Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive295

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 4 August 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>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>
, (new)(back)

The Likely Cause?[edit]

Schizophrenia is a lot better bet than video games, liberals, the Tea Party or the NRA. It's tragic that Andy wants to continue the ancient search for demons -- substituting "liberal education" for satanic possession. The irony of the situation is painful. The one possibility of preventing episodes like this -- neuroscience -- is blamed by Andy as the cause. His solution is not far removed from the state of the art 1,000 years ago: chain him up, toss him in a lake and pray. Whoover (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe the interest rate on his student loans caused him to go berserk, or the prospect of lower Medicaid reimbursement once he completed his education. Who knows? nobsCorporations are people, too 20:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
So according to you, the number of young students going berserk would go down if they had eassyier financing? Well, how could one do that? One could artificially lower student fees to bring them to level were students can actually pay them while they're studying and give out cheap credits to students who's parents can't finance their college years and of course offer them very cheap housing. Sadly I see no other way than doing this by the means of the state, because the business is to risky and you'd never get all your money back. But that involves government spending (given that taxes will later pay off those investments by thousands of percentage points) — and is therefor evil socialism and big government. But wait a minute; if the solution is socialist, then the problem has to be capitalist, and therefor something good. I guess shootings like this have to be accepted in dire economical circumstances, so stop whining sissies, it's the capitalism at it's finest.
Or... you could legislate that not so many people have guns, without them shooting people is harder. --K. (talk) 22:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Right, is was probably something political, because all things are political. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
It's because he liked Peyton Manning, and not Tim Tebow. Theory of Practice "the standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies." 20:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Does it occur to anyone that he's just fucking nuts, and there's no message behind it at all?Green mowse.pngGodotWhat is your fucking defense of automatic guns, again? 20:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
This recalls the Craigslist killer, [1] a second year med student who didn't fit the profile of a loser and psycho killer. Personal circumstances, such as continuing a costly education in hard economic times, coupled with the prospect of a lifetime of failure, is an increasing problem in recent years. [2] nobsCorporations are people, too 20:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
And yet, you political minded jackass, the vast majority of people who are in that boat don't' kill anyone. even themselves. People who choose to kill others are broken. they are not victims of Obama, or socialism, or a failing economy, or an invasion of african muslims, or a failing political party. they are messed up in the head, likely from an actual illness or damage done so long ago, it's made them less than human. God I wish you people would jump in a very very cold lake. Green mowse.pngGodotWhat is your fucking defense of automatic guns, again? 20:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
According to an article published in Sociological Focus, "unemployment during the Reagan administration have been associated with at least 929 additional deaths from suicide." Could the same science be applied today with the duration of unemployment now at a 50 year high? nobsCorporations are people, too 00:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
It's a myth, though, that the mentally ill are more prone to violence. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I get that "mentally ill" has a technical meaning, but anyone able to walk into a bar and shoot 20 people is mentally ill, in the "normal people can't even consider that", way.Green mowse.pngGodotWhat is your fucking defense of automatic guns, again? 22:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Always, always, always look into their childhood first. Especially if someone claims something similar to "I don't know what went wrong, they were raised in a loving household". Q0 (talk) 21:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
The LA Times reports the shooter "could not find work after graduating from UC Riverside in 2010 with a bachelor's in neuroscience." Stress. nobsCorporations are people, too 23:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, cept he was IN SCHOOL working on his PhD, having finished his dissertation, when he pulled out of school recently. sorry, once again, letting your bias speak. Until we know why he did it, why not just shut up about your political points?Green mowse.pngGodotWhat is your fucking defense of automatic guns, again? 23:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Wait, he graduated from a BS.C. program in 2010 and was finished his diss in 2012? I call bullshit. Theory of Practice "the standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies." 23:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, armchair psychologizing based on emerging news reports is in poor taste. Theory of Practice "the standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies." 23:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

It's psychologizing, it's establishing facts. He couldn't find a job, so he went back to school (with government money, presumably) for a job that doesn't exist. This is not uncommon in America today. nobsCorporations are people, too 23:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Was he looking for a job? And sorry, TOP, it was a graduate presentation on macrobiometrics in skitzophrenia. not his dissertation. He has not yet fully withdrawn from CU's medical school, though he is in the process of it. not sure how that's "looking for a job", but this has been all of 12 hours of research by news outlets. and they still can't get into his house. who knows what they will find there. Green mowse.pngGodotWhat is your fucking defense of automatic guns, again? 23:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
He dropped out last month. nobsCorporations are people, too 23:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
So now Rob, two sections above spending his time chastising the media for jumping the gun and making erroneous assumptions about past tragedies, now himself makes assumptions in a sad attempt to pin it on liberals. Shooter can't get a job, had student debt, means bad economy, means Obama's fault. Does you want to compute in the fact that the shooter was also involved in church, or do you want to leave that out and keep pushing his liberal conspiracy agenda? AndyToad.gifNorsemanCyser Melomel 23:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, no. But you certainly can articulate a plausible scenario better than I ever could. Si se pueda. nobsCorporations are people, too 00:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Tmwguncontrol.jpg Likely cause.--ADtalkModerator 00:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the likely cause is mental health issues. I think in order to be allowed to own a gun, a person should need to submit to a regular (e.g. yearly or six monthly) psychiatric examination, and those who are determined to pose a mental health risk (e.g. depression, substance abuse, paranoia, pre-psychosis, etc.) should have their guns confiscated. I say this as myself a person who has had a history of mental health issues; there have been times in my life when I think I should not have been allowed to own a gun (which thankfully I never have) - not saying I would have done anything with it, necessarily - if I'd have hurt anyone, it would probably have just been me - but I wouldn't want to risk it. People can still kill people with knives, etc., but it is a lot harder to kill 12 people with a knife than it is with a gun. (((Zack Martin))) 01:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Ron Reagan on Hardball discusses something similar here. He proposes that potential gun owners take tests to show you can properly handle a gun, like how you have to take a behind-the-wheel and a written test before you can legally drive, in order to purchase a gun. Both that idea and psychiatric examinations would be good to implement (even though it likely wouldn't happen in the States for a long time). Sam Tally-ho! 02:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Here's the danger of trying to politicize this tragedy as a gun control issue in a presidential election year: the same emotional reaction happened after that killing of Robert Kennedy in 1968 and we ended up with Nixon. Or ask Al Gore how successful he was in taking on the NRA in 2000, we ended up with George W. Bush. nobsCorporations are people, too 15:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I suggest[edit]

We don't jump to conclusions until we have the fucking evidence. Osaka Sun (talk) 02:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

No kidding; just look at the crazy shit people like CP come upimg with when they do jump to conclusions.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 04:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The Muslim card[edit]

The Muslim card is apparently "don't accuse anyone of anti-American behavior simply because they are Muslim."img Is anyone else baffled by the indignation JPatt is putting forth? Is it pulling the Christian card to complain that automatically profiling Christians as un-American is wrong?--User:Brxbrx/sig 02:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

CP peddles xenophobic garbage? Stop the presses! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
The takeaway message from that is "the inverse of playing the Muslim card, IE desirable behaviour, is to accuse someone of anti-American behavior simply because they are Muslim." I wish I was surprised by this stuff any more. --Sasayaki (talk) 04:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I like that he called Boehner a liberal. Wow. EDIT: nvm, I didn't see the comma. Senator Harrison (talk) 04:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I made the same mistake, and was baffled the first time I read it, thinking "Boehner and McCain are liberal?" Aboriginal Noise with 4 M's and a silent Q 05:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
McCain is considered a RINO on and off--User:Brxbrx/sig 06:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Mostly 'on' these days, I think. Peter This is not my first temporal anomaly 08:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Andy has a passing relation to the truth again.[edit]

Andy claimsimg Holmes spent "many hours playing video games before the shootings". He neglects to mention the video game was Guitar Hero. --PsyGremlinFale! 11:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

MOAR: Andy says killer took drugs before the rampageimg. Fails to mention that they were prescription drugs. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 14:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, prescription drugs are still drugs. What gets me is that he took vicodin and was able to stay awake enough to do what he did. Says "may cause drowsiness." It should say "don't make any fucking plans." Theory of Practice "the standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies." 14:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
They're saying the dose he took was like 100mg, i.e. negligible. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Colarado shooter was a churchgoing Christian.[edit]

...Hmmm. gotta spin this and make him the wrong kind of churchgoing Christianimg. Theory of Practice "the standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies." 16:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Christianity is imploding with Ken DeMeyer sowing discord among the brethren. nobsCorporations are people, too 16:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Launchbooty fires of the conspiracy theoryimg. Seems like all of the CP admins are having a field day with this tragedy...--Th. Bernhard (talk) 16:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

A simple question[edit]

Who's first post about the massacre is most despicable?

