International observers"? One UCTOTY (Python ref) is hardly on par with Amnesty International or the UN. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 08:11, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

UCTOTY, indeed. "Lord" Monckton is exactly the type of strange-looking, European, elitist that the American right wing would normally summarily dismiss if his opinions happened to align with the other side. But in this case, he happens to be a climate change denying birther fool... so he has top-shelf, AAA+, credibility in their book. --Inquisitor (talk) 09:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

You can almost write the article he'd post if a British lord were to come out calling birthers crazy in your head. "Blah blah revolution blah blah blah British tyranny blah blah blah unelected, unaccountable blah blah blah interference blah blah blah WHERE'S THE OUTRAGE?!?!?!?!" --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 10:59, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Monckton is a batshit crazy member of the House of Lords, whose august and expertly snoozing members have distanced themselves from him as he's, well, batshit crazy. He's 'affiliated' with UKIP, a bunch of Europhobes who probably want to saw the UK off the European continental shelf and tow us into the middle of the Atlanic so that we don't get ill from the smell of garlic. He drivels on a regular basis about climate change, even though he doesn't have any qualifications to do so. So, when CP flags up anything that comes from Monkton, they might as well put up a picture of Father Jack Hackett and claim that he's an expert on conservative social policy. Darkmind1970 (talk) 11:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

No he isn't. He just lies about being a member of the house of lords. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 11:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Quite right, he does lie about that. Oh and in the 1980's he wanted to round up everyone with AIDS and stick them in a giant camp or something. Quarantine them anyway.Darkmind1970 (talk) 12:03, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Inquisitor, he is a lord, no quotes needed, he is probably not entitled to membership in the house of lords, but we will know as soon as his legal case has run it's course. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 16:05, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

just for a laugh... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 13:13, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Jeb Bush isn't important

about the only thing i could find from andy on this topic^img. although andy is right; jeb's endorsement means fuck all--il'Dictator Mikal 22:07, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, Kendoll....

If you're going to create socks, don't make it^img so obvious^img. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Atleast he tried to hide it a little--il'Dictator Mikal 22:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that may just be a parodist trying to gain Ken's favor. Mr. Anon (talk) 22:03, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Why would anyone want Kendoll's favour? All the other (two) sysops despise him. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:13, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

because if they have kens favour who would dare oppose them?--il'Dictator Mikal 22:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm gonna say parodist. If its ken, the man may indeed be to sleep deprived to realize he should see a doctor. Or at the very least, a bottle of vodka. Always puts me out.--Thunderstruck^{YOU'VE BEEN...} 23:59, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's me. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 00:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Liar. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 00:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

After a couple of you guys wrote about how Andy was being beaten up on the main page, I was seriously considering creating an account there to support Andy and get quick and easy power. Mr. Anon (talk) 00:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

It don't work like that, son. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 00:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

youd end up a sysop-lite; nothing more--il'Dictator Mikal 00:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

True, but even being a sysop-lite indicates your victory. Trust me, I would know. Only took a couple incidents like this. Mr. Anon (talk) 00:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

But what would you do with sysop abilities? There isn't really much to it is there? I mean, you could always join the secret sysop-group and copy the info out for fun, but, what more is there to do? Why even aspire to be a CP sysop? Refugee^{talk page} 00:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

So you can add things to the main page and feel accomplished. GodothasArrived ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 00:29, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, what would you add to the main page? I feel sorry for Joaquin Martinez, who seems like a nice guy, because they keep shoving his masterpieces to the bottom of the page, which seems to be upsetting him and the art pages are one of the few good things about CP... so if I were a sysop changing the order of the main page would probably cross my mind, but doing so would improve CP, which somehow seems counter-purpose. So again, what's the use of a sysop-ship? Refugee^{talk page} 00:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's a tip: Nice guys never root for the dictator. Martinez is a goon. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 00:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The Age of Sysops is over; Iduan is proof of that,. --il'Dictator Mikal 00:46, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Sysop-lites can block people. That's all I care about. Mr. Anon (talk) 00:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

that gets boring after a while though, plus it just makes you a dick if you do it to people who don't deserve it.--il'Dictator Mikal 00:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

