Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive292

This is an archive page, last updated 8 July 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>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <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)

Most visited entries...

How many visits would it take to affect the rankings? Just wondering... ^{— Unsigned, by: 86.14.158.80 / talk / contribs}

I suspect the reason they don't include the numbers for the ranked pages is that the numbers are embarrassingly small. MDB (talk) 15:38, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

At a tangent, it also suggests Andy could omit any embarrassing results, like one of Ken's kinky compendia or an Ed Poor stub or Den Bosch. Pity.

cp:Law Terms D got deleted, but there are still 25 other lists of law terms ripe for the visiting.--

Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 16:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

But... but... that would be deceit! And we all know only liberals do that, not good, right-thinking conservatives like Andy! MDB (talk) 17:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Fortunately, as luck would have it, there are no law terms that start with 'D' like "Defence", "Damages", "Deposition", "Damnum Absque Injuria", "District Court". Jimaginator (talk) 19:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Law Terms D was one of my favorites and I am happy to claim the majority of those page views, although others joined in later of course. Even when the page got deleted it was a sort of triumph because it buggered up all their Law Term lists which were a complete farce in the first place as Andy couldn't get his teeny brain around categories. Clickbot (talk) 20:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

cp:Special:PopularPages is the list, which may have several candidates worthy of boosting if someone is planning something. as for Law terms, I think TK deleted all of them except cp:Law Terms 1 and cp:Law Terms 4. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 21:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

God forsaking true conservatives again?

I see those nasty, liberal, self-centered Miami Heat heathens whupped those God-fearing Oklahoma boys. I guess God does move in mysterious ways. PsyGremlin말하십시오 06:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

For those not in the know, back on June 13th, Andy boasted that "Christianity triumphs over self-centeredness^img" because Oklahoma City defeated Miami in game one of the NBA Finals, and good ol' Oklahoma City has as its main start the Very Christian^tm Kevin Durant. Of course Andy, knowing shit about sports as he does, spoke up too soon as the NBA Finals are a best of seven series. Well those same self-centered Miami Heat players managed to pull off four subsequent victories in a row and winning the championship; apparently showing that "self-centerness wins over Christianity" if we are to go by Andy's reckoning. Think he will mention the Heat's crowning as the 2012 NBA Champions?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 07:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

A-ha-ha-ha-ha! I just looked up the Thunder's team page. So much for "outspoken Christian" Durant:

• Q: WHAT HOLIDAY DO YOU LOOK FORWARD TO THE MOST? A: Christmas. I like the jolly spirit.
• Q: WHAT ARE SOME OF YOUR FAVORITE CHRISTMAS MEMORIES? A: Transformers 3

Yup, that sounds like some real Christian ideas there. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 09:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

You realise that this will mean Transformers 3 will be added to the Greatest Conservative Movies list? rpeh •T•C•E• 12:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The director is on good terms with the military, of course it's conservative! Which means so's Pearl Harbour, Armageddon and Revenge of the Fallen. None of which are particularly great. -- 13:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Breaking news!!! It’s God’s Fault We Lost The Game (ok, not quite breaking news, but funny. And relevant. --PsyGremlinPraat! 13:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘And the AndyTruth^img is "After being schooled in Christian selflessness by losing the first game to Kevin Durant and the Oklahoma City Thunder, the Miami Heat uses strong teamwork to win the NBA Championship - and then thanks the fans". rpeh •T•C•E• 15:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

dafuq did I just read? --PsyGremlinTala! 16:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

That's a pathetic attempt to save face, so why didn't Oklahoma City use their own "Christian selflessness" to win those games? Oklahoma suddenly go atheist? Also hilarious is the statement about "thanking the fans"; what champion sports team doesn't thank the fans? That is as great of an "insight" as saying they won because they got the basketball through the hoop more.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Terry!

You trumpet pretty much every bit of gossip about Obama you hear, especially when it comes to his parentage.

Here's a new one for you!

Obama's mother was born a man. (Warning: Link is to Snopes which, great source of info though it is, is lousy with pop-ups.) MDB (talk) 11:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

That is the dumbest fucking thing I've ever heard. Senator Harrison (talk) 11:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

WTF? Transexuals are infertile; we don't have the biochemical knowledge to create functional testicles/prostate or ovaries/wombs yet. And there is serious ethical issues with a testicle/ovary transplant. CS Miller (talk) 11:45, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the birther equivalent of Poe's Law is, but I think it might apply here. When you look at the long list of bullshit right wing nutjobs are willing to believe about Obama, this one isn't too far from the previous record holder for idiocy. I suspect the law would be something like "Without a winking smiley [...] impossible to come up with a theory barring Obama from being President that some racist won't gleefully pass on to other racists". rpeh •T•C•E• 11:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I will grant that at least this one doesn't open with "Obama isn't eligible to be President because..." MDB (talk) 12:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Give it few days, someone will try to pass it off. -- 13:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, this is easy. If it's true that Obama's mama (Obamama?) was born a man, then Obama cannot be President. The Constitution requires he a "natural born citizen." Since it would be be impossible for someone born a man to give birth to him, he would, therefore, be an unnaturally born citizen. QED. MDB (talk) 13:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

So wait, doesn't that mean Jesus wouldn't be eligible? --Kels (talk) 14:39, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

That whole "born in Bethlehem" thing is a disqualifier already. MDB (talk) 15:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

You'd think in a Christian Nation(tm) like USAmerica, there'd be a special exemption written into the Holy Constitution. Maybe it's in the fine print somewhere. --Kels (talk) 15:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

As if it would matter. As soon as he said something about the rich, Andy and Terry would instantly call him a socialist.

And imply that he's a Zeuslim since he was born in the Roman Empire. (Yes, I know, Zeus was Greek, Jupiter was the Roman equivalent. But it's funnier my way.) MDB (talk) 16:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Even comparing it to some of the rest of the Obama rumors (What birthers really believe for instance) that one is batshit insane. It gets into not even wrong territory. MDB (talk) 12:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll have you know he weighs his words "with the same exquisite care with which a nuclear weaponist weighs weapons-grade plutonium." Which means we should expect a smoking crater somewhere in NJ any moment now. --Kels (talk) 14:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

What does Snopes say about this harlot? [2] --99.108.68.168 (talk) 16:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I made the mistake of reading the bottom half of that. Man, what the hell is wrong with people? That there's some real hate speech even if some of it is Poe. Is BoN Conservapedia's very own village idiot? Or just someone taking the piss? I can never tell. Ajkgordon (talk) 17:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I assumed this thing was "Obama's 'mother' is a man and therefore not his real mother therefore he's not really an American", not "Obama's biological mother is genetically male". Slightly saner, although it still requires that "there's been a conspiracy to help Obama since he was born" theory. X Stickman (talk) 19:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Older meme on Ann

This is a year-old article, about Stanly having an affair with a radical black journalist. I found it bouncing from the links you all gave. Tell me it's a spoof!GodotTut tut, looks like rain 16:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's not. Here's what makes it even "better": Wing Nut Daily has articles about this theory, and readers are angry about it... because were it true, then Barack Obama would actually be a citizen! Stunning, truly stunning. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 20:35, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

From the comments. "F.M. DAVIS WAS A HOMOSEXUAL AND MAY HAVE ABUSED BARACK H. OBAMA--AS HOMOSEXUALS ARE WONT TO DO!". God damn, I love these guys.--Thunderstruck^MONKEYS 21:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I've never looked at Wing Nut Daily before. It looks like the place that right-wing loons go when CP is getting too moderate and sensible. The Real James Brown (talk) 22:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

LA Riots media's fault

Apparently I missed this gem of an article: Deaths directly attributed to the liberal media^img. Unsurprsingly, most of the examples don't really seem to be directly attributable to the "liberal media". Most are of the form: person X saw media thing Y and did horrible act Z. Anyway, Andy adds this to the article^img:

“” The liberal media overhyped racial issues in connection with the first trial for the beating of Rodney King to such an extent that more than 50 people were murdered, and thousands injured, when the media reported the "not guilty" verdicts.

Let's not focus on the corrupt justice system that allowed such a horrible decision, the socioeconomic conditions that led people to riot or even the murderers themselves. Not, let's blame the media for *gasp* reporting a story. --Night Jaguar (talk) 23:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Since when is WWF wrestling the liberal media? Whoover (talk) 00:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Since Andy was able to tie something bad to it. Also since shut up, that's when. «-Bfa-» 00:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

That guy, who was caught on tCaP, totally the media fault he's dead, had they not run such a vile liberal show, he would be alive.--il'Dictator Mikal 00:38, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Well of course, Andy, the conservative media never report on anything nasty that never causes people to be angry when they read or hear about it.

I also find it interesting that the new LA riots section is headed "Rodney King" with a link to the article about him. Is Andy suggesting that the "lamestream media" drowned Mr. King?--Spud (talk) 04:10, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

In Andy's world there's no such thing as a "Conservative" news media. The news process is inherently liberal so that's why only liberals can be responsible. Consider the 2008 election: News reporters claimed Barack Obama had been elected president, which is liberal claptrap. Even on Fox, where you'd hope they would attempt to be "fair and balanced" the reporters accepted this story. A true Conservative isn't interested in hearing things they don't agree with just because they're true, each of the Conservatives would have their own private bubble in which they'd receive only reassurance that whatever they currently believe is correct. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 07:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Den Bosch redux

I see Andy moved Den Bosch back to 's-Hertogenbosch. I bet that hurts, doesn't it, Ed? Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 08:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh lawks. Ed's going to be on a chest-thumping rampage over there. I feel sorry for random editors. PsyGremlinParlez! 08:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I expect Ed to keep his feet still for a couple of days (he isn't editing at wp:Special:Contributions/Ed_Poor, neither at the moment). But then he will hunt AugustO down. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 11:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Ed's back editing at CP again so we shall see soon. I think he'll ignore the 's-Hertogenbosch decision and steer clear of August for a while. Petty retribution will come, but not today. rpeh •T•C•E• 14:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I think everything went pretty well for Ed. He couldn't make the change himself, because he doesn't correct mistakes that others point out. So, Andy corrected the butt-stupid page move and Ed gets to continue in his imagined feud with August. He saves face (not admitting error) while basking in the glow of pretend righteous indignation. What more could he want? Phiwum (talk) 15:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

It's Stubby Time!

Ed's treating us a wealth of knowledge sucky one-liner "articles":

• Critics of intelligent design^img
• Peer-reviewed ID literature^img
• Biomolecular machines^img
• Algorithms and information processing in biology^img

User188 in da house! --PsyGremlinSermā! 17:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks like his fascination with gays is coming to the fore again. --Kels (talk) 17:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

He didn't even capitalize the beginning of the "sentence" in the third one. Beautiful. «-Bfa-» 18:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I shouldn't care, I really shouldn't, but Ed's stubs sometimes make me want to scream. How the "great Wikipedian"™ can create such abysmal shallow articles without proper categories, references or formatting is an act of egoistic, pompous vacuity. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 19:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

AugustO attempts to contact Ken

AugustO: @Conservative, Please stay on topic and sleep more. I contact you here on Aschlafly's page because yours is blocked.^img

Ken: Hey AugustO, don't bother with writing to Aschlafly; he will probably ignore you.^img

I am new here. Is this Conservative guy normal? Open minded (talk) 10:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm new-ish as well, but as far as I've seen over at CP normalcy gets you blocked. Ben ^[talk] 10:37, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

By Conservapedia standards, Ken is perfectly normal. Compared to the real world, however, he's a gibbering simpleton who isn't allowed out in public unaccompanied.--PsyGremlinRunāt! 10:38, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Either that or the best troll ever. I'm really not sure which and I've been here for over half a year now. Rest assured that whenever he opens his mouth you can see the IQ of the entirety of Buffalo go into freefall like it was just blasted downwards out of the airlock of the ISS with a bit of explosive decompression to give it a push. -- 11:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Ken comes out with a load of weird crap which suggests that he's not mentally well. He once edited for 30 hours straight and last year went on a three-month "sabbatical" from CP, in the first week of which he made over 500 edits. Check out our article on him and watch out for teh transitional animal teh flyin kitteh. El Taj^{Don't make me do stuff} 11:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Most here think he's literally mentally ill. Pity him and then ignore him. --Night Jaguar (talk) 11:37, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

He is ill. And AugustO is delusional when he thinks:I'm sure that Aschlafly is aware of your problems, and I'm certain that he'll help in any way if you ask him. Andy is the real prick in the whole story: he didn't care for TK - and he doesn't care for Ken.