Andy: claiming video games are at fault hours after the shooting with no evidence whatsoever



Ken: claiming liberal Christianity has something to do with it



Terry: claiming the James Holmes was a hired assassin by the anti-gun lobby and the government, update: rampant hypocrisy



I ask because I cannot decide which of these people is the biggest piece of shit. --K. (talk) 16:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I went with Andy. Ken is almost amusing in a pathetic way; and while Terry's theory is certainly a bit far-out, it still makes more sense than Andy's blatant agenda-pushing about public schools removing our morals and video games turning us into a killer (when they don't magically make us die like that one football player). --Sid (talk) 17:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Do you really have to ask? Terry is always, ALWAYS, the most reprehensible of the bunch. I'd say he even managed to outdo Andy on creative madness this time, but I see he stole the conspiracy theory from one of his fellow nutters. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 17:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
When picking between three colossal mountains of steaming shit, I'd have to go with Terry because while Ken is stupid and a fundie, Andy is pigheaded, has a God complex and claims to be an expert in subjects he knows nothing about, Terry's is flat out delusional. Groomed by the anti gun lobby...? Occam might say that this is far less likely than "he crazy", but since all three push the idea (in their own way) that becoming a Bible Believing Christian gives immediate, tangible benefits in the mortal world (both tangible, physical and mental powers, and also intangible things like moral fibre, business success and luck), the idea that even one devout Christian turned out to want to go to a cinema and start shooting everyone dead is extremely damaging to their world view. They simply can't accept "he was a Christian, he shot everyone" so they are compelled to remove him from their definition even if, minus the massacre, he would be their star pupil (Bible Believing Christian has God to thank for his success in medical school!). In a way Terry's and Ken's arguments are the same (outside influences poisoned an otherwise normal Christian) except that Terry did it up to eleven. Congrats, douchbag, you made a mentally ill, obsessive shut in sound normal compared to you! --Sasayaki (talk)
*Ken. Promoting division among Christian sects runs counter to Andy's stated objectives of the Conservapedia Bible Project to create unity among Christians. nobsCorporations are people, too 18:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
That is par for the course among the fundamentalist set; describe most other denominations, especially those who are certainly not fundamentalist, as false churches or at the very least "compromised" and therefore written off as not truly Christian. Andy on the other hand is quite ecumenical in his approach; whether this is because he truly believes in the unity of Christians or that he is just that desperate for editors, I cannot tell.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 22:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Terry, because the other two are more sick-funny, while Terry is just sick. Whoover (talk) 18:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Terry. Because his insensitivity is the product of a longer "thought-process" (if one can call it a thought), while Andy and Ken just burped some shit out of their mouths. Also cause Terry's conspiracy theory seems to paint Holmes as a victim.--Th. Bernhard (talk) 18:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Actually, they're on the verge of painting him as a hero. He warned the cops about his booby-traps because he was under orders from Holder to assure no police were harmed. This is "Fast and Furious II" and the shit hit the fan for Holder when an agent got killed in Fast and Furious I. Whoover (talk) 18:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I'll go with Andy, because he's going to keep twisting facts to match his public schools/video games/atheism/Facebok drivel. Ken is just stupid and is vomiting up the same crap he uses to attack August's religion. As nasty as Terry is, it's becoming more apparent that he's becoming unhinged and is spouting more conspiracy crap than Alex Jones. PsyGremlinRunāt! 18:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I have to admit that when I read Ken's thing, my jaw actually dropped. Terry's is pretty fucking stupid, but it just further confirmed that he's crazy. I can see why most would put it over the top, though. But Jesus CHRIST, Ken. Fuuuuck off. --YossarianSpeak, Memory 22:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Terry's. I've sworn off going to CNAV ever again after reading that. I consider the man evil at this point. MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) 22:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Ken's. When it turns out the dude isn't an atheist but instead is a Christian, don't accept your mistake; It must be a liberal church he's attending. --Andy Frankinson (talk) 22:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Say what you will about Terry[edit]

In the past week alone, he has revealed that he believes that "Obama’s greatest mentor is V. I. Lenin"; that "the Obama birth certificate document cannot be a true record"; and that the "Midnight Movie Massacre (may be) a “false-flag operation”?. That's a lot of delusion to fit into one brain in 5 days. He needs a rest. Theory of Practice "the standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies." 23:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

"But now they know that he cannot resist exploiting the deaths of twelve people for political gain, before so much as an autopsy, let alone a funeral, has taken place." Agree with MDB now, this is an evil person, nothing more. --K. (talk) 00:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The sideshow: Ed is still angry, still oblivious[edit]

I think this kinda got lost in the noise yesterday, but hey, what has Ed been up to?

Let's see... oh hey, he and Krayner are having a nice discussion. It's all civil, and this is a nice example of how you can actually politely disagree on certain-"BLOCKED, ASSHOLE!img That'll teach you to... er... disagree with me on the larger point while conceding a smaller one...?"img

Oh, well. Let's move on to something a little less stupid.

Staying on the subject of the shooting, Rad7 complains that "this site has already used the story to attack video games and public schools, again without any evidence to support these claims."img And who can blame him when the main page attacks video gamesimg and public schools?img Ed moves in to discuss rationally whether or not these attacks are justified and goes into the finer points of-... oh, who am I kidding? Ed has no idea what Rad7 is even referring to.img Yeah, it's all terribly unclear.

Did I say "less stupid"? Yeah, I was lying. Moving on beyond the shooting!

Let Wikipedia User 188 educateimg you on how to write a good encyclopedia article: "Some writers believe that proof of the particle's existence will help undermine belief in Creationism, hence the nickname 'God particle'." (To be fair, the article he citesimg does it, too, but that doesn't excuse him.)

Bah, Ed showcasing why he constantly gets his ass handed to him on Wikipedia is old news. Let's go back to Ed giving us yet another "What's a paladin?" moment!

"Whoa, whoa, whoa, what does 'far-right' even mean here?img Actually, never mind, I'll defineimg it myself!"

And finally, my reaction to Ed's WIGO'd remarkimg about no personal comments: AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! --Sid (talk) 10:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Ultima IX reference? I love you. Vulpius (talk) 12:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Ken is as sensitive as ever[edit]

Main Page - Conservapedia 21 Jul 2012.png

Nice one Ken. An image of the Grim Reaper and cackling about atheism dying is just the thing to show when your nation is in mourning. You probably couldn't be more insensitive if you tried, you mentally deficient scumbag. --PsyGremlinSermā! 11:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

AugustO is complaining on the talk page about the awful juxtaposition. Get it while it lasts. Sophiebecause liberals 11:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I think CP's WP page needs updating too. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 11:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
It's worse than that, August complained before Kendoll put up his grim reaper. Not sure if stupidity or malice. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 11:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Given how Ken loves to troll those who disagree with him, regardless of how stupid it makes CP looks in the process, I'm sure it's malice. --Sid (talk) 12:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Ken deleted the pictures - and the history. AugustO remarks on thisimg larronsicut fur in nocte 08:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

CP = hate site?[edit]

Can we just go ahead and declare Conservapedia a hate site after this clusterfuck of raw sociopathic agenda-slinging? These people wouldn't recognize human empathy if it was sodomizing them with a baseball bat. I mean, yeah, they don't outright call for violence or genocide against all them non-white non-right-sect-of-Christianity infidels, but what the fuck, man. The nation is in a state of shock and they see it as an opportunity to latch onto their pet hatreds and swing them around in public. Ochotonaprincepsnot a pokémon 22:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the entire set of responses -- Andy's "video games and public education", Ken's "liberal Christianity" and Terry's absolute what-the-fuckery merit a new page at RW. This is CP at its best, which means its worst. MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) 23:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Don't forget Andy's taking the opportunity to blame the Norway victims while he's adding the new entry for Aurora. I see a Doctor Strangelove kind of scene -- "must ... not ... make ... Breivik ... a ... hero." He lost, of course. I find it touching that the much-maligned AugustO tiptoes in and cleans up. It's like waiting for drunken Pa to fall asleep and quietly putting out the lit cigarette in his mouth, knowing full well you'll be beaten if he wakes.Whoover (talk) 00:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
(ec)And none hit on a proven winner: unemployment. I'm beginning to think they are covert operatives working for Obama's re-election. nobsCorporations are people, too 00:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Oh, fuck off. Phiwum (talk) 00:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Hey dummy--if unemployment drives people to shoot up the movie theatre, and if unemployment is so rampant, why did this only happen once? Theory of Practice "the standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies." 00:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
That chart shows unemployment, 25 year old & up with a BA. Holmes was 24 with a Master's Degree, and couldn't find work. He's not even included in those statistics, yet. Seeing the hope-lessness of situation, it's not surprising he went berserk. It only took 1 nutcase to harm 71 individuals. Unemployment is credited with the election of Hitler, so it is well known what the dangers of extended periods of unemployment are on a large population. nobsCorporations are people, too 00:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
AND WE HAVE OUR GODWIN, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. Move along, nothing to see here. Ochotonaprincepsnot a pokémon 00:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

He dropped out of grad school. I've not seen where he had a master's--please show me where you got that. And then show me where HE SAID that he was frustrated at his joblessness. 'Cause without that, you've got nothing. Theory of Practice "the standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies." 00:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