All 3 edits made in a single take; that's not conservative. ^{— Unsigned, by: 50.135.56.92 / talk / contribs} 06:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Andy equates conservative views to racism

then quotes^img extensively Newt Gingrich quoting Barack Obama. nobs^{I'm not a doctor but I play one with the girls} 01:52, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Not seeing it, Rob. Where does Andy equate conservatism and racism? P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 02:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

^--il'Dictator Mikal 02:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Remember guys, Rob is special. He can read; he knows words and knows what they mean. It's when you try to string more than three or four of them together into a "sentence" that his understanding plummets and he's stuck taking a few of the words and associating them randomly. I imagine there's a name for this syndrome, but I have no idea what it is. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 12:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

You were correct up until the part where you said "he can read." Rob can't read. He's that stupid. But he is special, alright. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 13:52, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I think he means the context of Obama saying if he had a son, he'd look like Trayvon, implying nothing racial. Gingrich brings it up as something racial, making him look racist instead, then Andy backing him and quoting him equates to Andy being racist, or something like that. Aside from that, what's that got to do with the price of fish? Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 14:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I tried guys, I honestly tried. But if ya'll insist conservative views are not racist, I'll take your word for it. I'll just have to find somewhere else to criticize Andy for taking the race-bait. nobs^{I'm not a doctor but I play one with the girls} 16:24, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

No, please, Rob, show us where in that edit that Andy equates racism with conservatism. I'm really curious to see how someone could parse that meaning out of those words. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 16:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Prefacing Newt Gingrich with "conservative" as some sort of counterweight to Obama's "racial remarks". Gingrich, Andy, and Obama are known partisans. Andy takes the bait of positioning the conservative movement contrary to Obama's "racial remarks", which were probably anything but racist. I'm viewing this through the eye of a non-aligned, independent moderate voter who hasn't made a judgement on any of these issues. nobs^{I'm not a doctor but I play one with the girls} 16:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. No, Rob. That's not how reading works. What's happening there is that Andy is leaning on Gingrich to claim a sort of "post-racial" moral high ground, one that says "we're all Americans now" and that blames Obama for playing the "race card." That might be wrong, it might be short-sighted, but it's not equating conservatism with racism. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 16:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

That's why the link to Obama's keynote was included. If Gingrich & Obama agree, there's only one America, not a black America and white America, why the disagreement between Gingrich & Obama, of which Andy drags the whole conservative movement along behind Gingrich? nobs^{I'm not a doctor but I play one with the girls} 17:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Obama's idea of what it means to say "there is only one America" and Gingrich's strategic race blindness aren't at all the same thing, dummy. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 17:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

It makes it more difficult to charge playing the race card when you swallow the race bait hook, line, and sinker. This isn't the first time Andy played into the hands of those trying to bait him. Andy, Gingrich, and Obama all seem to be of the same stripe: they're trying to place a hard partisan divide between Americans, and all three don't seem to have a problem using race to do that. A larger point may be all three are out of step with mainstream, moderate, middle America that simply is fed up with this shit. nobs^{I'm not a doctor but I play one with the girls} 17:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

^{That is interesting, but what does that have to do with the price of fish?} --il'Dictator Mikal 17:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

1. I see by your Ken-esque tactics of changing the subject and bringing in unrelated concepts that you have conceded that Andy never said what you thought he did, and that your own intelligence and basic literacy are suspect at best. good to see that. 2. " This isn't the first time Andy played into the hands of those trying to bait him." Who exactly was trying to bait Andy? Obama or Gingrich? P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 17:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

!. Andy clearly set out Conservative Newt Gingrich in contrast to Obama's questionable "racial remarks". 2. Andy took Obama's (or the vast leftwing conspiracy's) race bait. nobs^{I'm not a doctor but I play one with the girls} 18:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

All your wiki are belong to Kendoll.