BTW bwochinski: you can't be that new, knowing Ken's secret identity...larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 11:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't realize there was a secret identity, my apologies to Ken for so brashly piercing the veil of mystery. Ben ^[talk] 00:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the link to the article. Ken always seemed to me even weirder than others. BTW we just got a honourable mention from him^img. Open minded (talk) 13:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Nobody knows enough about Ken to say what his diagnosis is. Except we all know enough about Ken to pontificate about it, so this is where I'm going to break my rule and get real obnoxious: as this site's best informed resident armchair psychiatrist, I'm convinced it's a Cluster A personality disorder. I previously thought schizophrenia but I'm only aware of one full blown psychotic episode and it was of a relatively short duration. My receptionist will take your payment on your way out. Thank you. ^{— Unsigned, by: Nutty Roux / talk / contribs} 14:12, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Ooh, ooh! Ken's shout out. He's mocking us, saying "I don't think your strategies/tactics are working" because a commentator said "Rationalwiki looks like conservapedia. I’ll stick with regular wikipedia thanx." So... either he means that like CP, RW is the go-to source for all True Conservatives, but people still go to WP. Or he means that like CP, RW is an utter failure and people still go to WP? --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 14:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Reader comment on liberal/RINO mainstream media website? Is Ken relying on hearsay? Does he lack the machismo to formulate true conservative insights? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

@Psy (and Conservative I suppose) it doesn't matter either way as we're not trying to be an encyclopaedia, which CP have explicitly claimed to be since its formation. El Taj^{Don't make me do stuff} 10:35, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

True, in spite of all his failings Karajou is perhaps the only one who actually tried to walk the encyclopedia path - although how one differentiates between a conservative article on Great Tits and a liberal one is beyond me. I don't think that any of Ken's articles have been "encyclopedic" in the accepted educational sense; they're all polemical diatribes. Even Andy has largely given up on the educational side; everything he does now seems to be outright political or loony-insight blogging. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 12:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

If by "walk the encyclopedia path" you mean "copy/pasting other people's work into Conservapedia," then yes. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 12:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

And avoiding copyright infringement by interspersing the material with "because liberals" every six words. El Taj^{Don't make me do stuff} 17:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't ever change Ken

I see the master debater has just deleted and oversighted all reference to Willingham (whom he blocked) questioning his bullshit turtles post. he even removed Andy's reversion of the original double post. Way to win an argument, coward. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 15:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

He's not necessarily a coward. His internal logic is just incomprehensible to regular people. He's otherwise somewhat lucid, though always subject to weird magical and other strange thinking. He had a break of some sort two summers ago when he came onto aSK and made a number of strange threats to Human's business. If you want to talk about cowards and sneaks, look no further than PJR for conveniently sweeping it under the rug and refusing to cooperate with providing Ken's location information in case Human needed to get a restraining order. 16:44, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Lol, "90/10" as the reason to revert and oversight. Looks like Conservative can't satisfactorily answer Willingham's questions! Looks like someone can't escape their intellectual bunnyhole! :) More cute pictures can be found HERE and HERE. etc. etc. etc... Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 19:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Conservastive.

What?^img Theory of Practice Peer-reviewed articles for everybody! 17:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

That's how Andy fixes spelling mistakes - he makes redirects. --PsyGremlinSermā! 17:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, he has done that a few times. Ace^Moderator 21:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

This is one that stuck in my mind. rpeh •T•C•E• 05:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Evasive Conservatism? --K. (talk) 18:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Whatever happened to his Firefox spelling checker that he used to crow about when lesser beings made a typo? Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 21:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

It's a RINO feature now because it doesn't work in in the conservastive search bar. 99.50.98.145 (talk) 22:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

It might actually make some sense for two reasons (1) people putting typos into address bar (2) people putting typos into search engines. I remember, back in the early days (2001ish), WP used to do this too, but not any more. I guess (2) is less of an issue nowadays, since Google at least corrects common typos to the desired search term. But (1) is still relevant. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 22:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Presidential Nicknames

Apparently, all it takes for a President to acquire a nickname is for a buffoon for use the name once. MDB (talk) 12:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

You forgot the bit about "and be Jpatt." --PsyGremlinRunāt! 12:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I love how we went more than two centuries with three or four negative presidential nicknames then, bam!, Obama has 13 (plus many more that would offend even CP sensibilities). That can only be proof positive that Obama is the worst president ever -- and by a large margin. Nobody with an open mind would allow for any other explanation. Whoover (talk) 22:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Pointing out parodists

Is it ever okay to point out parody on CP?

Even when it's over a year old? MDB (talk) 12:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Nah, leave it there. You can mail us with it, however. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 13:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The rationale behind not pointing out parody is that it is not our purpose to improve Conservapedia. Even if it's a year old, the pond scum sysops who follow this page will remove it. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 14:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. That's why I asked. All I'll say is I found a page where a known parody site is used as a reference. MDB (talk) 19:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Andy fails reading comprehension... again

Andy: "This is pathetic: Obama's reelection team resorts to trying to raise money from Americans living in foreign nations."

The article Andy cites does point out Obama is raising funds overseas, but the article also goes on to say:

Mitt Romney, meanwhile, had received almost $144,000 in campaign contributions outside the 50 states, according to FEC records. Several supporters said he’s expected to attend a fundraiser in London when he travels there for the Olympics this summer.

The Romney campaign doesn’t publicly list its bundlers and did not respond to questions regarding his fundraising efforts abroad.

Last July, the former Massachusetts governor attended a $2,500-per-person fundraiser in London hosted by high-powered donors like hedge fund manager Louis Bacon and New York Jets owner Woody Johnson. Dwight Poler, an executive with Bain Capital, the firm Romney previously worked for, and Raj Bhattacharyya, managing director at Deutsche Bank, also co-hosted the event.

Yep, Andy, the word "pathetic" definitely applies here.

MDB (talk) 13:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

When will you learn? It's only bad/negative/pathetic/etc if Obama does it. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 13:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Isn't 144,000 some sort of mystic number that some Xian sects use? I think I remember something in Jehovah's Witness literature, at least. --Kels (talk) 13:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Yup, it comes from Revelation 14:1. CS Miller (talk) 14:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Euggh, that's gross, a thousand times. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 14:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I see what you did there. MDB (talk) 14:53, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

It must be tough for Obama to make any decisions since he must always check with his London-Muslim-Atheist-Women overlords. I met one once: UK flag on hat, Burka, carrying the Origin of Species. Weird. Jimaginator (talk) 15:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be the right-wing version of Michelle Obama? MDB (talk) 17:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

An Andy Insight!!

Overrated sports stars!^img And why are they overrated? Because liberals.

The trusworthy encyclopaedia continues to evolve into Andy's personal blog of butthurt. --PsyGremlinTal! 12:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Funny, anyone else would have Tebow top this list. Sanchez is considered the better QB because , well he can throw. Pi 3:14 (talk) 12:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

That's just more proof that wikipedia is liberal claptrap. They don't tell it like it is and have any articles about things that are overrated!--TheLateGatsby (talk) 14:35, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Strange that Andy has to ask about David Beckham "Is he socially liberal like others on this list?". Schlafly suddenly lacks the conviction to say that all Limeys are godless socialists. Maybe if someone could prove to him that Beckham believes that the Earth was created in six days 6,000 years ago and that homosexuals can be cured, Andy would take his name off the list.--Spud (talk) 14:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Beckham being on the list is weird. 1. He isn't overrated - he used to be brilliant, though maybe not right up there with Pele and Maradona - but he was 3-4 years past his best when he went to the US of A. Still, to understand that, you have to take a balanced view of the facts, so that won't be Andy then. 2. There's no evidence that Becks has serious political views of any kind, let alone lib'rul ones. Why speculate, Andy? The Real James Brown (talk) 15:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Tiger Woods used to be staggeringly brilliant. Of course the commentators all want to talk about him: will he ever recover his spectacular form of 5-10 years ago? Schalfly, you're a git. The Real James Brown (talk) 15:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

It's hilarious seeing the "I love Tebow because he's loud about his religion" crowd talk him up over Sanchez, especially since most of them don't even realize that out of the QBs who get a chance in the league, those are easily two of the worst. Q0 (talk) 16:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I was going to say something about Agassi and Sampras but I can't be bothered. Waste of time to point out facts to the useful twits in Andy's branch of the Schlafly family. (Is the beer his cousins make any good? Has he drunk too much of it?) The Real James Brown (talk) 16:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

From what I can gather the Schlafly beers are pretty good, have a fairly cool "Indie" image, and the management (Aschlafly's cousins?) have gently mocked and disassociated themselves from Conservapedia^{[citation needed]}. Ajkgordon (talk) 10:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Some people just haven't thought this through. Although his cousins share the Schlaflly name it's pretty obvious in Andy's case that the craziness comes down the distaff line and therefore they cannot be similarly afflicted. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 14:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

It says something that Zach Johnson, with 1 Major, is a "Greatest conservative sportsman", but Tiger, with more Majors than Andy has IQ points, is "overrated" - and the criterium is: "Because Andy doesn't like them." --PsyGremlinPraat! 16:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Wa-ha-ha-ha-ha! Greatest conservative soccer players warrants a look. Also, Annie Oakley? --PsyGremlin講話 16:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Andy's man-crush on Tebow is getting embarrassing.^img REALLY embarrassing.^img Sure Andy, Tebow was shifted to help Obama win Colorado in 2012. --PsyGremlinTal! 17:20, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I find Andy's assumption unwritten that Tebow would potentially be a voice for conservative politics amusing.

• To my knowledge, Tebow has never made a partisan political statement. He did do one ad for a pro-life group, but that's it. He has hinted he might run for office someday, but that's presumably some years away.
• Really, how much influence could Tebow have? The most I see is him appearing at political rallies, probably headlining over the actual candidate. MDB (talk) 12:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I get that andy knows nothing about anything, but just glancing at "the lower half the internet" should have told Andy that Coloradoians have about as much use for Tewbow as we do for anyone the game after they lose. And Andy has Elway, who actually has a rep here, is into politics, and is a out and proud Republican. sighs... "I think it, therefore it IS". GodotThree words: SALON DU CHOCOLAT 18:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

"Greatest conservative soccer stars": a tumbleweed page...?? Do any soccer stars have any opinions about politics at all? The Real James Brown (talk) 18:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh FFS. Search for soccer players under the Greatest Conservative Sportsmen. --PsyGremlinParlez! 13:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, got it. Yes, a very weird selection. The Real James Brown (talk) 18:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I love this list, 100 percent. He has athletes that are (or were at some point) clearly some of the best at their sports. Tiger Woods? Probably the best golfer ever. Magic Johnson? 5 titles, 3 mvp's and the best point guard ever. Kobe Bryant? 5 titles, 1 mvp, second-best shooting guard ever. Beckham? While I agree that his popularity and marketability was higher than his skills, he was also very, very good in his prime, and probably the best touch/bend ever. Agassi? No one sane thinks he was better than Sampras. Manning? Dragged multiple mediocre Colts teams to a perennial contender, won 1 super bowl and 4 mvp's. Mark Sanchez? Most people think he sucks, so I think he is properly rated. Meanwhile, Tim Teabow, who should be top of this list as Pi says, is 1000% overrated by Andy. Does he really not see it? Danoso (talk) 20:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, in the link from the WIGO, the first reference mentions all the spectacular accomplishments by Tiger Woods. What a great slap in the face. Not surprisingly, the reference is already gone from the page in the link at the beginning of this section. Danoso (talk) 20:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Idea for a spoof page: Overrated Conservative Commentators. And at number one this week... drum roll... [fill in this gap yourself]. The Real James Brown (talk) 23:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Interesting list. A guy of Armenian and Assyrian descent, a Brit, an African American, an African American, another African American, one white American, a Canadian, a Hispanic, and someone of mixed race. Hmmmm.... Also, under Kobe Bryant it notes that Phil Jackson says he's "not on the high level of Michael Jordan". Well, one can still be very good without being on the level of the greatest fuckin' basketball player of all time. But what does Jackson actually say in the reference given?