"it is well known what the dangers of extended periods of unemployment are on a large population." Yeah, I guess you might have a point there. It would explain why the crime rate keeps rising. Oh wait, I read that wrong. Crime is at an "all-time low." Dummy. Theory of Practice "the standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies." 00:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
For fucks sake, Rob. he dropped out in June. not 6 months ago. hardly "extended periods of time". Do you get that real expects risked their lives to go into his apartment to see what they can find, figure out if there is a reason for this? Do you get that real profilers, and not some lunatics on fring sites like Terry's are actually TALKING TO THE MAN HIMSELF to figure out who he is and why he did it? you know nothing. so shut the fuck up.Green mowse.pngGodotWhat is your fucking defense of automatic guns, again? 01:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
At least Rob never misses an opportunity to show he's every bit as disgusting as Andy, Ken and Terry. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 10:00, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
oh deffo. Sophiebecause liberals 15:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Erm, sorry to bring up facts Rob, but Hitler was never elected to office. The Nazis couldn't get a majority elected to the Reichstag and in the last free election of the 1930s their share of the vote was starting to fall. The farting madman was appointed Chancellor by a bunch of people who thought that they could manipulate him. They were wrong. Darkmind1970 (talk) 20:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

More crazy stuff from Andy[edit]

...And Andy's at it again: "Criminal profiler Pat Brown suggests on CNN that grad student James Holmes, who was arrested for the Colorado theater massacre, may have repeatedly played violent video games to prepare for his killing rampage. But will the lamestream media even ask law enforcement about this??" Yeah, that's based entirely upon speculation. Shut the f*ck up, Assfly. --Andy Frankinson (talk) 00:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

And we all know profilers are never wrong. DickTurpis (talk) 01:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Wow... the lamestream media ask no questions of the liberal University of Colorado even though grad student James Holmes received a "'high volume of deliveries' over the last four months ... at school."img So Andy's in favour of going through people's mail now? --PsyGremlinSpeak! 15:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Lets see: "Received lots of deliveries", "Bought an assault rifle"; which of these should be the red flag? — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Stay classy Ken[edit]

It's Obama's fault.img

I find it rather telling that Ken takes the long road to imply that homicide rates surely must be high because of the lacking trust in the government, but doesn't actually give us any evidence that the homicide rate increased. Yeah, hmmm... --Sid (talk) 15:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Surely someone must have already commented on the irony of someone who sits up all night editing Conservapedia calling Holmes a 'loner'. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic?Moderator 21:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
So long as ken has his head voices, he will never be alone.--ThunderstruckA Bastard Poster, For Bastard People 22:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

ya know, if God wasn't so busy fixing sports results, he could probably have stopped that guy. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

It's a good thing Ken just found out that Wired magazine never really carried that quote about atheists, otherwise we'd get: loner = socially awkward and quarrelsome = atheist = mass murderer like Hitler and Stalin.
And the next time I get the feeling that the sysops at Conservapedia are just a bunch of harmless buffoons, I'll remember the events of the past few days and remember what a bunch of cunts they really are.Spud (talk) 07:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
That's why I created this page. I wanted to preserve for posterity just how vile their response was. MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) 12:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


Three days later, he's still piling on liberals and public educationimg and has yet to say a single sympathetic word about this tragedy. What a hateful little man. Theory of Practice "the standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies." 21:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, fom the story Andy linked to: "Unlike many people his age, [Holmes] does not have accounts on Twitter, Facebook or other social media." Won't be seeing that on CP anytime soon. Theory of Practice "the standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies." 22:00, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
He's such a petulant little bitch that the more people over there complain about his sick bullshit, the more he wants to drive the point home. His cunt of a mother really fucked him up. Sorry to be so nasty, but this goes WAY beyond the usual, "Ha ha Andy's being an idiot." This just shows what a truly awful mother-fucker he is. Fuck him. Hard. Hiphopopotamus (talk) 22:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Andy: "James Holmes once had a bright future. But after years of learning and believing what is taught in liberal public school and university science classes -- graduating with high honors -- he evidently lost his values." Yep, don't believe what you're taught in university science classes or you'll go on a shooting rampage. Usually Andy is just silly, but he's just been outright disgusting during this whole thing. --Night Jaguar (talk) 22:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Empathy is a lieberal deceit, don'tcha know? Sociopathy seems to be a Conservapedia virtue. I wish no violence on Andy or any of the Conservapedia admins (primarily because I don't want to be investigated by law enforcement for what I'm about to say), but I would not shed many tears if he accidentally stepped in front of a stray speeding garbage truck, at this point. Ochotonaprincepsnot a pokémon 22:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Nah, I want him to live his miserable life for a long time. Can you even imagine how terrible life must be for a miserable fuck-wad like Andy Schlafly? Everything tragic in this world is because of some grand liberal conspiracy. I know he says he thinks his brand of goo-fuck conservatism is growing, but he wouldn't be such a sociopath if he really believed it. Let's bring it back to the Nolan trilogy; he is living a life as though the Scarecrow dosed him with his psychotropic toxin and everyday is his worst liberal nightmare. Good. Let him suffer with that. Hiphopopotamus (talk) 01:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I hope he lives a long life under many, many Democratic administrations. --Night Jaguar (talk) 03:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Surrounded by happily married gay couples whose very successful children teach public school science classes. «-Bfa-» 04:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Maintenance makes file uploads go boom[edit]

Capturebot didn't seem to want to catch the latest link that User:Night Jaguar added. I captured it manually, but file uploads appear to be borked for the time being. I got this error:

Could not open lock file for "mwstore://local-backend/local-public/3/3e".
Could not open lock file for "mwstore://local-backend/local-public/3/3e/Capture_f8b867230389d9154106d385c3d6b48ddb9e9ab3.png".

Capturebot seems to be alive, as it responded to a status request. Once file uploads are alive, if capturebot doesn't clean up after itself, I'll upload the cap I took manually. Just letting everyone know that Andy can't memory hole this one even if he gets there before the server's back to normal. Ochotonaprincepsnot a pokémon 11:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Westboro Debate[edit]

This is actually kind of interesting.img I don't agree with anything Jzyehoshua has to say, but he does seem like one of the few literate contributors over at CP. I wonder if his misguided argument extends to the hate-speech Andy is spewing? Hiphopopotamus (talk) 02:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Which means his days are numbered. Has he contributed to an encyclopedic entry? 90/10 his ass. Aboriginal Noise with 4 M's and a silent Q 02:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Baleeted. Can't have anything even obliquely criticizing the Dear Leader. Edit: Not baleeted, link was broken. --Sasayaki (talk) 02:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
No, it is still there, just had to fix the links. Aboriginal Noise with 4 M's and a silent Q 02:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
The disgusting speech of disgusting human beings must be protected, or else none of us are safe. Props to Jzyehoshua for being capable of writing, all the same. TheLateGatsby (talk) 02:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Why, whatever do you mean by Dear Leader? Great Leader? Dear Father? Are you somehow implying that Der Führer would not allow that? "Mein Führer has never said, 'Baby!'" Hiphopopotamus (talk) 02:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

This debate actually makes me wish I weren't banned from CP. Ayzmo (talk) 15:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Andy fails reading comprehension, part infinity[edit]

Taking a break from blaming the Colorado shootings on everything he hates, Andy asked why is the media quoting overrated sports start Tiger Woods when Ernie Els won the British Open?img

The Woods quote is about how well Els played. And the story quotes Els before quoting Woods.

Ten trillion bonus points to anyone who can come up with a plausible way Andy could blame the shootings on overrated sports stars. MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) 11:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Easy. Tiger Woods is unfaithful to his wife, black (although Andy won't directly say this), and clearly the product of a deceit-filled lieberal upbringing. You know, because he's simultaneously black and wildly rich and successful and gets way more booty than Andy. Tiger Woods is a bad influence on the nation. Naturally, all of this will be carefully sculpted to avoid implicating God's OwnTebow, unless Andy doesn't like him anymore in which case he'll get thrown under the bus for a good Mainpageright lie. Ochotonaprincepsnot a pokémon 12:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Tiger Woods is the first affirmative-action champion pro golfer. This insidious liberal plot obviously caused a great deal of distress to the liberal-church-attending shooter, who -- so overwhelmed with dark liberalism, confused and distraught at the world around him -- enacted righteous vengeance on a government indoctrination room full of non-Bible-reading liberals. It's all God's work anyway. He controls football games, He can certainly control something as serious as one of the worst public shootings in America's history. Praise Jesus and pass the ammuni- I feel sick. --Sasayaki (talk) 12:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Is there any evidence at all that Aschlafly is either overtly or secretly racist? Ajkgordon (talk) 12:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, his fixation with Obama as an "Affirmative-Action President" implies that he doesn't think a black guy, or at least that black guy, would have made it to high office without the rules being bent in his favour. Theory of Practice "the standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies." 12:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Also, his unquestionable sexism tells me that he believes that particular "types" of people have particular attributes. That doesn't bode well for somebody who wants to claim that "we're all the same." Theory of Practice "the standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies." 13:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Maybe not overly racist - I think the "affirmative action president" was coined by Phyllis and Andy latched on to it, but he's certainly a bigot and firmly believes in an "us and them" society. That said, he's also on record as criticising Obama's Health Secretary (I think) and somebody else for being overweight - both of whom happen to be African American women - but hasn't said a word about Gov Christie's weight - who happens to be a white male. Just sayin'. --PsyGremlin 13:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't mean to defend Andy, but I think its because of their political views, not their race or gender. (Look at what they say about Richard Dawkins, PZ Meyers, and Ed Brayton, with respect to weight. All of those are white males.) --Andy Frankinson (talk) 13:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
You need to differentiate between Andy, parts of CP, and Ken. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.Moderator 14:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
It's true. Ken, for all his many flaws, doesn't seem racist at all. In fact amongst the senior sysops he's definitely the least likely to ban based on "foreignness". --Sasayaki (talk) 16:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I wonder if Ken's lack of xenophobia has to do with his strange fixation on Asian women, Hispanic women and Indian people dancing. Anyway, yeah, Andy didn't just use 'Affirmative Action President', he also created the CP article on itimg.