He's getting so bold now, he's actually removing the dear leader's^img stuff from the front page to better showcase his own garbage. Andy should really just call his bluff and stick Kendoll with the bill for Conservapedia. If he wants to own it, he can pay for it too. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

He didn't really remove it, just moved it. But it shows that ken will eventually have his little coup d'etat. But if its anything like QE!, we won't see it for another 3 decades.--Thunderstruck^{YOU'VE BEEN...} 23:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

You know, this question isn't asked enough: what kind of hosting does Conservapedia have, and how much does it cost a month? An American Fallacy ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 23:50, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Considering the y keep breaking so many viewer records; it must be going up--il'Dictator Mikal 00:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Andy has a conservagasm

All over the main page^img. Ick. I do like the ALL CAPS TEEN GIRL CRUSH style though. Are "liberals" having a fit? I suppose he could have meant to type "not giving a shit." --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Awesome. A completely uncited assertion. -- Seth Peck (talk) 22:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

It's so obvious, it doesn't need a citation -- duh. An American Fallacy ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 22:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

So other than winning a very few games, including some that were not likely wins - what has he done??? to be the greatest anything???Godot What do cats dream about? 22:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Be public about being christian--il'Dictator Mikal 22:15, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Being Christian + being able to run around with balls around (instead of, you know, finding the cure for cancer) = The Hero of All Earth

An American Fallacy ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 22:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Believing that "DB" stands for "Denver Bronco" and not something else. -- Seth Peck (talk) 22:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Wait? New York/New Jersey? They're one unit now? Oh... oh no. If they're one unit now, then I live in the same state as him! Ahhh! Abandon state! Abandon state! ±KnightOfTL;DR^{critical thinking is the key to success!} 22:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll bet he had a massive erection while writing that. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 22:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Massive? You think? -- Seth Peck (talk) 22:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Anyone tell Andy that he's probably not going to be a starter? - or will that be a "liberal move" if they don't start him.Godot What do cats dream about? 22:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I love how he even capitalises the bit about being ranked #1 on CP, as if it is Tebow's greatest achievement ever. Which, of course, it is. -- 23:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Had he not already been going on about it

for the last few days, id say it might have to do with suddenly losing Bush III--il'Dictator Mikal 22:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Jeb Bush's endorsement and Romney getting more votes in Illinois than Santorum and Gingrich combined (leading to the realization that he might have to cheer wildly for Romney in the long run) likely pushed Andy deep into Unhappy Territory. So yeah, this over-the-top excitement over Tebow certainly fits. --Sid (talk) 10:12, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

It gets better

Liberal^img PANIC over some guy who plays a sport I don't watch. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 03:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Good point. Do liberals even care about American Rugby, or do they prefer real sports?--Fergus Mason (talk) 09:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't ever let anyone tell you that baseball is a real sport. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 09:56, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Baseball? Do you mean rounders? That's a girl's game, isn't it?--Fergus Mason (talk) 10:12, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Cricket is just a bunch of nancy boys swinging their wood around. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 10:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Greatest Conservative Sportsman?

So the Broncos released the greatest conservative sportsman, did they? Let's see just how awesome Tebow's stats are (a Yank might need to explain the abbreviations):

• Yards/Game = 123.5 (rank 33 out of 33) - 20 yards less than the man above him.
• Comp: 126 (33/33)
• Att: 271 (30/33)
• Pct: 46.5 (33/33)
• 1st: 76 (32/33)
• Sck: 33 (12/33)
• Rate: 72.9 (27/33)

If stats like that qualify you as the greatest conservative sportsman, it must be a pretty awful pool. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 10:11, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

That's exactly what makes Andy's "The Broncos wanted Peyton Manning because of lib'rul bias" so batshit crazy (well, that and the idea that NFL teams make personnel decisions based on politics). Peyton Manning is one of the greatest quarterbacks of all time, while Tebow won't even start with the Jets (playing behind a starter who is no great shakes himself). Godspeed (talk) 11:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not much of a sports guy, but Comp is Completed Passes, Att is Attempted Passes, Pct is Percentage of Passes Completed, 1st is Total First Downs, Sck is Times Sacked (tackled before he got the ball out of his hands, which is very bad), and Rate is apparently some goofy-ass passing rating where 158.3 is perfect. So basically the only stat he's not at or near dead last in is being sacked, so... good for him! I guess you can say the one thing he's not awful at is getting the ball out of his hands before he gets tackled.