"I'm with (ESPN's) Bill Simmons on this," he added. "We have to take Michael Jordan out of the equation. Stop comparing anyone to Michael Jordan. It's just not fair. He was remarkable.... (Kobe) doesn't shoot the same percentage (.455) as Michael (.497). He has the same characteristics as Michael, but he's not the same player. It takes nothing away from him — he's a great player in his own right."

As usual, Andy probably didn't read beyond the headline. Mathematics, physics and now sports. I look forward to seeing what else Andy tries to politicize. Are Apple computers liberal and the liberal media is trying to destroy the conservative Microsoft? Is Coca Cola part of the liberal conspiracy and only stopped from total supremacy from the conservatives at Pepsi? --Night Jaguar (talk) 08:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, the best Insights® always come Sunday, Sunday, Sunday!!! Probably a combination of Andy coming off a church high and having shit else to do. --Night Jaguar (talk) 11:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I've always suspected that Andy's Sunday insights probably came from something the preacher said and therefore aren't even totally original. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 14:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Why do either of you assume that Andy regularly goes to church? This is the man who defined "churchgoer" as "a person who makes an effort, during the 168 hours in a week, to attend a church service"^img, a revision to his original definition which required that one "find time" to attend. I strongly suspect that nigh every week, Andy makes an effort but finds himself just too darned busy to find the time to attend. The only failures Andy readily forgives are those he makes himself. Empathy and selfishness are essentially synonyms, evidently. Phiwum (talk) 14:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Apple is probably an honorary conservative company, since, as everyone knows, Steve Jobs was becoming more and more conservative before his untimely death. (Too lazy to look up the links, but surely we all remember Andy's insights on this.) Phiwum (talk) 14:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Apple would be a tough one for conservatives. Legendarily gay friendly (though it's an Urban legend that the "bitten apple in rainbow colors" is a tribute to Alan Turing), founded by a couple of ex-hippies... but Rush Limbaugh is also a huge Mac lover. MDB (talk) 15:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

If Andy wants it to be conservative, then it's conservative. Just like Steve Jobs. Phiwum (talk) 22:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The talk page^img for Overrated Sports Stars is mighty entertaining this morning. Phiwum (talk) 15:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Ed blames it on teh gheyz. MDB (talk) 15:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Andy's Tebow conspiracy is starting to make Jones and Icke look pretty damn normal. Tompkins is doing a good job - not that it will help. For him to have any impact would require Andy having an open mind. --PsyGremlinPraat! 15:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

LMAO. Andy: "MVP is by popular vote by ... the lamestream media. It's like the Academy Awards and Nobel Prize -- being liberal is worth more than being talented."^img Oh, Andy. You're priceless. --Night Jaguar (talk) 18:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Whoooaaaa, slow down there Sharon. "Standards" and "objectively" are not words you're going to find on the Best New Conservative Words list. Just saying Jared (talk) 19:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Andy tries to pull a "I was joking" about the whole Tebow thing^img, then proceeds to say it's a plausible explanation. :| --Night Jaguar (talk) 20:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

It's been a while since Andy's gotten it handed to him this badly. Kudos to all involved. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Ken's latest headline

Isn't this^img[3] basically the same thing as saying "The speeding trains of creationism CRIPPLE the forces of Dawkins and atheism as evangelical Christianity rolls forward!" and showing some clipart of a guy in a wheelchair? Pretty low even for Ken but I doubt he can see the connection there (If there is one, I could just be reading too far into this).--Moose (talk) 02:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I just love "where is the powerful punch you promised?". No sense of irony, no thought to the dozens of times he said "Full Throttle" about the QEC. Well ken, we're waiting?--Thunderstruck^MONKEYS 03:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Kenny's QEC is in the same train yard with the rest of the rusting derelicts that he promised would barrel across country but instead fell off the rails in obscurity: The Richard Dawkins Project, the Conservapedia Pro-life Project, and the Conservapedia Anti-Socialism Project. The only difference for his QE project is it collects dust in the blogosphere instead of being an empty shell on Andy's wiki.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Jomar's Revision

It appears as if the image was offensive enough to warrant an administrator replacing it.^img Apparently, some of the history has been oversighted, though. Now, an anime picture adorns one of Ken's screeds. Fittingly, it's from a decidedly shoujou-ish anime (shonen by plot, shoujo by demographic). Talk about lacking machismo!75.76.196.182 (talk) 19:02, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Karajou removed the pic from the main page. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 19:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear. Deletions, removals, and oversights on Conservapedia are a dime a dozen, aren't they? I'm still wondering how long the anime picture Jomar uploaded will last75.76.196.182 (talk) 19:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, to hell with the Netherlands then!

If the Dutch are so darned arbitrary that they insist on starting certain words (and placenames!) with apostrophes, then they^imgdon't^imgdeserve^imgarticles^imgfor^img cities and provinces. But, of course, in his usual half-ass fashion, Ed only hit certain places, missing, for instance, the cities of Eindhoven and Nijmegen and the province of Gelderland.

What a dick. Phiwum (talk) 03:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I think this is his way of "getting back" at AugustO after being called out over the whole Den Bosch debacle and (still) not having the balls to respond. Nope, just delete/merge many of the things August has worked on and keep making shitty article stubs.--Moose (talk) 03:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

More proof that Ed is a terrible person. Too cowardly to admit he made a mistake, he scurries around behind August's back and deletes pages totally unrelated to the debate. Of course, if August says WTF Ed can say 'I'm an admin! Don't question me!' Block. He's a terrible person. PsyGremlinPraat! 06:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

In judo you use your opponent's weight against them, so I appreciate AugustO's suggestion that Ed's stubs be moved to Templates. Sterling work, sir! Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 07:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

@Psy - You're right, Ed is a disgustngly devious dickhead. Did becoming a Moonie make him like that or was it a prerequisite for joining? Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 07:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

If you held auditions to find the worst possible administrator for a wiki, you wouldn't be certain of getting someone worse than Ed Poor.--

Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 08:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

well, not after the death of TK. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 08:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The difference being that TK didn't promote himself as a wiki administrator, more as a security guard. If you crossed TK you got a kick in the balls, with Ed it's a stab in the back or poison in the cocoa. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 09:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

the really creepy/scary part is that Ed carries on like this whilst at the same time saying how reasonable and cuddly he's being - and he probably believes that he is. How on earth he made it to admin on wikipedia still baffles me. PsyGremlinParla! 09:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe he got involved quite early. I wonder if anyone knows what user number he is... rpeh •T•C•E• 09:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it's really a great example of what's so bad about CP. Even if they didn't have their insane political agenda but were just some run of the mill wiki, the terrible behavior of the mods (who are really the only core users on there) would scare off any polite newcomer who would be interested in contributing.

I mean, just look at that talk page. Half a dozen people pointed out a clear and obvious error, including me who is an actual resident of the town in question. People remain polite while they're forced into a state of near begging to correct the obvious mistake, we pull in multiple clear cut sources backing our statements, I even translate a bunch of stuff for them, and what do we get? Ed just bullies on irrelevant points, makes thinly veiled threats on my user talk page and then takes out his anger on all wiki articles of Dutch towns, all the while ignoring the arguments until another mod comes to fix his mess. And why? He didn't even have some bullshit political point or batshit agenda to push.. He just didn't want to admit that he could be wrong..

Really Ed, nobody at all would have thought less of you for not knowing what the common usages are of a certain Dutch town's name. But this childish and bullyish behavior about something so small and irrelevant that nobody would have thought it would need half a dozen people arguing against you, this behavior is exactly why I think Conservapedia is a terrible wiki, since the only people who are willing to put up with your shit must have a serious agenda to push themselves.. -GTac (talk) 10:02, 26 June 2012 (UTC) (moved comment from section above since this section is more actual and relevant)

Ed has contributed very little of substance to CP and is an admin there largely because he got the boot from the liberals on WP. He pretty much uses CP as somewhere to rebuild his own vanity and, lacking a cat of his own, somwhere to vent his own anger. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 10:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Whatever this Midas-in-reverse touches is soiled:

• his writing on maths is appalling: luckily it doesn't happen very often. His advise on this subject is invaluable. Really invaluable. See cp:center
• remember the article on J.R.R. Tolkien? He blocked cp:User:Tolkiendil for vandalism, an amusing discussion about this can be found here. Amusing for everyone but Tolkiendil, that is. Ed claimed that he had to clean up subtle damage, done by Tolkiendil, and he would start the cleansing at cp:Éowyn. But he never edited the article again after Tolkiendil was banned.
• I believe in being bold, a habit I learned to cherish at Wikipedia. But I also believe in correcting my mistakes. As I said before, his way to handle mistakes is to get rid of the witnesses...

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 10:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I love his boasting about having read Lord of The Rings eight times. He might have done better to read eight different books instead.--

Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 12:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

As someone who is somewhat Dutch, the above mentioned AugustO Den Bosch debacle is somewhat relevant to my interests. Anyone care to fill me in? WF Lizardbrain (talk) 13:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Goedemiddag en welkom, that debacle can still be read on the talk page, nothing has been deleted from there (yet), or just follow the recent WIGO's. -GTac (talk) 13:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

His merge suggestion is simply transparent. As Larron says, his notion of cleaning up mistakes is to get rid of witnesses -- and evidence. The talk page of 's-Hertogenbosch presents his ignorance and stupidity quite clearly. If he merges it with The Netherlands, then the talk page will be deleted. Problem solved! Oops, too obvious. For good measure, let's also propose the first two cities on the Dutch Cities and Towns category^img (skipping Amsterdam, of course) also be merged, so that we don't appear two obvious. And, for fun, let's throw in a couple of provinces for no apparent reason at all. Problem solved! Phiwum (talk) 13:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of Ed's motivation, wasn't it a bit pointless having individual articles on Dutch towns anyway, considering the limited scope of CP? AMassiveGay (talk) 17:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

<- nothing has been deleted from there (i.e., the talk-page). That's not correct, Ed Poor was forced to protect his delicate feelings by deleting (at least) three of August's comments:

• "Why would you say such and odd and untrue thing? Sorry if I hurt your feeling. My, these New Yorkers are delicate flowers :-)^img"
• "cp:User:Ed Poor, if you start to threaten editors with blocks and probations, please make sure to address the right ones.^img"
• "Does this have anything to do with your decision to put me on probation - an act to which I object.^img"

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 17:59, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I say let's merge the Dutch with Scandanavia. They won't mind. After that, we can add Belgium, it's practically The Netherlands anyway. Luxembourg: Barely a country, in you go. Germany: A little different, but hey, for a while we can call the whole thing "Germania", unless there is some historical baggage to worry about. Nah. France: You've had a long run, but... Spain: Bye Bye. Europea: Here we come! They're all ferreners anyway! Oh, I think the possibilities are endless. If we could merge China in there, the American economy would boom. Eddy-Baby! You are a genius! Merge Baby, Merge! Jimaginator (talk) 20:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh comrade, in the second edition of the Conservadictionary all those places are referred to as unAmerica. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

"Comrade"? That's doubleplusunAmerican! 184.61.193.172 (talk) 06:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Odd User: Conservative behaviour.

Dude goes deep into the archives^img to say nothing of any consequence. Get help, man. Get help. Theory of Practice Peer-reviewed articles for everybody! 20:59, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

If I had to guess, Ken is testing the waters just like TK did before: "At what point does Andy interfere? Will anybody with power care if I do X?". --Sid (talk) 21:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I think Ken has already tested the waters and seen how far he can go. There were a number of times in the past 12 months when he seemed to be saying to Andy, "Come and have a go if you think you're hard enough", such as when he challenged the validity of the Conservative Bible and the Conservative dictionary and when he disagreed with Andy's notions that Star Trek was a conservative TV show and "YMCA" was a conservative song. Not to mention the challenge he posed by nearly turning the entire site into Beasts Blog.