Give the man (Ochotonaprinceps) his ten trillion points. --Andy Frankinson (talk) 13:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Awarded. Don't spend them all in one place, Ochotonaprinceps. MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) 14:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Woohoo! Ochotonaprincepsnot a pokémon 1013 points 14:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I love that 'overated' Woods is No.2 in the world and the rest of the Top 4 are from the 'atheistic' UK. Bevo74 (talk) 14:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Why is the Batman shooting resonating so much with CP?[edit]

I think it's because the shooter identified himself as a Christian. Andy and co are unable to accept that their world view (Bible Believing Christian = material success, magic powers, moral supremacy, divine favour) could be challenged by even one example so feel compelled to 'excuse' this behaviour, blaming it on any number of outside factors.

Could you honestly imagine the shitstorm if the guy was anything else (Buddhist, atheist, Jewish, or heavens forbid a Muslim)? The incident would be seen as absolute, incontestable proof that non-Christian lifestyles lead to shooting massacres. Look at the recent addition of the massive quote to the top of CP; someone who may know the shooter claimed he might have played some video game at one point, proudly and prominently displayed as though it were damning evidence that the shooter wasn't a TRUE Christian. The smell of desperation is palpable.

It's interesting to note that by and large RW isn't making a huge deal out of his religion either. Whatever we believe (theist, atheist, agnostic, etc) by and large our worldviews aren't shaped around absolutes and we accept that people who apply the same labels as ourselves will sometimes do immoral things. I'd like to think we accept that people of any religion (or none) can be both moral and immoral and that he is a clearly disturbed individual who wasn't influenced by anything really, and that any inspiration he may have had from the Joker, Batman films, or any other source was really just a symptom of whatever mental illness afflicts him. If it wasn't Batman, it could have easily been any number of things.

How unhappy the CP staff must be, in life, to feel such obvious discomfort at this incident... a discomfort that is entirely selfish (he makes me feel bad!), with absolutely no visible concern for the people who were killed. It doesn't make me angry, it makes me pity them. --Sasayaki (talk) 00:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

It is possible. They were equally shook-up when Brevik performed his massacre. I wonder how they would felt about Timothy McVeigh at the time? Ayzmo (talk) 00:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Another point... if Andy believes God interferes with football games and essentially micromanages modern American life, then God could have prevented this shooting easily. Either he wasn't paying attention (not omniscient), didn't have the power (not omnipotent), or actively encouraged it (essentially evil). I'm sure the thought that God approved the massacre either by neglect, incompetence or malevolence causes him discomfort too. --Sasayaki (talk) 00:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
This is the ugly side of the No true Scotsman fallacy being demonstrated. Andy's still got enough intellect left in his skull not to just fall into cognitive dissonance and ignore reality entirely. Somehow. Ochotonaprincepsnot a pokémon 1013 points 00:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
These types of tragedies always resonate with CP. And I still wouldn't say "the shooter identified himself as a Christian." AFAIK, he came from a church-goin' family, but we've yet to hear anything about his personal views. This story has exploded all over the internet and the media in general, hits on a lot of Andy's favorite topics, so it's no surprise he ran with it. Also, the comment on God and preventing the shooting shows the kind of fundamental ignorance about Christian theology that makes atheists look bad. Don't construct strawmen about Christian beliefs in order to tear them down. Read a bit about how the ideoology actually works and engage with that in a critical manner, or shut up. Theory of Practice "the standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies." 00:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I was merely pointing out that Andy believes God micromanages the day to day life of individuals, including football games etc. If he believes this, and it's clear he does, then my question is valid I think. Why would God pay so much attention to Tebow and let people get gunned down by a maniac who, probably, at least gives him lip service? If I'm missing something please, educate me, but I think this is a valid conclusion for Andy (most Christians I know believe God takes a mostly hands off approach to mortal life). --Sasayaki (talk) 01:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Andy has also pointed out on numerous occasions that it's not realistic to expect miracles to happen every day, and, more importantly to this discussion, that he believes that there are real-world consequences to the kinds of choices people make/the ways in which we turn our backs on God (in his mind) by not believing in Hell, by embracing liberal/atheistic values, etc. etc. This tragedy, to him, would fall under the rubric of "the horrible things that happen when people deviate from the right path." Theory of Practice "the standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies." 01:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Granted, but the Bible makes a very distinct point about God's power. Revelations 2:16 being the first example that leaps to mind... "I am the Alpha and the Omega. The beginning and the end. All who believeth in me shall drink of the waters of life, freely." (Thank you Fallout 3). Seems to be an interesting contradiction... God is all things, but only cares sometimes? And I mean... Okay, "all who believeth" shall drink, but the implication that if you don't believe you'll be gunned down in a cinema is fairly extreme. I interpret the passage to mean, "God is all powerful, but if you believe, good things will happen to you." Which is at odds with the Christians who were killed in the cinema, as well as the (possible) Christianity of the gunman. Perhaps this is a problem for the Conservative Bible Project? --Sasayaki (talk) 01:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Make up your mind. You've gone from making blanket arguments about Christian belief to saying "no, no, I meant I was talking about what Andy believes, only that," and then back to your own amateur biblical exegesis when called out on how your previous tack was mistaken--and that, you took from a heavy metal album, or a comic book, or whatever the hell a "Fallout 3" is. Call me whan you've actually bothered to engage with some formal theology. Theory of Practice "the standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies." 01:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I can see this is getting you quite upset and angry. I apologize for that, but I still feel my point is legitimate. I started my first post saying, "I think it's because the shooter identified himself as a Christian. Andy and co are unable to accept that their world view (Bible Believing Christian = material success, magic powers, moral supremacy, divine favour) could be challenged by even one example so feel compelled to 'excuse' this behaviour, blaming it on any number of outside factors." Emphasis mine. I also ended with a reference to the "CP admins". It is, and always was, clear who I was speaking about.
Fallout 3 is a video game. The protagonist's mother, Katherine, had a dream to bring fresh, clean water to all who live in a barren, nuclear wasteland. Her favourite Bible quote was Revelations 2:16, which is frequently quoted by the Protagonist's father, and in the dramatic climax it's discovered he used "216" as the password to activate the purifier. It's a good game that draws upon Christian mythology (the protagonist bears many similarities to Jesus, including dying at the end, as s/he enters the Biblical reference to save the world.
Now, that aside... I've been polite, clear and respectful and you've been very rude. If you believe God ignores major tragedies such as this, then God mush have ignored larger things. Like 9/11. Like the war in Iraq. Like every rape and murder ever. If that's true, and God doesn't interfere in the world at all, how do you know he exists at all?Sasayaki (talk) 02:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
How do I know? I don't, of course. And most of the believers that I have had conversations with on the topic--the smart ones, anyway--don't "know" that God exists, either. They "believe" it, or "have faith" in it. That's a different thing from "knowledge." As for the rest of your points, such as they are: "I think it's because the shooter identified himself as a Christian." The shooter hasn't identified himself as anything yet, at least not publicly. Some people have said his family went to church. I know nothing about his personal beliefs, and neither do you. "Andy and co are unable to accept that their world view (Bible Believing Christian = material success, magic powers, moral supremacy, divine favour) could be challenged by even one example so feel compelled to 'excuse' this behaviour, blaming it on any number of outside factors." Actually, Andy and co have a history of repeating exactly this pattern of discourse with every mass shooting since CP opened--there is actually very little difference between their reaction here and their reaction to the Norwegian case, the Giffords shooting, Fort Hood, or Virginia Tech. Find a pet issue, use the shooting to talk about it. That's how they roll. And I could care less about your video game. Haven't played one since Doom came out. They make me nauseous, in the literal sense--something akin to being on a rollercoaster. My eyes can't handle it for some reason. But if you want to talk theology, open a Bible, or any one of a thousand decent scholarly works of theology. Quote mining from a video game just makes you look dumb. Theory of Practice "the standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies." 02:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
You continue to be rude so I will bow out, happily giving you the last word. Sasayaki (talk) 02:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Andy gives an answer to why God let this happenimg: "My own view is that God has other interests and is not inclined to spend every minute watching every single thing that happens -- or might happen -- in this world. Many accounts in the Bible describe how God is not always watching everything." Apparently the mass shootings bored God, but football doesn't.
Also, ToP, it's clear Sasayaki was just talking about Andy. I don't know what the hell you're getting all worked up about. --Night Jaguar (talk) 04:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Holmes was Christian? how does someone inundated with such superstitious idiocy rise to the top of his academic class in as difficult a hard scientific field as neuroscience? nobsCorporations are people, too 06:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I dunno Rob; how do Christians get PhD's from secular, accredited universities? Just because one has some silly or preposterous, or unprovable beliefs or notions doesn't mean they aren't otherwise intelligent or brilliant. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