Also, now I'm sad that I know all of this stuff, other than the Passer Rating thingy which I had to look up. I really don't like sports at all. Cow...Hammer^time! 16:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

CP main page is hilarious

I know that my comments will come as no surprise to the CP regulars on this page, but I usually don't look at the thing on principle. But I had a look today out of curiosity. It's pure Poe from top to bottom, there is absolutely no way that you can quickly tell whether it's parody or not. It really is a magnificent tribute to stupidity and monomania. It's like a weird new art form! I'm really blown away.--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 21:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

it's pretty verifiable anybody left isnt a poe though--il'Dictator Mikal 22:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

How? GodothasArrived ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 22:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Because andy has gone up infront of people and done what he does, and ken has been at it for to long. --il'Dictator Mikal 23:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh wait, only sysops can add to the main page. I thought we were talking about regular users, most of who (whom? Fucking object and subject) are obvious trolls/parodists/Poes. An American Fallacy ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 23:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm still convinced Kenny might be a Poe. Andy, I use to have similar thoughts, but then I saw a video of him in action as a lawyer. -- 23:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm tempted to think that, but no one is that dedicated. An American Fallacy ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 23:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem is he's done what he does on other sites, with no reason at all to be a poe; so either hes unhealthily dedicated to insulting YEC's or hes unhealthily obsessed with YEC--il'Dictator Mikal 23:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, even if he were a Poe he'd still be crazy just by the sheer dedication he put into the role.--Night Jaguar (talk) 23:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I was a fool to think that Andy might conceivably think that a big picture of "evolutionist Adolf" on his main page could possibly be a bad thing. Andy's official stance continues to be that Ken makes "meritorious contributions" and can do no wrong. So, all the Conservapedia sysops think the principal page of their encyclopedia is fine and dandy just the way it is. Except for Martinez, who for some reason is a lot less assertive when it comes to showing his support for art appreciation than in showing his support for the regimes of oppressive dictators. And the main page really does look like a parody now with the question "Why do evolutionists push evolution?" above the Hitler pic. "Why do people who like cheese like cheese?" That's what I say. --Spud (talk) 05:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

When I say "it's pure Poe" I mean that it's indistinguishable from parody - not that it has been created by parodists.--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 07:21, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't normal take not of "wow, CP's mainpage looks stupid" comments, but as I've (also) not looked at the site for a while I had a sneaky peak - and I can see why Bobby thought it noteworthy: Fuck me, that is particularly bad even for them. MPL alone^img contains such gems as "Evolutionary racist Adolf Hitler", "Atheism and uncharitableness", "Homosexual couples and violence", "Homosexuality and disease", "Homosexuality and murders", and that's just the first half. Blimey Charlie! I reckon it's a good time to update the screenshot on WP's CP article..... DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 09:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

If anyone were to add a screenshot of that page to the WP article about CP, it would probably be mistaken for a photoshopped fake and get speedily deleted.--Spud (talk) 13:40, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Done :) --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 13:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Hasn't there been a worse example at WP? I seem to remember a particularly egregious example at one time but it being superseded by more recent versions. I guess that's the problem with WP the good stuff gets buried as people try to "improve" the article. Pongo^{Orangutans are sceptical} 14:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Bloody hell! PsyGremlin was telling the truth. Pity you can't see the "Atheism and uncharitableness" and all the "Homosexuality and... ' stuff on the page. Still, let's see how long that version stays there. --Spud (talk) 14:45, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

You forgot to use an edit summary. --65.101.119.25 (talk) 23:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Andy is an idiot in many, many ways. He knows nothing about the internet or web design. For all we know, he actually thinks the site looks good. Like in a geocities way. "Hey, check out these snazzy graphics!" Same with Terry's blog. I bet they think it looks just fabulous. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I love that after three pages of crap about liberals and bestiality and nazis and such, they include the inspirational quote

Kind words do not cost much. Yet they accomplish much. — Blaise Pascal

Is that JoMar's sense of humor showing or something? Phiwum (talk) 15:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The Republican Brain