Ken seems to be doing nothinhg more here than giving a shout out to his buddy Shockofgod. It is a strange way for him to do it, though. A more normal Ken way would be to create a page with a title llike "Essay: Shockofgod slaughters blind Internet atheists with his machine gun and sets their bodies on fire".--Spud (talk) 04:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Hold on, Andy tried to posit Star Trek, the show in which there is a very liberal Federation in charge (Prime Directive: Don't interfere with pre-warp civilization, they should be allowed to develop on their own), science including evolution pretty much rules everything and (back in the 60s now) there was a Russian, a Japanese person and an African American woman all part of the recurring crew, that was created by an atheist no less, as conservative? Bloody hell. -- 10:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

"Stuff I like is conservative, therefore Star Trek is conservative". Once you dispense with reason and evidence, categorizing the world becomes so much more straightforward. VOX^HUMANA 10:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

See also: Andy's insistence that George Orwell was a conservative not a socialist. MDB (talk) 12:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I love the reasoning as to why Star Trek is conservative: "emphasized morality, honor, abiding by a strict code of conduct, and problem solving"^img. A liberal show would emphasize immorality, dishonor, doing whatever you want and abortion, I guess. --Night Jaguar (talk) 15:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I tried to remove Star Trek from the list and gave those reasons. He said that the show had evolved over time plus removing it would piss off Trekkies. I was the one who added it back^img when Ken deleted it actually. I said Andy had decided it was staying. Unless Ken removed it again. Ayzmo (talk) 14:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I have to take exception with the title of this section. Surely odd Ken behaviour would be exactly equivalent to normal behaviour? ^{ONE / TALK} 15:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Star Trek Conservative? It endorses sexual activity with non-humans. Some of the characters are the result of that beastiality. C'mon ken, time for Star Trek and Beastiality^img. Auld Nick (talk) 21:53, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The incoMpetence

I can't even. --K. (talk) 23:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The stupid. It burns. Theory of Practice Peer-reviewed articles for everybody! 02:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

At least the poll is strongly in the "Not, its not". --Revolverman (talk) 02:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Taking odds.

"Will Conservapedia be proven right again?"^img Theory of Practice Peer-reviewed articles for everybody! 02:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Well you know if any part of it is struck down they're going to retroactively declare that it was the "key part". Someone should ask what the "key part" is ahead of time just for chuckles. «-Bfa-» 02:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Not only that, but Andy takes on 85% of all experts. Because he says so. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 02:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

On things like this, I'll go with SCOTUSblog. While their man Tom Goldstein does indeed think think the law will be upheld, he's clear that "Most observers disagree". Almost every politics site has a list of possible outcomes and very, very few think the whole law will be upheld. This is just Andy positioning himself to claim a win whatever happens. rpeh •T•C•E• 05:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

How does he claim a win if it gets fully upheld? Burn all evidence of any kind of prediction? -- 09:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Because that was what most people believed would happen and the liberal court caved in to their demands. Or something like that. rpeh •T•C•E• 09:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Holy crap - Andy's reasons for striking it down^img contain a neat summary of all his crazy. It's mostly "because Obama" but we have Schlafly stats in there (90% of the 85% of experts are unwilling to criticize Obama), the also deny that the US is becoming more conservative 9as measured by Conservapedia's law), they ignore Biblical Scientific knowledge, so how can they be right about anything else. Sure Andy - legal experts are really going to be interested in your claims the Bible predicts science. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 13:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

And the "will Conservapedia be proven right again?" quietly vanishes from the main page.^img Damn. We should've capped that page and updated the WP with it. --PsyGremlinParla! 14:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I can't wait to see Andy's spurious arguments when someone puts this on Conservapedia Proven Wrong. Phiwum (talk) 14:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

GregG already done it^img, but I'm getting an internal server error when I try to view it. Phiwum (talk) 14:38, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I imagine it's because all the RW crowd are trying to load diffs at the same time :) rpeh •T•C•E• 14:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Go CPalmer!

First the hearsay society ploy that Andy lapped up and now a page straight out of the TK playbook.^img He might have played the long game, but this kid will go far. --PsyGremlinSermā! 13:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Wasn't it during the Lenski affair when a whole pile of new accounts with the names of footballers were encouraging Andy to go ahead with his silly letter? Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 21:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Conservapedia proven wrong.

As bonafide BotP, I predict this prediction^img will never be mentioned again. (Also, Kendoll's Waterloo^img.) --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:30, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

How many different things has CP said would be Obama's Waterloo?

also, I note the CP front page is borked right now. MDB (talk) 14:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, Jeeves's screencap of the front page didn't work out so well. Phiwum (talk) 14:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

This happens a lot when Schlafly edits the main page. Generally an hour or two later Kendoll comes and reads about how it's broken over here and fixes the problem. It's kind of sad that so few people give a shit about CP that they have to read it's broken on RW. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:38, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

So, the Best of the Public vs The Experts held up quite nicely there! ^bomination 14:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Ken is such a shamelessly dishonest asshole. One second it's Waterloo, the next it's oversighted. 16:32, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Head over to the Ruy Lopez talk pages on aSK - Ken had no oversight and his talkpage archives are filled with predictions and "Waterloo!" statements, none of which came true. Ace^Moderator 20:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

(Aside: Kendoll makes the fuckup worse by moving the TOC^img to the bottom of the page. Isn't there one person - just one person - over at CP who occasionally shows a sliver of competence?) --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

This whole Conservapedia proven wrong thing needs to be turned into a WIGO. I'd do it myself, but haven't found a way to word it right. --Night Jaguar (talk) 22:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

How long until John Roberts is considered a RINO?

I still can't believe that John Roberts, of all people was responsible for ObamaCare being upheld. Today is a great day, and in a few years when we are well on our way to a truly successful universal health care system, the Republicans will be kicking themselves for naming it after a Democrat. ^{— Unsigned, by: RachelW / talk / contribs}

Well, we had a clue they were in cahoots when Roberts made Obama screw up the oath of office, thus allowing him not to use a Bible for the real oath. Pretty clear now it was planened from the get-go.DickTurpis (talk) 15:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

This conspiracy goes much deeper than any of us can fathom. SirChuckB^{A product of Affirmative Action} 16:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Sir Chuck! It's been a while. Pull up a bar stool and stick around. DickTurpis (talk) 16:38, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Dick, I've been lurking for a while, but I was sure that Health Care would be a major breakdown moment for Andy so I had to check in. SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 21:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Meanwhile, back at the nuthatch ranch...

CNV's Nicholas Purpura barely stops short of calling for civil war in the United States. MDB (talk) 14:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

"The eagle" really is in a flap about... er, something. It's more than usually incoherent. This Obamacare thing should really unhinge him. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

There's two things I'm looking forward to coming from the rabid right the GOP has encouraged. 1. The foaming at the mouth we're going to see when Obama wins a second term, and how it's going to grow over the next 4 years. 2. If the GOP get in in 2016, how they're going to deal with this beast. I somehow doubt the tea party will magically disappear. --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 15:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree. The tea party is still around, but it's no where near the factor it was in 2010. And the tea party philosophy was already out there -- it just coalesced into a group with a name after Obama took office. MDB (talk) 15:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

If I didn't know every single person associated with CNV was an absolutely spineless and powerless crazy old men barely one step above being the local "homeless crazy guy", I would find that article fucking scary. It's hard to understand how people like that function from day to day. I lost my socks? Thanks, OBAMA. Car won't start because despite being a hardcore 'starve the poor' Republican I'm below the poverty line? If we had a good Conservative leader none of this would happen! The birtherism is so tiring too. He was born in Hawaii and even if he wasn't it doesn't really, really matter now does it? Legally yes, but I mean, in practical terms where he was born makes absolutely no lick of difference. --Sasayaki (talk) 15:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Also on the same article, it seems Arsey has "seen evidence suggesting that Andrew Breitbart died from an act of murder". I would love to see what this evidence is Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 15:39, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

That can't be true. Obama's shadowy ninja assassin squad doesn't leave evidence. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, most of us are more capable photoshoppers than the forgers Obama hired to create the birth certificate. If Obama had Breitbart killed, you can be sure there is a trail somewhere. But god help you if you pick up on it! Occasionaluse (talk) 17:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

And a dishonorable mention to his citing Booth's line on assassinating Lincoln: Sic semper tyrannis (Thus always to tyrants). He's calling for more than civil war. Whoover (talk) 16:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I realize Terry et al are basically the internet equivalent of a few drunks in a bar agreeing that "somebody outta shoot that sumbitch", but I also know the Secret Service has a long-time philosophy that "there's no such thing as a joke about assassinating the President." On the other paw, they'd love a visit from the Secret Service, because it would seem to them that big bad Barack is sending his jack-booted thugs after them. MDB (talk) 16:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

(EC) What Whoover just said. Hasn't Purpura, by any definition of the act just threatened Obama's life given the past usage of that phrase? Add to that him calling for a mutiny (or would that be barratry because he's only talking to the officers?), is he trying to get a visit from some branch of law enforcement to further his persecution complex? -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 16:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

"Obviously, no one told the two-bit Marxist usurper illegally occupying the oval office that the sovereign States created the federal government..." I'd call Poe on this if I didn't already know it was serious, serious being used here in a very loose sense. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

From the Secret Service

The Secret Service's own web site addresses the question.

“”The Secret Service is interested in legitimate information relating to threats, plans or attempts by individuals, groups or organizations to harm Secret Service protectees. However, the agency does not desire or solicit information pertaining to individuals or groups expressing legitimate criticism of, or political opposition to, the policies and decisions of the government or government officials.

CNAV would probably qualify as "pushing it." MDB (talk) 16:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Purpura could very easily let slip a seemingly legitimate threat against the president. Hell, I wouldn't put it past him to actually threaten the president. When you believe the insane things he does, why not? They guy stole power and is literally doing everything he can think of to destroy America. He has been tried and convicted of treason in Purpura's mind. Does Terry proofread the articles? Either way, I'm sure he'd burn it fast enough. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The first fruits of crazy

Terry posts his first response to the supreme court decision. It's a bit tame considering the vitriol we saw over Arizona ruling, but there are some gems. Firstly Reince Priebus telling the world that America's idea of health care reform is repealing the previous attempt at health care reform. Then there's the typical tea partier not-understanding-the-problem response. I especially liked including in the same manifesto "Free markets in health insurance" and "Tort reform, to restrain lawsuits..." Somehow I don't think she understands the meaning of "free markets." --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Free markets? didn't we have that BEFORE Obamacare? Isn't that the reason for Obama care.--Thunderstruck^MONKEYS 20:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I like the part where he claims that this ruling gave the government the power "to tax anyone, for any reason, to force him or her to do anything it wants." He apparently has not heard of tax exemptions. ListenerX^TalkerX 20:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Law suits are not part of the market, they are something imposed on the market (and they should be). However they are out of hand in the medical field, which is why malpractice insurance is sooo high. For instance a certain percentage of children will be damaged during the birth process, it is not the result of incompetence it is a matter of chance. Incompetence on the part of an obstetrician can also cause damage to newborns. When ever a newborn comes out with any kind of damage, obstetricians get hit with multimillion dollar lawsuits. Since these lawsuits are so big ambulance chasers take them of for free (if they do not win) and fight hard, costing money to defend against. This free legal attack team encourages parents who really have no basis to sue the Ob-Gyn to sue them. This is why obstetricians pay hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in malpractice insurance. Not because they screw up a lot, but because they are on the hook for flukes of nature that occur during a very dicey process. That cost is then passed on to the patients who pay for the doctors services. As to free markets, you cannot sell health insurance across state borders. In states that mandate a lot (like New York) this yields higher health insurance costs and lower health insurance buy in. --Opcn ^{with regards to regarding my regardliness} 21:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Here's Another

Not sure if this heading is right (my wiki etiquette is a little rusty) but here's another crazy. What's really sad is that a few years ago these nuts would be relegated to the corners of the caucus room while the adults had real conversations, now they're taking leadership spots. SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 21:39, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

These tea partiers are all such internet tough guys. Always talking about shooting people because things didn't go their way. Shame they're all over 60 and would have to delegate the shooting to people whose knees actually bend. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:39, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I find these people's language hysterical. you have Bachman saying "it's invasive control over our choices", you have people attacking a USSC that just found for a 2nd time, that Corporations are humans with personhood rights. It's like watching 2 years olds stomp the ground and temper tantrum cause they don't get their way all the time.GodotFire! Fire! Fire! (please send spare firefighters) 22:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Now I know nobody reads CP's broken news

This story^img has been a 404 for about 24 hours now, and nobody noticed. Good old CP, constantly throwing a party nobody comes to. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:32, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I like how their front page invitation to debate the Affordable Health Care Act SCOTUS decision resulted in one reply so far, highlighting the fact any real community on Conservapedia died long ago.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm surprised at how muted the reaction is over there to the Obama ruling. Perhaps they're all in their cups, but can you imagine the sound and fury this ruling would have generated back in the heyday of CP? Stile4aly (talk) 19:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been a bit disappointed so far too. I'm sure tomorrow when the hangover kicks in we'll get the quality stuff though. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

A large chunk of CP at this point is links elsewhere. They have to wait for the response from the right-wing blogosphere to link to it.