We sometimes forget there's worse than CP. His contact with Jews perverted him. Whoover (talk) 03:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I have not commented because if 1% of 320 million is whacked, we will never hear the end of this kind of slaughter. Who was Holmes? Just another batshit insane man. Every other indepth analysis is worthless. -- (talk) 18:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The Fallout of the above section, wherein the conversation Super-mutates into something Ghoulish[edit]

I thought he was talking about what the Bible says in the Book of Fallout 3. Theory of Practice "the standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies." 04:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Since you specifically bought it up, I shall regale thee of the miracle of "Levelling the multitude".
According to the Gospels, a large crowd had gathered and was following The Vault Dweller. The Vault Dweller called his/her disciples to him/her and said:
"I have compassion for these people; they have already been with me three days and have nothing to kill. I do not want to send them away XP-less, or they may not level."
His/her disciples answered:
"Where could we get enough 7.62mm and Rad-X in this remote place to level such a crowd?"
"How many ammo boxes do you have?" The Vault Dweller asked.
"Seven," they replied, "and a few small Rad-X pills."
"The Vault Dweller told the crowd to sit down on the ground. Then he/she took the seven ammo boxes and the Rad-X, and when he/she had given thanks, he/she broke them and gave them to the disciples, and they in :turn to the people. They all right-click/used and were satisfied. Afterward the disciples picked up seven basketfuls of loose cartridges that were left over. The number of those who right-click/used was four :thousand, besides women and children. After The Vault Dweller had sent the crowd away, he/she got into the boat and went to the vicinity of Megaton."
Praise be to the holy G.E.C.K, the PIP-Boy 5000, and the FEV. Sasayaki (talk) 04:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Sasayaki, what the hell is wrong with you? The Vault Dweller is from Fallout not Fallout 3, ergo never visited Megatron. Also he/she had a Pipboy 2000 and the Lone Wanderer and Courier a Pipboy 3000. Go back to studying you gospel again. Pi 3:14 (talk) 21:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi JPratt[edit]

Sorry to clog up this page, but JPratt, can you (or someone else) unblock BenKhali? I'm having a civil and interesting conversation with Andy and I think he'd like it to continue. I'm not any of those other accounts nor have I ever been (or I'd just ask you to unblock those ones). I mean, if I had maliciousness in mind I could simply get a new account/IP, but I don't. Sasayaki (talk) 06:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

You were banned on account of being here. And on account of talk talk talk--il'Dictator Mikal 07:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Plus, if you expect a favor from the guy, you should probably call him by his name and not the cute epithet that RW has given him. -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

How the hell is that a conspiracy theory?[edit]

Er, Andy, when it's an objective fact that groups like The Family and such wholesome individuals as Scott Lively (Ed's favourite author!) going over to Africa and inspiring such wonderful legislative work as Uganda's kill the gays bill, I don't think you can call it s conspiracy theoryimg. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 00:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Ken and the Surgeon General[edit]

With Aurora already covered in terribleness at CP, Ken movesimg on to the Surgeon General, insulting the woman and saying she needs to be fired for incompetenceimg(Which he decides to then remove)img Also something about Soda. --il'Dictator Mikal 21:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

He may have moved on, but not before this gem, "Merle Haggard famously sung that conservatives don't smoke marijuana and "don't let their hair grow long and shaggy. Like the hippies down in San Francisco do". Good call, Kenny. Hiphopopotamus (talk) 21:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I guess Ken realised that his digs at her perceived chubbiness might rebound as Dr. Benjamin is a devout Roman Catholic. Doesn't quite gel with his "atheists are fat, haw, haw" meme. Redchuck.gif ГенгисunbelievingModerator 07:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Your forgeting ken hates catholics as much as atheists AMassiveGay (talk)

Underachieving Britain[edit]

Not directly CP, but the NYT tackles the question of why Britain does not have many sports champions. Shockingly none of the columnists hit on the true causes, gay marriage and atheism (though one blames "character"). --Benod (talk) 03:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Its a pity nne of those debaters at the NYT had anything to say. At all. AMassiveGay (talk) 07:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Quite. Unbelievable tosh. Even the premise is nonsense. Complete waste of a read. Ajkgordon (talk) 12:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Incidentally, at the 2008 Olympics, in terms of medals per capita, the UK came 28th. Now where did the US come, I wonder? For a rather insignificant island off the North West coast of Europe we don't do too badly. Bad Faith (talk) 12:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Guns save lives, but not (just) in the way you might think...[edit]

Help me to parse this latest bit from Andy: "the murder suspect had weapons that were more destructive than guns, which in the absence of guns would have tragically harmed even more people"img. I'm guessing this is a reference to the improvised explosives that Holmes had in his apartment, rather than the rifle, shotgun, and handgun(s) that he had at the theater. There were no guns at the theater that prevented harm to more people; nobody used a self-defensive weapon of gun there. So it seems to me that Andy is arguing that only 70 people were killed or wounded because of the killer's easy access to less destructive weapons, namely guns, rather than the higher death toll that would have been expected if he had not had the AR-15 in the first place. Well, thank God for assault rifles then! If he hadn't been able to shoot 70 people, he might have blown up 100! Or 10,000! Or a billion kajillion! I for one fully support Andy's implicit proposal to provide guns to all homicidal individuals so as to minimize their potential lethality.--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 16:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

This is one of the best things I've read from Andy in a while. The amount of cognative dissonance must make him light-headed at times. Does he really not see the stupidity in having a position that boils down to "In the hands of the criminally homicidal, video games are terrible and destructive. Not guns though! Guns are great for everybody!" Carlaugust (talk) 17:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
But if that weren't true, the Second Amendment would mention video games. Andy's previous commment is the real stunner. Basically, he says it's time to admit that this is a consequence of liberals and to do something about it. We forget that he actually believes that crap about Breivik and McVeigh and Hitler being liberals. Whoover (talk) 18:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
The AR-15 is not an assault rifle. It may look like an M16, but the AR-15 is semi-automatic. (talk) 18:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I bet Martin Arrowsmith feels such a fool now AMassiveGay (talk) 18:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Oh, absolutely. It was probably the liberal Holmes' post-purchase embarrassment about making the same mistake that led him to lash out in the first place. Let's reiterate, though, that Andy seems to be claiming that Holmes would have killed more people if he hadn't had the semi-automatic rifle, so it was good that one was available to him. I suggest that he draft an amicus brief to the court at Holmes' trial outlining this theory. --Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 21:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't contest your criticism of Andy there, but in the context of gun control, there is a rather large difference between automatic (e.g military assault rifles) and semi-automatic guns. Most pistols are semi-automatic, and semi-automatic rifles have legitimate hunting uses, while fully automatic guns have much stricter regulation. Stopping people from getting semi-automatic rifles would take a rather large change in gun policy. That context affects your implication that tighter gun control is due. That may be the case, but it's not as simple as restricting access to assault rifles. (talk) 22:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Nobody is talking about the guns. Some grownups are talking about the drum magazine that holds 100 rounds, which enables that many shots to be fired from a semi-automatic in maybe 90 seconds. But the knee-jerk Second Amendment types cut that discussion off very quickly. The little movie running in their mind features defending their homes against tyranical armed forces sent by anti-Constitutional Democrat administrations. Hence, 100-round magazines are a symbol of freedom and if, in real life, they're only used by whack jobs, c'est la vie. Whoover (talk) 00:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Just to correct bunchanumbers there, assault rifles don't have to be automatic, just semi-automatic. "Assault rifle" is actually a pretty meaningless term; under US law is just means that it is a semi-automatic rifle with a few other (often meaningless) features, one of which might be a bayonet mount. I'm pretty sure fully automatic weapons are illegal in the US (except in some very limited cases), but I have to check. DickTurpis (talk) 12:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Nobody's mentioned that this particular thread on the Main Page talk page was sparked off by User:Rafael suggesting that the shooting was a publicity stunt organised by those "Hollywood values" types to promote the film. What a twat!--Spud (talk) 12:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Just to correct DickTurpis there, but "assault rifles" do ineed need automatic capability. "Assault weapon" is the nearly meaningless term often used in gun control (this was the term that covered semi-automatic rifles with certain features in the US assault weapons ban which expired in 2004). (talk) 19:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm still waiting for the great big vigilante massacre that I'm sure will happen sooner or later. Imagine if, say, 20 people in some Texas theater have a gun when someone starts firing. After the initial salvo, no one knows who is a vigilante and who is an attacker, and all the while innocent people getting hit in crossfire. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Crazy on the Offense[edit]

New evidence indicates that feathers were common on therapod dinosaurs. How to respond? How about a new article called "See, I told you dinosaurs had no feathers"img? Cue the Twilight Zone theme. Whoover (talk) 16:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