Chris Mooneys forthcoming book, The Republican Brain, will open up with some shit about CP. My preview copy is on the way. -- -PalMD ^{--'scuse me, while I kiss the sky} 02:10, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello, PalMD. Long time no see. Ace^Moderator 02:13, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, real life is awesomely busy.-- -PalMD ^{--'scuse me, while I kiss the sky} 02:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, good to see you. Ace^Moderator 02:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Holy shit, PalMD! =D How have you been? --Sid (talk) 02:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Man, it's been ages, Pal! Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 02:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Tell me if you're going to eviscerate so I don't have to. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:57, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Pal, long time no see; is this, like, blogger gossip? sterile^talk 05:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Actaully, for those interested, three of the four pages (pgs 1-3) are on Amazon's preview [6]. sterile^talk 05:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Like opening a book on the democratic sense of morality with Marion Barry. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 05:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

@Opcn, you're not going to break into what a fabulous communicator Sarah Palin is again, are you? --Inquisitor (talk) 06:22, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The preview that Sterile linked to above certainly has a blistering attack on CP. Perhaps they are becoming more notable as an example of idiocy again?--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 10:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes I think Chris is a bit too Kumbaya-accomodationist, but I think this book might be interesting. He's been getting a bit more radical lately.

Check out page 280 of the Amazon preview - "interview with former Conservapedia contributor Trent Toulouse". Pongo^{Orangutans are sceptical} 14:29, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Is that how Trent wants to be remembered though? And how does CP feel about him being quoted as a source? I can't seem to figure out the context from the text of the review.--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 20:35, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

CP by definition wouldnt LIKE him being quoted as a source; but by doing so they can claim its all liberal anti-conservative bias anyways--il'Dictator Mikal 20:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey Doc! How goes it? FYI, I've become a pawn and useful idiot of an atheist website [7] so, like Jesus, we've forgiven all past sins. Good luck to ya~ nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 20:09, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Rob Smith, are you still at Conservapedia and able to try to knock some sense into this "Conservative" man to stop all the embarrassing and bitter nonsense he spouts all over the place? I very much appreciated what you were trying to do. It's too hard to even look at Conservapedia anymore it makes me very sad. Nate Keaton (talk) 18:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

No. It's pretty hopeless. And if Obama get's re-elected, I'm gonna blame those nutcases. nobs^{I'm not a doctor but I play one with the girls} 18:31, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't be weird. They aren't all nutcases. Only the people who are there to cause trouble. TK told me "Conservative" is just very young and troubled and has too much time on his hands. If you can't help him maybe Karajour can since he once said to ignore him he seems to understand that "Conservative" is troubled and very difficult to deal with. What do you think about that? Nate Keaton (talk) 18:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

IMO, and I don't say this in jest, there is some sort of commercial relationship there between Andy & User:Conservative. I suspect User:Conservative may be paying part of the operating costs. Andy keeps him on cause he needs him for that as well as his skill at maintaining CP's Alexa ratings by drawing atheists and evolutionists to keep clicking on the site. It's no secret Andy's always considered User:Conservative a nutbag from the early, witness the fact he was not invited into any of CP's private mailing lists for the first couple of years. And Andy said as much in those mailing lists. Although he's was sysoped even before TK or myself, his rise to prominence among sysops only occurred because of death & attrition of other sysops. So I suspect Andy keeps him cause he has to, and bends to User:Conservative's wishes on occasion because User:Conservative just may have a financial stake in maintaining the site. nobs^{I'm not a doctor but I play one with the girls} 18:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

When the book, The Republican Brain comes out we need to review it. Proxima Centauri (talk) 21:23, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

So the premise of this book is resistance to the politicization of science? nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 21:39, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

What does that have to do with the price of fish? Vulpius (talk) 22:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Bader Qarmout

Doing some poking around on an unrelated issues I ran across RoseAnn Salanitri, she is the ring leader of the Recall Menendez fiasco, and putatively Schlafly's client when he did his notorious NJ Supreme court flop. Well she is not using the money/infrastructure/fame (or what little there actually is) as the campaign manager for Bader Qarmout whose an also-ran tea party candidate running in the NJ Republican primary for the Menendez seat. All ready some shenanigans are being [called whether incompetency of malice aforethought who knows. Has CP had anything to say about it? Curious if Schlafly would jump on this failed bandwagon. 174.50.69.13 (talk) 17:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Salanitri is Flingbooty's partner in grime at CNAV and they have Teabagging sessions together. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Andy and she have met socially. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 18:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Terry knows Qarmout as well. He's cited him (and only him) as his fount of all knowledge on Arab culture. Because of course a Jordanian-born catholic zionist who's lived in the USA since he was eight is an expert on the subject...--Fergus Mason (talk) 19:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