And really, this ruling was a bit of a surprise to most. A lot of people, across the spectrum, who were getting their responses ready on the assumption the mandate was overturned are scrambling to write pieces on the unexpected.

It's not unlike the fact that most news organizations have obituary pieces already prepared for prominent people who are older or in ill health. But they have to pull together a piece if someone dies unexpectedly. MDB (talk) 19:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Dear Andy

You've been very quiet about global warming lately. Would that have anything to do with the record heatwave in the US? You know, like the heat wave they had last year? --PsyGremlinParlez! 15:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Pffft. While nobody with an open mind would deny that cold snaps in winter disprove global warming, heatwaves in summer are totally not proof of it. Isn't it obvious? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Andy's standard MO in these matters to look over weather maps of the country and find the one spot where the temperature is slightly below normal, and make it seems as if the rest of the country doesn't exist. If that doesn't work he goes global, and manages to find one place where it's slightly cool. Absolute proof against global warming. DickTurpis (talk) 15:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

It's MEANT to be hot in summer! I still remember... i think Jomar innocently asking him back during our mild winter "how bout that nice weather" and andy just snapping on him about how liberals are claiming GW. --il'Dictator Mikal 15:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

If global warming is real, then why is Vancouver having a record low summer? Give it up, liberals. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

If global warming is real, then how come there are still monkeys? MDB (talk) 17:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh yeah, does anyone remember a few months ago when the Northeastern US was having a very warm winter, and Andy claimed that the extreme cold in Europe was a counterexample to global warming? Andy Frankinson (talk) 10:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Purely on the heatwave point, here is a great NASA image showing the temperature difference. I'm sure Andy would point out a) NASA is full of liberals; b) there's also some blue; c) More blue areas have clearly been cut off to make it conform to the liberal message. rpeh •T•C•E• 13:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Off on a tangent

"Dear Andy" makes me think of "Dear Abby", and that makes me envision Andy writing an advice column.

Dear Andy, Dear Andy,

You won't believe this

But my stomach makes noises whenever I kiss

My girlfriend tells me It's all in my head

But my stomach tells me to write you instead

Signed Noise-maker

Noise-maker, Noise-maker,

You have no complaint,

Creation is true, but evolution ain't,

So listen up, liberal, and listen with fright,

If you stop leaning to the left, things will be all right.

Ten trillion bonus points to the first person who points out where I stole the above. (Googling the first verse would reveal it, but that's cheating.) MDB (talk) 16:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Same guy that wrote "The Speed of the Sound of Loneliness" and that wasn't Loudon Wainwright the 3d. Fun trivia question: tell us who wrote "Crazy" (for feeling so lonely) without using Google. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Willie Nelson. And you get the bonus points. Don't spend them all in one place. MDB (talk) 17:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

You're no fun. I wanted someone to say Patsy Cline. Keep those points in escrow for me, please, and don't give them out to anyone with an illegal smile. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I know my Willie.

Wow, that sounds smutty. MDB (talk) 17:53, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Does your Willie have a great gaping hole in the front? Never mind, some things I don't want to know. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm just disturbed that my Willie looks like my redneck uncle. (My Willie is much cooler, though.) MDB (talk) 18:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I had an uncle whose middle name was Nelson, but he took a bad case of mesothelioma and isn't around any more. Asbestos is a natural substance, so it must be good for you. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 18:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Funny, I had "Matchmaker, matchmaker" in my head whilst reading your lyrics. C®ackeЯ

Objection! John Prine wrote "Dear Abby." Random surfer (talk) 22:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

He did. He also wrote "The Speed of the Sound of Loneliness" as noted above, as well as "Illegal Smile". Sprocket J Cogswell 23:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Whatever happened to...

... HSMom at CP?

She was one of the good people at CP, but just disappeared. MDB (talk) 12:14, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

She was basically chased away by TK, although I remember from the ZB discussions at sysop time, they all thought she was too liberal - mostly because she corrected their language and pointed out their copyright infringements. She did pop up a while ago and suggested some changes to something Andy had done and his reply was along the lines of "Shut up, bitch" and she went away again. Like Jensen, another valued contributor driven away by power-mad little men. --PsyGremlinSermā! 12:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree, HSMom was good for that site and RJJensen was a real loss for CP, a good contributor. I wonder whatever happened to ChipPeterson? That was another good one. Refugee^{talk page} 12:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I think he was one of Andy's students, wasn't he? And like Addison, Bethany and her sister, and all the others, the minute they weren't under his baleful influence and weren't forced to use CP, they ran like buggery. Even Little Phyl seems to have deserted daddy's "thing on the internet." --PsyGremlin話しなさい 12:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

"Ran like buggery"? Is that one your weird furriner expressions? MDB (talk) 13:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually it was a Yank comedian who said it to me: "If you hear Jessica Fletcher is coming to your house for dinner, run like buggery." --PsyGremlinSiarad! 13:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I have never heard it before. Ya learn something new every day.... MDB (talk) 14:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Was HSMom actually the mother of one of Andy's home schoolers? Or did she just come to CP because she home schools? MDB (talk) 15:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

She was a homeschooling mom - not sure if she even lived in Noo Joisey. I think she looked at CP as a hs resource, found it wanting and tried to get them to buck up their act. This meant, of course, that she had to go. --PsyGremlinSprich! 15:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

How long has it been since CP made even the slightest pretense at being a resource for home schoolers? MDB (talk) 15:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to say that it would be just over 5 years since the Night of the blunt knives, but more honestly I'd put it down to TK's reinstatement as sysop. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 20:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I think so too. I think HSMom was sincere, and If I remember correctly, ChipPeterson was also an actual real editor (adult) who had some run-ins with TK and was discouraged from editing by him (behind the scenes and in front) - but wasn't the first, last, or only, so, meh. TK had a big hand in running off the few editors that did want to legitimately contribute. Big freakin bully. Refugee^{talk page} 00:22, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Come on let's twist again like we did last summer

Andy, she did because he's a religious nutbag. You know, like you. --K. (talk) 22:08, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Andy decides to go for the all-in-one combo and brings up Facebook^img - maybe the only thing worse for marriage than Hollywood! So do "Hollywood" and "Facebook" seriously occupy the top two slots of Andy's "Things that ruin marriages" list? --Sid (talk) 01:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Does that mean Newt and Rush spend too much time in Hollywood or on Facebook then? --PsyGremlinSpeak! 08:59, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I know it is a bit stalky, but I especially enjoy the fact, that Andy and his wife are both on facebook.--Th. Bernhard (talk) 10:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it's been established before that it's actually Junior on there, not the Andy we know. Though the other half is on there. There is an interesting change to something on Facebook, but as the person I'm talking about is no longer a CP sysop I'll not mention it. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 14:03, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

This is funny...

This is the funniest thing I've seen at CP in awhile: Gallery of obese atheists^img and the discussion page^img LOL. Refugee^{talk page} 00:32, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

It's always entertaining to watch Ken interacting with the lowly peasants. Don't get me wrong - Ken is a troll and a terrible person, but it pleases me that the other sysops still look away and pretend that Ken's presence on CP is a good thing. Because pageviews matter more than community. --Sid (talk) 01:33, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh no. It happened. An essay with no words, just pictures. Firstly, I'm not even sure that's technically an essay. Secondly, someone should go over there and replace Chuck with Barry Barma and see what happens. -- 09:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Ken's seems to be playing with the definition of "obese" a fair bit here. Oxford defines obese as "grossly fat or overweight", while the majority of the men in that "essay" seem to just have a bit of middle-aged weight on them which is very common in that age group. El Taj^{Don't make me do stuff} 10:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I see it was created by CPalmer. My mistake. I just saw a few flecks of meaningless shit on my screen and assumed Ken created it. El Taj^{Don't make me do stuff} 10:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what CPalmer is playing at, but lately he's coming across as Prime Douche over at CP. Maybe he's trying to fill the void left by TK. --PsyGremlin講話 10:56, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Do I hear an Obese-Off? August, you forgot Jerry Falwell. I say he should make an essay gallery that doubles CPalmer's, then watch sysops squirm or either just outright delete it from embarrassment. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 13:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention John Hagee. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello - RUSH. --GodotFire! Fire! Fire! (please send spare firefighters) 17:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

GregG's up-coming formal complaint

It's nice to read (see [[1]^img].) My prediction: Uncle Ed will rise to the occasion! It's an ideal field for adding all his favorite phrases let's not get personal — we are here to build an encyclopedia —GregG, you are banned for incivility...larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 20:30, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

That would be a shame, as I was going to sign it. Makes me want to order 9001 pizzas on Ed's credit card>:RandonGeneration (talk) 20:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Andy will bury his head in the sand and completely ignore it. Ed will ban GregC but will be thinking of AugustO while he's doing it. Ken will claim victory, gloat and create 50 or so articles about atheists losing debates and whining and blah blah blah. Ultimately nothing will change. Though this may end up driving away the few remaining editors that are actually trying to make CP look like anything other than the failed bag of fucknuttery that it is. Hiphopopotamus (talk) 20:52, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I thought Greg has block rights?RandonGeneration (talk) 21:11, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Ken goes crying to andy.^img In the third person no less. Hillarity will no doubt follow.--Thunderstruck^{A Bastard Poster, For Bastard People} 22:23, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

He knows that Andy will ignore everything, so this is just him taunting everybody else with his immunity. --Sid (talk) 22:51, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Kendoll always seems genuinely terrified for his wiki-life when people make these sort of complaints against him. I guess Conservapedia is pretty much everything he has. The only place who ever entrusted him with anything beyond safety scissors. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:52, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

He'd be so sore in the ass if someone replies the same way he does on Andy's talkpage: "I doubt you will receive any response from the owner of the site". That would backfire so hard on him. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 23:25, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

If I had a CP account (which I refuse to get) I would absolutely do that. Can someone else do it? I'd be soooo happy. -- 08:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Nothing to see here, move along. Greg will get banned (either by Andy directly, or more likely by Ken), and nothing will happen to Ken. Andy can't afford to upset Ken, as the latters excrement stains on the wall is the only oxygen his blog receives, and without his blog, Andy's life is meaningless. -- 00:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Greg has block rights so can't get banned by Ken, it would take Andy's intervention. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 06:48, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

RobS probably thought he was immune too... rpeh •T•C•E• 06:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

What will happen:

• Greg posts complaint
• Andy will do nothing
• Ken will run around, throwing down childish taunts
• Andy will do nothing
• Ken will start posting that "at 4 other sysops feel that Greg should lose his rights"
• Andy will do nothing
• Karajerk will block Greg for "trolling"
• Andy will do nothing
• Greg will unblock himself
• Andy will remove Greg's rights for fighting with a senior admin
• Karajerk will block him again, with some comment about "liberals", "cowards" and "trolls"
• Ken will delete and oversight any existence of Greg and his complaint.

--PsyGremlinSnakk! 09:06, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

What am I Missing?