"Flown the coup"? Keep on teaching them writing classes Ken. ;) PongoOrangutans are sceptical 20:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Most likely a coup de gras. Whoover (talk) 21:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Dance for us little man, dance. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic?Moderator 07:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Dey turk err jurbs![edit]

Andy: For example, a foreigner who is reportedly a lesbian was selected as the head coach of the American Olympic women's soccer team. Aren't there American coaches good enough to run the Olympic team? Hey Andy, that dirty foreign lesbian managed to lead the US Women's Soccer Team to the Gold Medal at the 2008 Olympics and the World Cup Final match in 2011. Looks to me like she's pretty darned qualified. Idiot. Hiphopopotamus (talk) 01:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

A lesbian? Involved with the women's soccer team? Inconceivable. Theory of Practice "the standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies." 02:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
"ranked #1 and won the gold in the last two Olympics, but now this U.S. team is politically correct, so will it underachieve?"img For fuck's sake, she's been the head coach since 2007. How is the US team MORE politically correct now than when they won the Gold Medal in 2008, or achieved the #1 ranking? I guess you should never let something like facts get in the way of your agenda. Idiot. Hiphopopotamus (talk) 04:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Oh no! Lesbian Led USA is losing. But it is to Socialist France. How will Andy spin this?
Never underestimate a lesbian. I also point out the decidedly grown-up noting of Sally Ride's posthumous coming outimg by Jpatt. I wonder how long that will last. Whoover (talk) 18:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Angling towards 'Obama's fault"[edit]

Slowly but surely....img AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 02:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I live in Australia and my cat sneezed this morning. I think it might be sick. The cat sleeps on a blanket made in China, and the major trading partner with China is the US, currently ruled over by the Obama Administration. Another victim of ObamaCare!
More seriously, ugh. Just, yeah. Ugh. --Sasayaki (talk) 02:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Not to mention there's already an entry.img By CP standards, it's actually semi-encyclopaedic. Andy's version just shows what an illiterate asshole he is and how everything is "because liberals." Hiphopopotamus (talk) 05:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
No mention of Holmes' religious activity, but plenty of "this probably caused him to start shooting" PIDOOMA. There's two articles on the guy, though. Kind of funny. — Unsigned, by: Norseman / talk / contribs 05:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, Andy. Learn to edit a bloody wiki! Before you create a new article about something, search to see if it already exists under another title. Or better yet, Andy, just don't write anything ever again.--Spud (talk) 06:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Even the original article is pretty awfulimg: "Holmes was born in liberal California. He graduated in 2006 from Westview High, a public school. A video of him from around that time shows him in a science camp talking about "temporal illusions", which he describes as "illusion[s] that allows you to change the past", an idea that reek of liberal relativism. This kind of thinking, in which objective morality does not exist, might have been one of the factors which lead him to engage in such murderous actions later on." They are so reeking with desperation to separate Holmes from anything that they may support and to paint him a victim of everything they hate.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
"They"? Apart from a single edit by a recent arrival to wikify and punctuate, it's all Andy. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic?Moderator 18:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
There's now only one article about him. Andy moved "James Holmes' (the title he created) to "James Eagan Holmes" (which somebody else had already created). I see that once again Andy is using bold text to hammer home his points. Tosser!--Spud (talk) 06:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Moar video games[edit]

I've not seen any comment on Andy's headlining of MainPageimg with the video gaming thing. He had several shots at getting this just how he wanted before settling on a Wikipedia-bashing versionimg. Redchuck.gif ГенгисmaraudingModerator 07:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I'm sure that whoever took the decision to temporarily lock the article at Wikipedia was just doing it to stop "conservatives" adding the "truth" about how guns don't kill people, video games do. I'm sure they weren't the least bit concerned about thousand of people writing "James Holmes is a fucking bastard and I hope he fries in Hell!".
By the way, I can't edit either of the articles about him on Conservapedia, but all of the other articles are locked to me too.--Spud (talk) 08:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I bet it wouldn't take much to get the CP article fully locked either. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.Moderator 13:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm curious...[edit]

Andy is complaining that the liberal university didn't do more to inspect Holmes deliveries. Now, let's forget for a second that they would decry a taking away of freedoms if some government bureaucrat was going through a private citizens mail. But, let's say the university did find his arsenal - is Andy suggesting that someone should have taken Holmes' legally obtained guns away? Carlaugust (talk) 13:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

You forget, Andy is never wrong. So, let's say they had gone through his mail, and foiled the attack. Andy would be screaming about the fascist liberal university violated his right to privacy. --Psygremlin (talk) 13:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Especially if that unusually large number of deliveries had been Bibles. Redchuck.gif ГенгисGum diseaseModerator 14:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Andy is not suggesting that. He simply describes all universities as being liberal. I'm sure it's a habit of his by now to automatically precede the word "university" with "liberal". Being "liberal" has nothing to do with not checking the packages. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
What? Andy applying the term 'liberal' inappropriately? That's not like him. --Night Jaguar (talk) 05:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Someone should tell Andy he uses the word "liberal" too liberally. The result should be like the finale of the original Star Trek episode where an android tries to process the Liar's Paradox. MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) 12:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

quote mining Obama[edit]

You do.

No, we don't. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Um...okay? Carlaugust (talk) 20:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm confused. --جئت ورأيت أنا القرف gross, isn't it? 22:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

What's the confusion? Obama said:

"Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business—you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet. The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own."

Andy says (and in fairness, everyone else on the right says too) that it's not quote mining to omit everything that's not highlighted because it's "obvious" that "that" refers to your business. It could not be anything else (like the infrastucture that Obama spoke of in the preceding sentences we edited out) because it's only logical that a Marxist, appealing to other Marxists, will take every opportunity to antagonize capitalists. Therefore, it's not quote mining but clarification. Whoover (talk) 00:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

It was a crappily written (or misspoken) bit in any case. What he meant was, "You didn't build it by yourself without help from others." What he said makes it sound as if you contributed nothing worth mentioning to the development of your business. Phiwum (talk) 01:22, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
What he meant was "infrastructure", based on the fact that he was talking about infrastructure before and after. Carlaugust (talk) 01:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, you're right. To be honest, I've misread his speech, too! It's badly written and I suffer from poor comprehension skills. There. Phiwum (talk) 01:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Meh, I meant no offense. It's much more apparent from listening to the speech, rather than reading it. But if you were to listen to it (which I'd think you would, if, like the RNC is, you were trying to hang an entire presidential campaign on this one thing) it's pretty clear what he was saying.Carlaugust (talk) 02:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I took no offense at all. I just thought that part of the blame for the misreading was mine. Phiwum (talk) 04:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Anybody else can't help reading the topic title to the tune of this song?--"Shut up, Brx." 05:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

What's the weather like on Planet Terry?[edit]

"the countries in the world having the most people, and the strictest gun laws, have more murders per capita than has the USA." --Psygremlin (talk) 13:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

How often does Terry engage in facts-out-of-the-ass "last wordism"? Occasionaluse (talk) 13:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I especially enjoyed his discussion with Tom Bombodil in the comments section, which culminated in Terry screaming that as third world nations are more violent he wins, and the fact that someone disagrees with him means he is part of the conspiracy. Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 15:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
If he handles largely defensive weapons of gun as well as he handles rhetorical devices then the world and his neighbors are probably safe. C®ackeЯ 15:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Before I swore off posting to that vile man's blog, I asked him this: "Since Obama took office, there has been one change in Federal gun policy. Did it expand or limit gun rights?" He won't even post the question, much less answer it, because the answer is "expand them." Guns are now allowed in national parks. (To be fair, the rule change was started un Bush the Lesser. It took effect a few days after Obama took office, so really, the Obama team just didn't stop it. MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) 11:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I've been pressing him for numerical examples to his "Obamacare will bankrupt everybody!" claim. Still waiting. --Psygremlin (talk) 11:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
For what it's worth, there are two aspects of Terry's posts that really frighten me beyond anything else.
  1. His insistence that the U.S. is the only country with citizens instead of subjects, and the only country that values liberty. (Apparently the French motto doesn't count, because they only value liberté and that's completely different).
  2. His continued belief that everyone who disagrees with him is moments away from donning a uniform from Hugo Boss and ... doing something bad. It's not really clear most of the time what that bad thing is, and it changes based on whatever the topic of the post at hand is.
He lives in this terrifying world where everyone is out to get him, all the time, and any time anyone tries to be helpful, it's part of a secret plot to "get" him. His obstinate refusal to even look at or consider sources of any kind just makes the whole thing worse. — Unsigned, by: ORavenhurst / talkDo You Believe That? 13:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
He might think that égalité is too much like communism. He should consider moving to Guinea, where Liberté is the national anthem. CS Miller (talk) 13:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
And of course, I'm sure that fraternité is too reminiscent of "same-sex roommates" to him. (And maybe his insistence that homosexuality isn't real should be number 3 on my list above) — Unsigned, by: ORavenhurst / talkDo You Believe That? 14:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