In case you were wondering, RoseAnn is every bit as nutty as Terry. --PsyGremlinSprich! 12:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Oddity thy name is Schlafly

Andy makes a slight spelling mistake and types libersl instead of liberal^img and strangely redirects the page^img before then correcting the mistake^img. Oddity thy name is Schlafly. Ace^Moderator 22:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

He did the same thing with Louisiana the other day. I guess the thinking is that since he do teaching writing, if he makes a mistake then that's the way everyone spells it. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Must be a testament to conservative efficiency. -- Seth Peck (talk) 22:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

And what's with Andy blocking everyone with a 1-day block before they make a single edit? "Welcome! Here's your block. Try back tomorrow." Cow...Hammer^time! 22:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

At least it could be more useful than Ed's classic 'acne vaporised' redirect. Vulpius (talk) 01:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

E=mc2 has no meaning or value. Simply put, E=mc2 is liberal claptrap.

Fuck me, that is some stupid shit. It is like trying to convince me fire isn't hot. Or semen isn't sticky. Some things just are. Ace^Moderator 08:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

"liberal claptrap" - just the kind of thing you expect to see in an encyclopaedia. Andy does keep taking the stupid to new and scary depths. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 09:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The fundamental misunderstanding here, whether deliberate or accidental, is the "trying to relate mass to the speed of light" thing, wheras it's not. The speed of light's the constant there, it's relating mass to energy. The constant could have been anything and Andy would still ridicule it. It could be π, 42, 5647.364, anything, but it happens to be c². There's probably a reason for that, but I don't know it.

The other fundamental mistake is that idea that E=mc² has never yielded anything useful. Nuclear power. And nuclear bombs, for that matter. So, in short, either Andy's an idiot or he's lying out of his arse, and I'd bet on "all of the above". Some day, he's just going to have to come to terms with reality's liberal bias. Speaking of which, in what way could a formula that he happens to think is wrong be liberal? Oh, yeah, he thinks it's wrong, that's why. -- 10:57, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Can someone comment that other pages of CP need an update: http://conservapedia.com/Nuclear_Energy Here E=mc² is claimed to be useful! ^{— Unsigned, by: 81.242.71.61 / talk / contribs}

Somebody needs to ask Andy, how the Sun works, if e=mc² is a load of bollocks. He probably thinks it's a lump of coal. --PsyGremlin講話 11:52, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

You don't really need to ask. The sun works because Jesus. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 12:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget! Andy's a teacher. He'll teach to his students about E=mc². While I laugh on the outside, I cry on the inside, knowing Andy's views will rub off (in more ways than one :3) on the kids he might teach this to. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 14:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm just reading the excellent Measuring Eternity by Martin Gorst and the great physicist Lord Kelvin who was also an anti-Darwinist couldn't believe that the age of the Earth was old enough to account for evolution. Before the discovery of radioactivity then the sun was indeed thought to be something like a lump of burning coal and there were doomsday scenarios in Victorian times as they were concerned about how long the sun would last. Kelvin thought that the sun's heat came from gravitational collapse and although his initial computations were in the region of 90 my he managed to whittle that down to 20 my as he 'refined the calculations and assumptions'. s computed the age of the earth. So if you only believe in a 6000 year old earth then you are probably sufficiently denialist to disregard the latest science. When Rutherford explained the sun's energy through radioactivity one newspaper printed "Doomsday Postponed" for the first time. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 12:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

What baffles me about this is not that he denies e=mc², but that for some reason that the idea is liberal. What on earth would it have to do with an American Liberal political theory, platform, or idea? How could it ever further the means of the the party? What 'liberal' use does it possibly serve? I can understand decrying ideas like health science and other areas 'liberal' as a cry against government health care, or something. But really, I wonder why he just doesn't say 'anti-christian' instead of 'liberal' in cases like these. Is he trying to make his statements look more legitimate, or that his website isn't blatantly religious? He doesn't seem to care on other pages. This man discombobulates me to the extreme. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{critical thinking is the key to success!} 14:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