In Presidential Vote, Mexicans Have Eye on a Tainted Past^img caught my eye on MPR, aka "What the MSM isn't fully covering." It caught my eye because I read a big article on just that topic in New York Times, which is the poster child of the MSM. Lo and behold, it's a link to the Times article. Is this unclear on the concept? Or is my mistake looking for concepts? Whoover (talk) 02:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Why did I read that as "Tainted Pasta"? Much better headline. Oh, I know why. Must be on account of the alcohol. DickTurpis (talk) 02:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey, you apologize to alcohol right now, young man! --Kels (talk) 03:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Young? Why, I'm as old as, well...as old as, well a lot older than the alcohol I'm drinking at least. Some day I'd like to drink a scotch older than I am, but that gets harder with each passing year. DickTurpis (talk) 03:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

There's always wine, though that's probably a different experience. --il'Dictator Mikal 03:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The idea that MPR was only going to cover what the rest of the corrupt media isn't vanished long ago; now we get updates on the Death of Atheism/Evolutionism, Whatever Terry wants to tell us about and Extreme Right views on whatevers going on at the time. --il'Dictator Mikal 02:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Ken starts a blog!

Been yelling about healthcare being "obama's waterloo" for years and no one listening? Need evidence that someone else agrees with you but coming up empty handed? The answer is simple! Start your own blog and then link to it!^img Ace^Moderator 01:24, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Another rat deserting the sinking ship. He's only been promoting his question evolution shit for months now, starting his own blog and trying to pimp it on CP just like Terry was a natural move. Especially since he seems to be the only one left at his QE blog. He's got the inverse midas touch, that one. Killed ShockOfGoat's blog, killed the QE! blog, now he's got his very own which will be stillborn. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 01:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Waterloo Waterloo Waterloo Waterloo Waterloo Waterloo Waterloo Waterloo. I think I just wrote kenny boys next blog entry.--Thunderstruck^MONKEYS 02:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure its him? doesn't particularly read like him to me. ^{— Unsigned, by: 67.182.139.206 / talk / contribs}

The blog was created today with a single entry which Ken linked to today and is very much like the QE! blog in style. Ace^Moderator 03:02, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, Ken is an amorphous entity with a population the size of a small country as we all know. It would be a simple matter for one aspect of him/her/itself to start two separate blogs. A task beyond mere individuals, assuming their name isn't O'Leary. --Kels (talk) 04:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Given the domain name I'd say it's his buddy from NZ that contributes to the QE blog. ^{— Unsigned, by: 67.182.139.206 / talk / contribs}

Er, that's just because Ace is in NZ, not Ken. Peter ^{Urist for Mod!} 05:08, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

It also shows that Ken doesn't even know how to debate, he just spams a debate page with his pet links and one of his hackneyed 'joke' images. No question of discussing the issues. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 05:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that is Ken - the writing style is far too lucid, even when compared to the QE! blog. Then again, the references to Waterloo and reliance a the hearsay society are all Ken hallmarks. Also comments are enabled - Ken would never allow that. --PsyGremlinParlez! 08:08, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

It is indeed more lucid than usual, but there are so many Ken fingerprints on it that I'm torn. Using "likeability" four times in three sentences; 34 mentions of "ObamaCare", again usually in clusters; seven "economy"s or "economic"s in one paragraph - that's typical of Ken's awful writing. Dragging in Sabato and ending with a video. On the other hand, bits of it are actually readable. rpeh •T•C•E• 08:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Despite the lexical constipation it is better than most of Ken's efforts. However, there are so many typos, mangled metaphors, punctuation and grammatical errors that I pity any poor student who had Ken as a writing tutor. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 12:35, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Healthcare was Obama's Waterloo. Only problem is that Obama was playing the Duke of Wellington. Stile4aly (talk) 19:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Gentlemen

The red telephone is ringing^img. rpeh •T•C•E• 11:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

The cap didn't work. Nobody picked up. --Sasayaki (talk) 11:18, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I know. Pretty typical Ken machismo. So I used my own screenshot instead. Bad luck, Ken. Better luck next time. rpeh •T•C•E• 11:24, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Is that Ken's way of saying that he did write it and he thinks it's teh awesome? --PsyGremlinParla! 11:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

That was how I read it. rpeh •T•C•E• 11:47, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Wow. Someone call David Dunning and Justin Kruger. They need to study this man. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 11:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I get the feeling kenny boy will not be as patient with us as launchbooty is on his blog.--Thunderstruck^{A Bastard Poster, For Bastard People} 13:31, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

If Flingbotty ever shuts down the comments, I'll stop reading his blog, because that's where the real comedy crazy is to be found. That said, it seems as if Pastor Bickle is the only pro-commentator he has. I'd love t know how many visits a day his blog hets and from whom. I'm guessing that - like CP - most of his traffic is from us. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 13:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Don't forget "TontoUSA", who is just as rabid as Bickle. — Unsigned, by: ORavenhurst / talk^{Do You Believe That?} 14:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Nah, he's a very obvious parodist. --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 14:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Yup. Definite parodist. Apart from us they'll probably get a few hits from the other loons at CP, plus I know the guy who runs njconservativereality.com and hates RoseAnn obviously visits. I imaging the RW crowd make up a good fraction of their hits though. rpeh •T•C•E• 14:28, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Why would anyone bother with parody there? From what I can tell, he's usually pretty good about posting dissenting views (probably because he likes the traffic) and he usually only replies to people disagreeing with him. Cow...Hammer^time! 22:30, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I know it's old news by now, but the fact that he uses other user's talk pages to do these shoutouts is still amusing and confusing as hell to me. Somehow, out of all the things he does, this is one of the most inexplicable and bizarrely specific. X Stickman (talk) 01:18, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

The Bible on Ken's self-promotion

Oh, Ken...

Read Matthew 23:12. MDB (talk) 12:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Weird, I don't see the conservative bible translation on that site...huh. --Palmetto72^Whaaaaa? 12:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Obviously a careless omission. Someone needs to urge Andy to contact the website and demand they include the CBP, posthaste. MDB (talk) 13:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I know we're not supposed to edit other people's comments, but links to other sites when we have a perfectly good Bible perfectly good transcription of the Bible on our own site drives me crazy. -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

And another one...

Ken creates yet another blog which he trumpets on the main page.^img Ace^{The Rep Grows Bigger} 00:21, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

"Conservative Websites News". ... Senator Harrison (talk) 12:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Is this Ken's Operation Stuffed Ferret, where a prominent conservative blogger is going to be commentating on Conservapedia any day now? I still remember his post to TZB along the lines of "a 100,000 new visitors to CP, thanks to my totally imaginary efforts" --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 12:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Is Terry defending Roberts for possibly having a stake in health insurance companies?

[4]--User:Brxbrx/sig 11:18, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Note how only Roberts - the Justice Roseann Unsanitary expects to think as she does - is labelled traitor. She is a very, very unpleasant woman. I wonder what Bader Qarmout did wrong to get her as his campaign manager? --PsyGremlinPraat! 11:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, looking at the comments section, why don't the conservative commenters on that blog ever have anything interesting to say?--User:Brxbrx/sig 11:33, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

What conservative commentators? Apart from Bickel, it's only Terry who responds to comments. Every other commentator is from here. Roseann and Purpura don't deign to respond to comments on their hate-filled crap. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 11:40, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

There's a few others, like that Pastor Emeritus fellow. And I was mostly referring to Bickel in this case. Way to add nothing to the discussion, Bickel.--User:Brxbrx/sig 11:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

The funny thing about Pastor Bickel is that he pulls a Terry on Terry. Many of his comments are just an excuse to linkspam his own site. --DinsdaleP (talk) 17:10, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

However that's the only funny thing about Pastor Bickel. Beyond that he's just a hate-oozing fucktard.--Fergus Mason ^{Thruppence I got for selling my coat, tuppence for selling my blanket. If ever I 'list for a soldier again, the Devil shall be my Sergeant.} 17:21, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Roseann did venture into the comments section once that I recall, in defending why her "mission from God" ended in failure. It didn't go well for her. --Kels (talk) 16:05, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

She also popped in to defend Terry Hurlbut requiring comment confirmation.--User:Brxbrx/sig 18:12, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I also love their "taxes must be uniform" argument, which invalidates the income tax because poor people don't pay it. Never pass up an opportunity to lobby for the fair "Sheriff of Nottingham" tax where all citizens pay a fixed dollar amount. You need $2 trillion? You have 200 million adults? Everybody pays $10,000. That's a uniform tax. And fear of the tax collector will have all the moochers getting jobs if they don't want to land in jail or worse. (In case you missed "Right now 53% of our citizens are paying taxes. The other 47% do not. What about equal protection?") Whoover (talk) 16:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Sadly, even she knows what that phrase actually means. She even says it in the article. Uniform means taxes can't be used punitively, you can't tax Arkansas and not Alaska or California and not Colorado. She's just willing to say anything, or more accurately make believe the constitution says anything, as long as she gets her way. That's what the constitution they pretend to revere means to them. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention the return of the classic "47% of the population pays no tax" argument that only considers income tax taxation and ignores sales tax, payroll taxes, etc. etc. etc. — Unsigned, by: ORavenhurst / talk^{Do You Believe That?} 13:56, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Terry really believes those don't count. I tried challenging him about that at one point and he claimed that people don't notice (for instance) increasing prices at the shops - they only notice money taken out of pay checks. This means (via Chuckarse logic) that they really pay no tax. The planet he lives on must be a strange one. rpeh •T•C•E• 14:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Give it up, liberals! You'll never get me to read sources correctly!

Nothing new here, probably not worth a WIGO, but I needed something to do while my coffee is heating up.

46 percent of Americans with sixteen long years of education under their belt believe the story of Adam and Eve is literally true.[5] The second sentence right after that saying in the source calls it ..remarkable demonstration of educational failure..[6]. And a little snipe at Ken: The source also claims from 1982, people who believed evolution occurred without any divine help increased nine percent (from 6% to 15%), and a belief that theistic evolution occurred dropped 38%. Thanks, Andy. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 12:50, 1 July 2012 (UTC) EDIT: Forgot to add, Andy tries to claim credit at CP for this triumph.

If he's challenged about this, Andy will say that 46% of Americans believing the Genesis account is true is a fact. The idea that it constitutes a failure in education is an opinion and a liberal opinion at that.

Andy's never had a problem picking one sentence he likes out of a source and ignoring the rest. If it said in The Guardian, "Conservapedia is the best website to visit to see the disturbing, paralell world of willfully ignorant right-wingers in which evolution is pseudo-science and the Bible is the only science textbook you need', Andy would loudly proclaim, "Atheist British newspaper admits that 'Conservapedia is the best website to vist'".--Spud (talk) 08:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Why I am glad I do not really follow sports any more...

It means one less thingfor Andy to ruin for me...^img Let the fitting the data into the preconceived mould begin. Remember what Andy called Canada's embarrassing performance at the winter games, when they won the most gold medals, and the third most overall? How pathetic. Theory of Practice Peer-reviewed articles for everybody! 13:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

It says a lot about Andy and his mindset that what's important for him is the under achievement. Of course, he's already left himself and out by including Title IX, so every time a Yank doesn't win it's those damn wimmen's fault. Also, I'd love to see Andy explain away China's likely strong showing, along with Russia, Germany, GB and Australia, who'll likely top the record table with the US.