(Reset) And if you think enogh people are out to get you, some of them will decide to do so (talk) 14:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Off all the CP cabal, Terry actually scares me the most.
  • Andy is stubborn and crazy, but he's not nearly as paranoid or angry.
  • JPatt has some sort of matrix-type "digital projection of his mental self", so I imagine he's quite happy thinking he's one of the cool kids in conservative circles.
  • Karajou will never have the power he thinks he has at conservapedia in real life and, sadly, his life is a quest for power, so he poses no real danger.
  • Ken is too busy destroying atheism on the internet. He might one day kill Richard Dawkins or something, but it's more likely that he would just continue to (cyber-)stalk him.
Terry, on the other hand, lives his life gripped with fear, paranoia, and most importantly anger. The wild conspiracies he designs within normal life are astounding. He's more contrarian and confrontational than anyone I've ever come across on the internet. I guess I'm more afraid for him than I am for us. I could see him starting an illegal stockpile, getting involved with vigilante justice or getting over his head and involved with some militant rightwingers. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
He may be batshit insane, but he's also old. All his tea partying cohorts are over the hill. The only thing you have to fear from Chuckarse is he might inspire some younger people to go blow shit up, or shoot government officials. Even that isn't terribly likely since he doesn't exactly have much in the way of charisma. You'd have to be seriously unhinged to come away with any impression from his blog other than "Why isn't this guy on meds?" --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 15:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
James Holmes was a plant? I think his paranoia could spiral out of control. He could be getting to that "nothing left to lose" age. Remember, everyone is out to get him. We're purposefully destroying his beloved country. I think he can only take so much before snapping. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Nah, four years from now there'll be a Republican president and he'll be back to sweetness and light again. He'll continue to whittle on about creationism and Ayn Rand of course, but they whole "ZOMG, TREASONOUS LIBERALS ARE DESTROYING OUR COUNTRY!" rhetoric will dry up like a mud puddle in high summer. He doesn't have Andy's talent for creative madness, he relies on other people to stuff his mind full of crap, and once he puts in his vote for President Podunk Yokel they'll be done with him for another 8 years. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 15:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I think his whole "if you disagree with me, you're part of the conspiracy" nuttiness is the best. I've already been told that I'll be part of the first wave of UN troops that will come for Terry's land/guns/fluids. --Psygremlin (talk) 15:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Just remember who your friends are in the States when donning your jackboots for the invasion, Psy. Can my boyfriend and I get the penthouse suite in the arcology you'll be forcing us into? 15:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Do you ever wonder if any of the CPizens actually have guns? Karajou is the only one I can imagine packing heat. For all Andy's defensive weapon of gun talk, I doubt he's ever so much as fired a pistol at a range. As for fluids, it hardly bares thinking about. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 15:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
JPatt def has. He was waxing lyrical about his gun in TZB one day 7.62mm NATO issue something or other with tripod. Kara probably has, to compensate for his small dick. Terry too. Andy and Ken fail on mental grounds. --Psygremlin (talk) 15:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Terry seems to put more thought/effort into his rantings than any of the others do, that's why he's disturbing I think. Andy doesn't really think his stuff through, he just comes up with a knee jerk reaction (like everyone does) and then tells it to the world as fact (like almost nobody does), then doubles down on it out of arrogance when challenged. I don't believe he's seriously thought through his "liberal/hollywood/video game values lead to murder" opinion, it's just that his first thought upon hearing the shooting was "I bet he played video games!" and then ran with that, with no further thought. And a similar process with other things. Ken latches on to one simple idea and runs it into the ground because he seems to think he's being funny. Karajou is just an angry man who can't understand why we don't respect his obvious authority. Terry, on the other hand, seems to actually think his stuff through as much as he can, which is terrifying in its own way because nowhere along his train of thought does he think "Wait, this is really stupid".

Basically, I see Andy as the type of person who opens his newspaper in the morning, sees a headline like "CRIME RISES 2.5%!" and thinks "Immigrants and atheists!". I see Terry as the kind of person who'd attach that headline to a wall full of red string and come to the conclusion that the green energy lobby is forcing crime up to make gas more expensive in order to take our cars away so we can't drive away from the FEMA troops when they come to arrest us all and put us into forced solar panel manufacturing camps. X Stickman (talk) 18:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

On the subject of Pitchsphincter, i think this most recent comment exchange sums up just how dangerously insane and terrified he is of the "EEEEEEVIL Black/atheist/liberal conspiracy"
"TomBombadil" “the ability to defend myself against someone who does walk into a movie theater bent on shooting everybody.”
Which ironically equates to exactly the same thing. And unless you have trained professionals in the audience, a bunch of frightened people firing wildly will make the situation far far worse. Clearly you have never been under fire yourself,or you wouldn’t believe in the myth that people would suddenly turn into marksmen when being fired on.
“That was one of George W.’s worst mistakes.”
And yet I can’t seem to find a single word from you attacking it. Strange. Still, it’s good to see there are some things we agree on.
Maybe you’ll write something about that, after you provide some numbers on how Obamacare is going to bankrupt you.
"Peltcolon" There you go. “Leave it up to the professionals.” The tyrants, you mean. “The professionals” in many walks of life have ruined more lives than I can count. And it’s high time that people declared their independence of said “professionals.”
Your scenario is worse than incorrect. It is a recipe for more control over people’s lives. That’s what I mean when I say that a non-American cannot understand freedom.
I honestly don't think anything more needs to be said about the guy. He is clearly so far beyond the point of a psychotic break with reality, that adding any more condemnation would be simply redundant. Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 01:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
It's precious that Terry believes the DHS to be a mistake... as if George Walker Bush was a well-meaning man who didn't intend to fuck the US the way he did. TheLateGatsby (talk) 05:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Bah. Pretending that Bush was a nefarious evil-doer who intended to harm the United States is no more reasonable than pretending that Obama is the same. I think that Bush's presidency was the worst in recent decades, and I think that he made very many bad choices, but I think it's stupid to cook up a fantasy that he intentionally fucked up the country. Phiwum (talk) 05:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Of course I don't believe Bush sabotaged the country, but George W Bush sure as hell didn't expand the power of the executive branch by accident. Terry Hurlbut was likely fine with that... until Obama won in 2008. TheLateGatsby (talk) 05:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Sure he wasn't out to "harm the United States", but he definitely took every step he could toward putting his own interests and the interests of the people surrounding him above those of the rest of the country (and the rest of the world, especially). Let's not act like his administration was simply inept and clueless: just happening to attack Iraq for no purpose whatsoever; or accidentally taking days to respond to Katrina. Those were their standard policy decisions. It was the same with Reagan and Bush 1, after all. All of these presidencies might look like failures if you actually look at what they did for the average American, but as far as advancing the goals of the elite they did pretty damn well. Q0 (talk) 11:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Terry frightens me. His comment replies are worse than the article. How many like him are there in the US? Scream!! (talk) 12:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Pretending that Bush's response to Katrina was part of a grand scheme is exactly the sort of asinine allegation I'd prefer we avoid. Phiwum (talk) 13:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
How exactly is not caring and thus doing nothing about something a "grand scheme"? Are you suggesting that he actually did want to help but didn't know it was possible... or didn't know how to go about doing it, or had a scheduling conflict (and thus ended up celebrating McCain's birthday instead)? At some point you really start stretching reality by attributing everything to incompetence. I mean, how many instances can you think of where the Bush administration did something that showed they actually cared about the average person (let alone the poor)?
And, really, it doesn't have to be either overt malice or incompetence. Willful negligence fits best here. Remember, it was "George Bush doesn't care about black people", not "George Bush wants black people to die". Q0 (talk) 17:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Grey's Law explains most Bush-Related conspiracy theories. TheLateGatsby (talk) 14:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I mostly agree, but RW's page on Grey's Law claims we shouldn't care whether it's malice or incompetence behind the action. In political discourse, it is dangerous to attribute to malice what can be equally well explained by incompetence. It's far more difficult to reach common ground if we claim that the other guy wishes to do us harm than if we claim that he is misguided. (This is why people say that certain attacks on Obama -- like Hurlbutt's silly fantasies -- are truly despicable. They serve to make dialogue nigh impossible.) Phiwum (talk) 15:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
The hits just keep on coming: "Yes, I am seriously suggesting that a bunch of amateurs, returning fire, presumably after the cinema operators had the presence of mind to stop their projector and turn on the lights, with everyone else having the presence of mind (as some of them did) to duck and cover, would be a good thing. It would defeat the enemy. And it would do it without having to wait for the coppers to arrive."
"And who decides what checks and balances are necessary against private citizens? Listen and learn: in America, the people are the primary source of power. From the people flow all power in our society. At least, that is how it is supposed to work." (in response to a claim that guns should be allowed, as long as applicants meet certain criteria)
"Before you bring automobile operating licensure into the debate, let me tell you right now that the government’s role in road building, a role that it has historically forced private operators out of, taints the debate. Yes, something called, over here, a Division or Commission of Motor Vehicles sets standards for how to drive a car safely. But that is for one reason, and one reason only: the government enforces a monopoly on road building, operation, and policing." So... if roads were private, you wouldn't need a driving license? --Psygremlin (talk) 16:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
"Private operators"? Since when? The Roman roads were built by the legions... TheLateGatsby (talk) 16:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
And are roads really all build by government monopoly? If I built, say, a housing development called "MDB Estates" (ooops, lets go for classy "The Estates at MDB"), I'd be responsible to build the roads in it. MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) 16:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
It's more applicable to talk about who pays for the continuing maintenance of the road surface, the storm drainage and sewer systems they drain in to, the road signs, the margins, etc. etc. There are private roads that are either maintained by the company they serve or a residents association, but most roads are maintained and owned by the government. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 18:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The stupid continues to flow. David Koresh was the good guy and something about roads and alternative medicine and od knows what else. --Psygremlin (talk) 13:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