It has to do with relativity. Liberals practice moral relativity. Therefore it is liberal. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 14:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe this was what got Andy going on relativity. Check out the acknowledgements at the bottom of the page. Godspeed (talk) 14:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

AFAIK Andy's already written about that somewhere on CP. --PsyGremlinHable! 14:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure it is. I already spend too much time there, though (with >1 sec. being too much time). Godspeed (talk) 14:36, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Except that that relativity and this relativity are seriously different? I'm a liberal and closer to humanism or ethical naturalism than ethical relativism anyway...±KnightOfTL;DR^{free guybrush threepwood! no new taxes! down with porcelain!} 14:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

No, they're exactly the same thing. That's why they use the same word. Duh. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 14:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Andy the lawyer doesn't comprehend the meaning (and limitations) of the term analogy. I was floored the first time I realized this too. Godspeed (talk) 14:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘We have two whole articles relating to this Conservapedian claptrap. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

It really does come down to the fact that if Andy doesn't know how it works, then its GOT to be liberal deception. God, I thought MDickie had an Ego problem. --Revolverman (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Andy predicts his own shame

User: "Wow. Classic Andy. Unsourced statements supposedly contradicting well-established theories of physics."
Andy: "It's a start for now, and will expand over time."

Beautiful. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 15:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Uh....huh. For my exact response, see here. -- 15:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course the article has expanded over time^img(by AugustO^img).... to include unrefuted evidence for E=mc₂ i.e contradicting the summary. It doesn't seem Andy really cares or perhaps he just doesn't know what to do (his best attempt was [1]^img). Someone else suggested they do what they normally do and just delete any evidence which doesn't fit in to their pet theory [2]^img. Nil Einne (talk) 17:50, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

"E=mc2 is a meaningless, almost nonsensical, statement in physics that purports to relate light to matter. In fact, no theory has successfully unified the laws governing mass (i.e., gravity) with the laws governing light (i.e., electromagnetism). Simply put, E=mc2 is liberal claptrap. " I am guess Andy wrote that part of that page. Whoever did fundamentally misunderstands what the formula even means. Somehow they are tying mass-energy equivalence into a Grand Unified Theory while claiming mass is just gravity. The mind boggles. Anyway prime example of facts meaning whatever the writer wants them to mean (in which then they are no longer facts). I wouldn't be surprised if a sincere editor like AugustO (who may be the last one) attempts to fix this, only to be overruled by Andy (with his brother jumping in to defend the formula but ultimately changing nothing).--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but the article is basically too stupid^img for Roger. And AugustO just received an implied 90/10 warning,^img so he'll either resist and get hammered or move on. --Sid (talk) 16:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

AugustO's "talking up a storm" was pointing out that

It was obvious then that lithium was being disintegrated into two α-particles with a total energy release of 17.2 million volts. This energy could be provided by a diminution of mass of 0.0184 mass units.

is an invocation of E=mc^2, despite Andy's claim that it is a counter-example. Will Andy just respond "la, la, la, la" or provide a more convoluted proof that he's right? Whoover (talk) 17:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Incredibly stupid or incredibly obtuse?

Andy links to a Nobel prize^img lecture where a physicist talks about measuring the energy output and mass lost in a nuclear fission, and because it doesn't explicitly mention e=mc^2, dismisses the relevance of the experiment.

Is it actually possible he's that stupid? He managed to get in to Harvard for goat's sake. He must at least be good at passing exams. Is he just being deliberately obtuse, because Jesus? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes. It's possible to get into some of these colleges with somewhat reduced aptitude if a person has a lot of money, connections, an important family, or other bonuses. All he'd need are very good grades, some additional accolades, a good essay, and the promise that his family would pay lots and lots of money over time to the college as an alumni. Chances are Princeton let him in with this sort of promise, especially because he attended a shiny private school, which indicates the cash of the family too. Then with his cred from Princeton, chances are Harvard was happy to have him/his wallet. It doesn't always take raw smarts to get into these colleges. It sometimes simply takes influential parents and the evidence of a steady stream of dough. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{walls of text while-u-wait} 15:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