Also, remind me again how same-sex marriage affects the performance of individual sportsmen? --PsyGremlinPraat! 13:57, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

"It says a lot about Andy and his mindset that what's important for him is the under achievement." Please come clean up the coffee that I just spit all over my monitor. Theory of Practice Peer-reviewed articles for everybody! 14:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I agree with Andy on at least one point. I predict no medals for the US baseball team (a Title IX sport). Czolgolz (talk) 14:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

"This just in: Feminists have lobbied to exclude baseball from the Olympics!!!" And wow, this is a classic Andy entry: "Gay marriage causes entire nations to perform worse! You will do worse in sports if you don't believe that a magic man in the sky makes you win!" Also nice to see synchronized swimming (which I'd assume takes a shitload of skill and training) being classified as a "joke sport". I guess it's not a real sport unless athletes with lots of machismo can grunt and scream... --Sid (talk) 16:38, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Gay Marriage makes people perform worse in sports because they're all gay marrying and gay sexing instead of practising their sports in the traditional manly man way. X Stickman (talk) 16:48, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Can't be about machismo and grunting because that would exclude beach volleyball as well. Beach volleyball and synchronized swimming have only one thing in common: bathing suits. And if you can picture Andy in a bathing suit...first of all, get some psychological help. Second of all, you understand why he rails against those sports (since he wouldn't be caught DEAD trying them). He's probably also against "moonlit walks on the beach", "lifeguards" (aka socialized lifesaving...let God save you), and any type of pool play. Jared (talk) 16:53, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Isn't synchronised swimming closer to gymnastics rather than raw speed/power. As for baseball doesn't Cuba regularly whip the USA's ass? CS Miller (talk) 17:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

The Netherlands are current baseball world champions. And here's something to soil your mind with - Andy in a mankini. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 08:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Moot point, baseball and softball are not Olympic sports this time. Czolgolz (talk) 21:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I read that as 'poo play' - please excuse me while I scrub my brain. PsyGremlinParlez! 17:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Russia he will claim is Orthodox and increasingly religious, giving up its atheist Soviet roots as indicated by St. Petersburg's banning "gay propaganda". China will be touted as a place where "Christianity is exploding" as often lauded by Kenny, and those athletes are probably secret Christians. Germany is hard working as shown by its economy, unlike those lazy Greeks, Brits, and French. Australia is trickier, maybe he will claim "frontier values" of the outback of something. Whatever the case, make sure to watch his page closely and take regular shots^img because you know he will alter his "predictions" to match the results of the games and memoryhole any that really prove him wrong, while bullshitting any others results that fail to go his way. Should be fun stuff!--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:12, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Please, anybody bug him with this and this? K. (talk)

I notice that nations impose gay marriage, rather than just 'allow' it. ^{ONE / TALK} 18:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Damn legislatures, imposing their will; it isn't as if people voted them into office! Oh wait...--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:57, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course it's "impose." If it weren't, why would an ostensibly straight man care if gays could marry? The argument continues to be that gay marriage harms straight people. I'm not the best to explain how because it makes no sense, but half the population seems to believe that gay marriage is bad for straight people. That's why the imposition of this "special right" for the few, which harms most, is more socialism. Whoover (talk) 21:53, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I predict the number of sports listed as "Joke sports" will increase every time a country that FORCES men to marry other men and women to marry other women wins a gold medal. It will sometimes increase when the US fails to win a bronze, if Andy can't think of another excuse.--Spud (talk) 08:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Ken's reasons why same-sex marriage will affect Games' participants

Even by his standards it's bizarre:^img

“”Homosexuality related tourism occurs in this town today. Second, re: lower amount of mental toughness issue: Mental Health and Homosexuality Third, the birth rate of heterosexual marriage will always exceed the faux marriages of homosexual "marriages"

--PsyGremlinSpeak! 19:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

This should be good

Andy on hearing baseball is out of the games : "That's a disappointment! Is the sport considered too conservative." --PsyGremlinPraat! 19:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Jeffrey. So let's teach Andy something: Since the first time the question was brought up, because of conflincting schedules, the MLB, by the way a financial enterprise with the goal of profit (what is commonly called a "company"), has not allowed its players to partake in the Olympic games. If they would, the quality of Olympic baseball would have been much higher. The MLB feared losses from taking a break. Capitalism is awesome, right? --K. (talk) 22:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Terry...that's not a good thing

The sainted Mr. Hurlbut (hehe) just posted the latest installment of his vision of an Ayn Rand world, and it's...well, it's outright horrifying is what it is. Hey everyone, let's strip-mine Yellowstone, there's probably something we can sell under all those useless trees! --Kels (talk) 03:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the appropriate person to quote here is J.R.R. Tolkien:

“”"Strider" I am to one fat man who lives within a day's march of foes that would freeze his heart, or lay his little town in ruin, if he were not guarded ceaselessly.

ListenerX^TalkerX 03:31, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Usually I can see how the Libertarians/Rand-worshippers imagine the free market will kick in to do Pretty Much What We Have Now Only Better And Freer, but this one is beyond me. I don't see how anyone would be motivated to own even a tiny fraction of Yellowstone and maintain it as a park and campground while still raking in enough profit to override self-interest and the lure of bombing it down to the magma for minerals, or selling out to Six Flags Over Wal-Mart. - Ellipsoidal (talk) 04:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

There are some fairly deep-pocketed non-profit groups that could probably step in to run some of the smaller national parks, if they could get title to them, but such groups are frowned upon by the "Randroids" as instruments of mass self-immolation. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Can we please stop linking to this fucking retard's site? Every time I click on a link that brings me there I feel a few pennies fall into his coffers and it makes we want to stab him in the throat. Use capturebot or something. DickTurpis (talk) 03:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

If he finances the site entirely through Google AdSense, he only gets money if you click on an advertisement. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:45, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

And if you use Adblock, you don't even see the ads. Theory of Practice Peer-reviewed articles for everybody! 04:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The dude is a Doctor, I'm pretty sure it's just a money making blog out of a sense of duty. One of my more Libertarian (Voluntaryist) friends has been lobbying Wikipedia to put some advertisements in on the bottom left under the navigation links, well he took two years off in the middle to spend some time in Federal Prison for sending a letter to John Ashcroft declaring his intention to murder George Bush. --Opcn ^{with regards to regarding my regardliness} 09:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you telling me that Terry is a fucking medical doctor? --Sasayaki (talk) 12:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

My God it's true. It's true. --Sasayaki (talk) 12:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

It is? His bio on that blog makes it sound like he's unemployed, and I can't imagine he's a practicing doctor of any kind, given how often he's blogged for the past few years. 99.50.98.145 (talk) 16:01, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

According to the Creation Hall of Fame (where he's a director):

“”Terry has previously served as a clinical pathologist and laboratory administrator at Kimball Medical Center (Lakewood, NJ) and Virtua Memorial Hospital of Burlington County (Mount Holly, NJ). He presently serves as a deputy administrator on CreationWiki, a project of the Northwest Creation Resource Network, and of Conservapedia.

So it sounds like he could be retired. Makes sense, he looks to be about the right age to dodge the Vietnam draft. And when you google his name, you find all sorts of fun things. --PsyGremlinPraat! 16:09, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Obama first president to invite Atheists to the whitehouse?

Link^imgI'm pretty sure that Ingersoll was invited to The White House at one point, he did live across the street (literally, he was kittycorner) and was over all the time. I'd imagine that Mark Twain was invited as well. I can't imagine Thomas Jefferson turning away a free thinker, since he practically was one. It's really only in the last 50 years that Atheists haven't been welcome. --Opcn ^{with regards to regarding my regardliness} 08:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Ken: "On a related note, a new blog was launched: The Evidence for atheism blog." *links to blog with no posts*

Did Ken think up that re-hashing of the tumbleweed joke on his own? If he's not careful he'll manage something original. ^{ONE / TALK} 12:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear goddess, Ken's gone meta... the amorphous blob of indeterminate size and gender is now going to spawn single entry blogs and linkspam them on CP. How sad. Especially when all they're going is rehashing the same tired old points Ken's been raising for the last 3 years. Maybe his meds inhibit original thought. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 12:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, jeez, I'm defending Ken here... Ken's point is that Obama was the first President to invite an organized atheist group to the White House, not that he's the first President to have any atheists in the White House.

“”What makes this humorous is that the Obama Administration was the first presidential administration to an hold a national policy briefing with atheists/agnostics.

I have no idea if that's an accurate claim, but he's not claiming atheists were barred from the White House till Obama. MDB (talk) 12:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

My old Ken-Terry Home (in Brazil)?

If you think it's butterKenDoll, but it's not, it's ChiffonHurlbut. MDB (talk) 21:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I wonder how Andy would feel about those shots he takes at the Catholic Church...not that Andy cares about anything outside his own little world. --Yossarian^{Speak, Memory} 19:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

's-Hertogenbosch, the end?

It's been a week so August removes^img Ed's merge template on 's-Hertogenbosch, reverts him^img on all the others and proudly announces^img it all on Andy's talk page. Is it over or will Ed come out swinging? rpeh •T•C•E• 09:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

*grabs chair* -GTac (talk) 09:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

If he does get banned, I hope the site goes tits up, and Ed ends up accidentally nuking it trying to fix something AugustO fixed before. --Revolverman (talk) 20:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

This whole thing is fun. If for no other reason, the idea that a huge shitstorm is taking place on CP about the proper name for some town none of us (with one or two possible exceptions) had heard about beforehand, amuses me. But then I like lolcats, so who am I to judge? rpeh •T•C•E• 21:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

It's the origin of Hieronymus Bosch's name. (He was from Den Bosch.)

I lived in Nijmegen for five years. Den Bosch was my favorite Dutch town. But these facts just make me one of the exceptions Rpeh mentioned. Phiwum (talk) 02:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I think he's going to shut up for once.✈207.102.242.1 (talk) 21:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I expect Ed to take it out on the rest of the wiki for the month. Banned for incivility! Banned for lack of a writing plan! Banned for disagreeing with me! Banned for being AugustO! Blocked, reverted, banned, unbanned, then banned again! --Sasayaki (talk) 02:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Amusing political cartoon

Anyone else love Kelly's political cartoons? I had to share this one with you guys, it's just so perfect for CP! -GTac (talk) 05:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Unique, spectacular moon

Earth is the only known planet in the solar system that has a unique, spectacular moon^img Of course Andy...oh apart from, you know, all those other moons. Ace^{The Rep Grows Bigger} 02:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

heeheehee... is he still a homeschool teacher? Refugee^{talk page} 02:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Our moon is objectively spectacular, other moons are objectively not spectacular, more people agree that moon=pretty than agree that 2+2=4, deny this and lose all credibility, etc., ad nauseam, and so forth. «-Bfa-» 02:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I know, our moon is objectively pretty like autumn foliage. As if god put it there to for our enjoyment like he crafted the universe to appear to have depth like the Mona Lisa. Ace^{The Rep Grows Bigger} 02:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

We are also the only planet with lovely red colors, like the objectively beautiful autumn foliage. If there were martians they would be jealous of our redness. --Opcn ^{with regards to regarding my regardliness} 03:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, we are the only planet with a "unique" moon, now that the liberal atheists banished Pluto because it was an underdog. Profmusic (talk) 04:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Our Moon is unique only in being singular, and that is if you use the strict definition of a planet. If we include dwarf planets, then even this feature isn't unique to Earth as Eris also has a singular moon (Dysnomia). Most moons are "unique" although some types are very similar to each other (Phobos & Deimos) or of a very common type (icy moons). For our moon, it isn't the largest (that would be Ganymede), or even the largest in ratio to its parent body (that would be Charon). Like the majority of Moons, it is geologically inactive, so it is common there (unlike Io), and certainly less unique than Titan, who has the honor of being the only moon with both a thick atmosphere and stable liquid bodies on its surface. Our Moon is special only in the fact it orbits the Earth and thus the only other world anyone can see without the aid of equipment; it is our Moon and has influenced our cultures and religions, so I suppose in that way it is unique. Such facts of history doesn't suggest it is in any way designed though.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 06:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The Moon is also very large in comparison to the Earth; IIRC only Pluto-Charon is larger. CS Miller (talk) 09:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Interesting Andy mentions O'Reilly ("The average age of our visitors is probably about 25 years old, while the average age of viewers of the O'Reilly Factor is about 70 years old." lol!) since he's stealing O'Reilly's act. --Night Jaguar (talk) 06:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

And the average age of the sysops is about 50. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 07:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

That's their average IQ, too. This cannot be conincidence - CP sysops must have been designed! rpeh •T•C•E• 07:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

That designer must be really ashamed of His work. --Night Jaguar (talk) 09:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

One other point that I have seen Andy make about the god-given uniqueness of our Moon is the fact that it is exactly the right size and distance to just obscure the Sun's disc in an eclipse. Of course he conveniently overlooks annular eclipses where it does not fully obscure the disc. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 08:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

There's a full essay on that. Also, I love how he says "The average age of our audience is probably 25". Use on the word "probably" indicates to me that A) he has no idea, and B) he has pulled it out of his arse. Just like everything else. -- 11:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