^This, and that you don't need even a fundamental knowledge of physics to study to be a lawyer.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't buy it. The Arsefly family may be well off from their various activities, but they don't have the kind of money or influence that buys deference from a university. Dude must have done pretty well at school, but somehow never picked up any critical thinking skills. Or at least sacrificed whatever skills he had on the altar of fundamentalism. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I've met plenty of people like Andy. Went to a great school, received advanced degrees, but still as sharp as a sack of wet mice. My Dad always said people like that went to school to get a diploma, not an education. --Inquisitor (talk) 22:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Let me paraphrase something Psy once said that just stuck in my head: I think Andy knows a lot, I don't think he understands a lot.

Also, let's be honest, law isn't exactly the most demanding thing one can study. Now to be a great lawyer you have to be intelligent, but the average lawyer needs patience and a good memory and is pretty well served. And patience and good memory aren't exactly facilitators for critical thinking. Also one needs a patience to not develope a death wish. --★uːʤɱ secularist 22:57, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

On the money side of things, it's not even 'ROLLING IN DOUGH,' that attracts universities, but 'You probably will consistently have enough cash to give a sum of money to the college each year when they send out letters to alumni.' Somebody with an influential parent, who was able to go to private school for a pretty big part of his life, paired with very good grades at said school looks like somebody who will consistently send money, attend functions, do all of that stuff that makes the college money off people who don't go there anymore. Not to say this is THE explanation, but I will say that growing up near Boston, only a short bus ride away from Harvard and other schools... there is an internal culture there that definitely swings in the way of influence and notability over merit more than one would think. Not to say that it's easy to get in to such a school, or that the academic demands aren't brain-shreddingly high. But from the feel of the establishments (and tales of both students and professors) I can't help but feel that Andy fits right in with it. Not the nice kind of fitting in. The kind that suggests he belongs in some dark corner: admitted on marginal interest to fill a quota, to spend the semesters gibbering in the rafters like a crazed possum.±KnightOfTL;DR^{garrulous en guerre} 23:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

If you're doing trial law, doesn't a law degree more or less train you to be a crank? The point is to create the "strongest" argument for the prosecution or defense as the case may be and to ignore whether the defendant is actually guilty or not. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

In one sense, all law works that way. Your goal is to present your facts in such a way as to convince a jury, a judge, or other intersted parts (if its not litigation) to do what you want. You sift through laws, facts, and testimony to present the world AS YOU WANT IT SEEEN. Then, you go on to convince yourself that what you see, and what you present are the ONLY way to see things. It's very good training for being a radical in any world. including a religious conservative. Godot What do cats dream about? 18:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Yep. Godot's got it. As a philosophy student, I was sorely disappointed to learn so early on that litigation isn't about true, fairness, justice, or right. It's about outcomes and increasingly a fundamentally dishonest approach to dispute resolution. At least ADR admits that resolution of disputes is about incentives, emotions, and transactional costs. 19:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Funny, because my dad has a JD and is about as moderate and middle-of-the-road as they come. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. It's so stupid that it seems to have broken CP. I can't get it to load that page at all. Darkmind1970 (talk) 19:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

If I practiced law in that fashion, I'd be sued for malpractice and hauled before a disciplinary board. Far from convincing ourselves that what we see and present are the only way to see things, we have to be able to anticipate what the other side will say; in fact, first-year law students and even paralegal students are taught to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of both sides of an argument. Also, at least in my practice area and in my country, I have to make a timely disclosure of all material information, including (especially) information that undercuts my position. If I don't, the consequences are dire. ... of liberals? (talk) 12:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Andy ties his knowledge of E=mc² to neutrinos

Here^img someone (lost in the server crash, but reads like Andy) tries to calculate the speed of the (electron) neutrinos from the OPERA/CERN experiment using the Newtonian $E={\frac {1}{2}}mv^{2}$, rather than the Einsteinian $E={\sqrt {(mc^{2})^{2}+(pc)^{2}}}\,\!$, gets the complete nonsense 110¹² ms^-1 as a result, then claims it violates relativity. CS Miller (talk) 22:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)