What's funny, is in his lack of knowledge, he misses some very critical reasons our moon is unique that matter to life like no other moon: Tides and orbital stability. While life doesn't need tides to exist, it can be argued that life needed tides to become "us" (of course that would mean you believe in evo). And without the moon holding us steady, we'd not have a consistent pattern of seasons, arguably a reason high life forms are able to evolve. So instead of a perfectly "legit" (as it were) "What are the odds that you could have a moon large enough to ..." which might actually make someone think about god the way the "we are in the perfect zone for life" argument does - all he has is "it's pretty"? Sad. GodotFire! Fire! Fire! (please send spare firefighters) 14:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The tide goes in, the tide goes out, you can't explain that! -- Seth Peck (talk) 14:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Personally I think the collection of natural near-Earth objects are significantly more interesting than the moon, given that one of these could potentially collide with the planet some time in the next billion years these objects enter the atmosphere about once a year, and a hazardous one (ELE big) could potentially collide with the planet within 100 MY. -- Seth Peck (talk) 14:18, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Doomed! We're all doomed! Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 07:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Motorcycling=Machismo

Kenny pretends to be interested in "manly" things. This is some of my favorite shit that Ken does to make himself seem like an actual man. Which, of course, he's not. Hiphopopotamus (talk) 05:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Although to be fair, that Rossi-Stoner battle was epic. Ajkgordon (talk) 08:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I think Ken's chum ShlockofGoat is a motor-cycle nut, so Ken is probably just trying to ingratiate himself. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 09:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Ken's probably a Hell's Angels fanboy. Must be all macho facial hair and black leather. PsyGremlinRunāt! 10:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Ken probably dreams of going for a ride with Shock into battle against the evil atheist evolutionists. Unfortunately he cannot ride on a bike with another man, what with the uncontrolable erection he gets whenever his crotch gets close to another mans ass.A hint for you Ken, have sex a few times, and it will be easier to control the unwelcomed erections. Or keep living in your basement eating shitty food and never sleeping properly and exercising. The high blood pressure, heart disease, and diabetes will no doubt eliminate all erections from your life soon enough. --Opcn ^{with regards to regarding my regardliness} 11:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

With Karajou in his naval uniform and Ken in leathers I'm getting a picture of CP sysops as Village People tribute band. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 11:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, there's nothing wrong with that since YMCA is a "legitimate tribute to the Young Men's Christian Association." Don't even pretend it's not super-duper conservative. Andy's super-duper sure of it. He was probably told all of that by the "band leader" at a dinner party. Hiphopopotamus (talk) 14:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Radio interview

So, did anybody even listen to the interview featuring a Conservapedian? --Benod (talk) 13:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I find it quite funny that Andy's been reduced to giving interviews on "Voice of Russia" (interview here.) Also, I see Andy is touting himself as a "Constitutional lawyer" - since when? Since he screwed up two cases with his "heartfelt letter?" --PsyGremlinSprich! 13:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

They're finally honest enough to come right out and say it

Over at CNAV, which has been far more interesting than Conservapedia as of late, the latest post has come right out an stated what no doubt most of the fine folks of the Tea Party set believe: Obama is simply downright evil. We rather knew they believed this and never saw politics as disagreements over what policies will work for America, but some great spiritual battle between the powers of righteousness and those of the malevolent depraved. Just refreshing when they admit how extreme they're views are and how they tie religion to everything. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 21:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The way TerryH has described him, he thinks he's the Antichrist.[7]--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I love the way he adds his own drivel from other blogs in a way that looks like he's referencing an independent source. -- Ellipsoidal (talk) 21:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

That's not Terry, it's Pastor Bickel, the guy so loopy he makes Terry look reasonable. I'm pretty sure he actually does think Obama's the Antichrist, or possibly worse. The guy's got a rather...special view of the world. Not that Terry won't back him up all the way of course. --Kels (talk) 04:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

No, look at the link I posted. The comment is by Terry--User:Brxbrx/sig 05:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec) It says something that of the 4 regular posters to Terry's blog, Terry's the sanest. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 05:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not really even other blogs - all the links are to Bickel's own blog. In other words, he's backing up what he says using other things he says. Psy's right - Terry may be a frothing maniac, but he's the sanest one of the four regular posters. Bickel is a candidate for a rubber-walled room. rpeh •T•C•E• 05:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

That's what I meant by "his own drivel". Both referenced articles (I think there were only two) were by Bickel, but it looked like they were hosted on two separate blog sites to me. It seemed like he was pulling a Ken rather incompetently, generating content on one site so he could use it as a reference on another. He just didn't have the sense to stay anonymous or use a pseudonym. He might not have actually intended the links to look like cites, but it'd almost be worse if he's that oblivious on top of being that paranoid. -- Ellipsoidal (talk) 11:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, yes. I slightly misread your original comment. rpeh •T•C•E• 11:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Terry's hinted at the Obama-is-the-AntiChrist connection so blatantly that I asked him to just come out and confirm or deny it. His response was that he seriously, seriously considered it for a while, but didn't see enough signs to believe it in the end. A few weeks later I made a passing comment there that some of the CNaV editors had though Obama might be the AntiChrist, and RoseAnn jumped all over me saying that I was making crap up about them, so I posted Terry's quote and never heard a peep out of her in reply. Apparently, the "reasonable middle ground" for her, Bickel and Terry is to just declare Obama evil and leave it at that. I'm waiting for their next serialized web-novel to be based on this. --DinsdaleP (talk) 15:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem with them believing Obama is the anti-Christ is that, among Christians who believe in that type of thing, the majority belief is that they will be taken into heaven before the anti-Christ rises to power -- aka the "pre-tribulation rapture". (I have no idea if Terry et al are in that camp, though. That's the belief of the loonies as Rapture Ready.) Thus, if Obama was the anti-Christ, they would be either:

1. Wrong about the pre-tribulation rapture.
2. Wrong about the rapture in general.
3. Not among those raptured.

None of which are idea they'd like. I've seen it argued that Obama is to the anti-Christ what John the Baptist was to Christ, though, which allows him to be in the service of evil, but not the ultimate evil. MDB (talk) 16:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Purpura revisits birtherland

Hardly surprising. The man whose name is a form of skin disease and whose behaviour is more embarrassing than one is going for it again, and for all the usual reasons. I imagine we'll be reading all about it on CNAV before long. rpeh •T•C•E• 08:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, lawyers must be rubbing their hands when they see teabaggers approaching. And of course, they never lose because their case is utter bullshit, it's always the learned judge who's at fault. Take the Florida case for example: "The attorney challenging Obama’s eligibility, however, told WND the judge’s ruling is “intellectually dishonest” and so poorly written it makes an appeal “relatively easy.”" --PsyGremlinSnakk! 09:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

It reminds me of that joke where two mothers are watching a parade. One turns to the other and says "Look! My little boy is the only one marching in step!" Well over 100 court cases have seen their arguments dismissed and yet they sigh and wonder how so many judges could be so wrong. It's pathetic really. rpeh •T•C•E• 09:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

They remind me of Bullwinkle J. Moose. Not that they're funny, but that it's like the sketches where Bullwinkle wore magician's garb and tried to pull a rabbit out of my hat. For instance...

"Hey, Ba-racky, watch my pull the end of your presidency out of my arse!"

"But that trick never works!"

"This time for sure!" (Bullwinkle pulls a very angry judge out of his hat.) "Wrong venue!"

"And now, here's a health care reform plan we hope you'll really like!" MDB (talk) 11:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm two days late to this, but I at least want to acknowledge MDB's humour - *THAT* was funny :) VOX^HUMANA 07:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

When is the 4th of July not the 4th of July?

In God-loving, patriotic, non-seculariszed America^img. That's where. rpeh •T•C•E• 13:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Secularised, right... Where does seperation of church and state come into the exact name of the holiday celebrating America's rash decision to abandon our beautiful Commonwealth leaving the British Empire? -- 14:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

"Today is a great day to read how many references our Declaration of Independence makes to our Creator." So I looked at the Full text in their article and found one "God" (as part of the phrase "Nature's God") and one "Creator". Have I missed something? Also note the cheery exchange on the talk page, where Andy thanks JoaquinMartinez for wishing him a Happy 4th of July Cantabrigian (talk) 14:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

In contrast, Reagan's speech has five uses of "4th of July" (or similar, not counting the title). Cantabrigian (talk) 15:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

It's time for a Conservative Version of the Writings of Reagan to fix those annoying secular Fourth of July references. Whoover (talk) 16:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

"Independence Day" celebrates our God-given freedom. "Fourth of July" celebrates Julius Caesar, a pagan. Are you dense? Whoover (talk) 16:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Reminds me of the "Christian in a secularized version of Christ."-weirdness. I'm assuming that Andy is celebrating 4th of July with a bottle. Vulpius (talk) 17:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm seriously starting to think that he doesn't know what secularism actually is. Yes, treat it as a given that most religious conservatives bitching about the "religion of secularism" don't know what they're talking about, but I'm really starting to think that Andy thinks secularism simply means "politically correct". But! What he's describing here STILL isn't political correctness, it's that, I'm pretty sure, in his heart of hearts, Andy Schlafly doesn't like multiple words for the same things. Or something. This is so frigging crazy that I can't even guess at what he's trying to communicate. Someone should WIGO it; it's pure madness. --Yossarian^{Speak, Memory} 18:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Andy strikes me as someone who would do VERY well with Newspeak. --Revolverman (talk) 19:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The only thing stopping him from creating his own language, Conservish, is his short attention span. This was hilarious though.^img --Night Jaguar (talk) 19:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

For the full impact of Andy's hypocrisy, here's a version of the WIGO citing the entry in question (yes, I got EC'd by eight minutes - boo hoo =P)

Joaquín Martínez: "Happy 4th of July!"
Andy: "Those with an anti-Christian and anti-American agenda, such as liberals, homosexuals, atheists, evolutionists and leftists, have attempted to remove the Christian origins of our language by replacing common phrases such as 'Independence Day' with secularized versions such as '4th of July'! Errr... I mean... thanks, JM!"

Stay classy, Andy. You're just lucky that JM either doesn't care or see/understand what you just did. --Sid (talk) 20:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to replace - your version is better. rpeh •T•C•E• 20:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the green light! :) *bows deeply* --Sid (talk) 20:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

"With child" is conservative, yet "pregnant" is liberal? Interestingly "child" comes from heathen, godless old Germanic, whereas 'pregnant' comes from christian Latin (from O.Fr. preignant, from earlier priembre, from L. premere). VOX^HUMANA 02:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

One of my favourite parts of the secularised language table is that some of the words get repeated, but on opposite sides. I assume some of that is parody, but I wouldn't put it past Andy. --Yossarian^{Speak, Memory} 06:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd have to agree that Andy doesn't really know what secularizing means. I think what he's really complaianing about here is "dumbing down". Andy must think that the five syllable IN-DE-PEN-DENCE-DAY is superior to the four syllable FOURTH-OF-JU-LY.--Spud (talk) 10:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if you guys are being deliberately obtuse but I get what Andy's tying to say but of course he has to put it in the liquidiser with all his other pet hates and blend it with a big dollop of ignorance. He has harped on about Easter in the past and insists it should be Resurrection Sunday; Easter, of course, comes from the olde English/Germanic 'Ēostre' or 'Ostara' which was a festival for the pagan goddess of the dawn that was appropriated by the early church, other European languages use a derivative of Pascha from the Jewish Passover. Andy feels that these names don't emphasise the religious nature of the festival despite them being used for 1500 years or more. Similarly, 4th of July only refers to a calendar date and not the significance of the great US of A whipping their imperial atheistic British overlords' arses to gain independence. The fact that Independence Day is not a religious festival doesn't matter to Andy; if it isn't referred to in the way that Andy considers it should be, then it's "secular" (as it darned well should be). Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 11:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if he realizes that attributing the victory of revolutionaries to an omnipotent power seriously harms their own macheesmo factor. "FOUNDING FATHERS GIVE THE CREDIT TO THEIR INVISIBLE SKY DADDY !" Sorry, Andy, but accomplishments made by humans need to be attributed to humans. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{garrulous en guerre} 13:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)