"Obama threatened just that when he said, “You didn’t build that.” He meant, “You did not earn it; I therefore have the authority to take it from you.” is there anyway I can block a site so I can no longer visit it? I might just terminally headdesk myself if I engage this paranoid lunatic any more. --Psygremlin (talk) 15:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Terry thinks the Speaker may be being blackmailed.[edit]

Boner Boehner is either being blackmailed or he's a con artist. Stay classy, Dr. Hurlbutt. Stay classy. Theory of Practice "the standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies." 02:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Childish insults? Frequent and historically illiterate use of the word "Marxist"? Constitution read exceptionally poorly and used mostly as a prop to demand the things the author wants? Yep, that's a Nick PurplePeopleEater article. He should really stop signing himself "The Eagle", I'd suggest "The Beano" might be a more appropriate sobriquet. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 05:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
It's still somewhat disconcerting when you realise that Terry is probably the sanest contributor to his blog. --Psygremlin (talk) 08:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
He's trying to catch up, though. Give the man some credit. --Kels (talk) 20:17, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

capture tags...?[edit]

Is it possible to use capture tags around links to Terry Tossbotty's CN&V blog? So we can read his ghastly articles (and Nick Puspimple's) without him getting paid-per-view. The Real James Brown (talk) 12:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

He's not paid per view. just don't click the ads. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 12:12, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Oh good. I thought Tossbotty got paid a few ¢¢¢ every time someone looked at the garbage on his blog. Glad I'm wrong. The Real James Brown (talk) 17:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, I think some ads are pay-per-view too, but ad-blocking plugins usually cover those. (And for whatever it's worth, I think capturebot works on Terry's site...but the bot itself is down at the moment.) (talk) 12:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Seeing as capturebot isn't working atm, what'd be the point? Try screenshotting it yourself. SophieWilder 21:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Will the Lamestream Media cover this story that I got in the Lamestream Media?[edit]

Andy is pathetic. Once again, he wondersimg whether the media will mention a story that he surely got from the damn media. It's even found in that bastion of liberalism, the New York Timesimg. — Unsigned, by: Phiwum / talk / contribs

Er, uh, why did my four tildes appear as four tildes? Am I totally brainfarting on Wiki syntax or something? (Phiwum) — Unsigned, by: Phiwum / talk / contribs
(edit conflict) She's been getting tons of coverage. Sometimes I wonder how exactly Andy gets his news. And she's probably a Muslim, so it's funny that he is mentioning her favorably. He removed some guy from the Best Conservative Athletes page for being a Muslim, after all. — Unsigned, by: Brxbrx / talk / contribs
huh. Can't see any markup that would bork it. Must be post-upgrade weirdness — Unsigned, by: Brxbrx / talk / contribs
You didn't close the capture tag, doorknob. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 05:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
How is that a 'pro-life message' anyway? Peter This is not my first temporal anomaly 06:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I would have thought a pregnant Islamic woman outside the home and carrying a gun would be the stuff of Andy's nightmares. Either that or his sick, sick fantasies. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 06:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Ah! Thanks for the gentle reminder, Jeeves. I am, indeed, a doorknob. Phiwum (talk) 06:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Pregnancy is pro-life and liberals hate it. Don't forget they're pro-abort, which means they won't be happy until every single pregnancy on Earth is terminated surgically. Whoover (talk) 14:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm so out of touch, I didn't even know that "being 8 months pregnant" or "being openly homosexual" are Olympic sports. Random surfer (talk) 16:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I kinda want to see Olympic Homosexuality now. The judging would be pretty hard, I imagine. X Stickman (talk) 00:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The Next Big CP Conspiracy[edit]

Ok so, Im just going to assume Obama wins the election (which seems to be most likely bar some utterly nightmarish fuckup by Obama or a massive economic clusterfuck at the wrong time) and Andy's one true love (whom he has NEVER EVER doubted) Mitt Romney fails and becomes a laughing stock, as well as Andy's "We represent the silent majority" schtick being painfully dented once again.

What I wonder, is just what bugfuck inane conspiracy theory messieurs AndyPandy, Pitchanus, and Kenny will come up with to explain this horrifying eventuality.

In my opinion the biggest possibilities are

- Electoral Fraud: Possibly aided by the UN/Muslim Brotherhood and the lamestream black hole loving leftist media, Obama will be accused of having stuffed ballot boxes, bribed officials, let in hordes of mexican and canadian illegals and given them the vote, and acting like the subhuman afro-muslim dictator everyone knows him to be.

- Mitt being a "Deep cover liberal" who purposely threw the election: As a long time RINO atheistic heretic, Mitt is prime material to be accused of intentional treachery to the holy republican party, and to the Christian constitution, who intentionally sabotaged his own campaign after blackmailing true conservatives like Gingrich to drop out, aided by that insidious abortionist Santorum.

- Obama blackmailing Mitt to lose: Knowing how islamist atheists have no soul and will do any evil to spread the atheist caliphate, it would not be too much to assume Obama threatened Romney's family using the New Black Panther party to make him throw the election

- Because Satan: They utterly break with any semblance of reality and declare the devil to be responsible for this eventuality, and become ever more Rapture obsessed as they claim the end times is upon us, and that obama will soon start rounding up white americans and sending them to obese atheist breeding camps

But what do you think they will come up with to explain another failure of the godsent conservatives? Also (on a Chris Chan related note none of you need concern yourselves with) Hello Lumber Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 18:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Electoral fraud/New Black Panthers intimidating white folks at the polls/Obama's big money/ACORN. Instead of the real problem; like the Dems in 2004, the Republicans are planning on people voting AGAINST someone instead of having a candidate people want to vote FOR. Theory of Practice "the standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies." 18:28, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Nah, nothing so weird. Mittens was a dirty RINO who couldn't rally the One True Conservative vote. All that means is that Obama will carry on setting up the Marxist Muslim atheist caliphate and open the door for Pres Santorum in 2016. Psygremlin (talk) 18:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I dunno about "Pres Santorum", it seems Andy took a real disdain for him last time for reasons I can only speculate on given how fekking identical Santorum's idiocy is to Andy's (my own theory is some possible bad blood between Phyliss and El Santo). I guess it will boil down to whether Andy's disdain of Mittens is enough to offset his obsessive hatred of the Kenyan, because if not I have little doubt as to the creation of a brand new and unspeakably idiotic conspiracy theory trying to explain how Andy's (and therefore God's) most hated enemy could win once again Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 19:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Santorum was briefly the crowd favorite over At CP on account of not being Romney and being most in the lead compared to romney, thats the extent of Andys interest in him. And what Psy said, though i can see Terry going along with the "Ballot stuffing democrats" line. --Mikal Harass Follow 19:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
There will be no President Santorum. Some time during the tenure of the merciful, compassionate Marxist Muslim atheist caliphate he will swing by Pickatinny Arsenal, filch enough shoulder-fired defensive weapons of anti-aricraft missile to gain the interest of a small scruffy band of minions, and spend the rest of his miserable life on the run in the Allegheny Mountains. Heh. Santorum on the run. Does anyone think that Andy's blog will still be spinning in 2016? To steal the punch line from an old story, "by then, I could die, the King could die, or the donkey could die..." Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 19:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
10 years later? Sure it has a chance, though god knows what insanity will be on it. Will we still care about CP in 2016? Probably not if the last two years have been any indication--Mikal Harass Follow 19:25, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure people will still be arguing about whether WIGO:CP should be mothballed or not. Vulpius (talk) 21:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
We've been predicting the end of CP for more than half its lifetime. Andy, Ken and Karajou have nowhere else to go. As long as the payments are kept up, it'll live. SophieWilder 21:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
It's gotta be an election fraud. Didn't they claim that Harry Reid rigged his election because he won by an amount outside of some poll's margin of error (which I'm sure Andy takes to be the absolute largest possible difference between actual and projected results)? I'm sure Obama will win 54%-45% or something, and Andy will say, "But what about that poll in August that showed a 51%-46%!? ELECTION FRAUD!" Carlaugust (talk) 23:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm....I never thought about it in terms of conspiracy theories. I just thought that if Obama wins, Andy will say "Conservapedia proven right again! We should have picked a true conservative!" But yeah...that'll be interesting...If I had to, though, I'd bet on election fraud. --Andy Franklinson (talk) 00:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
My 2 1/2 cents says that Mittens' loss will be explained as the failure of the GOP to nominate "a true conservative", and that everyone better watch out for the Tea Party over the next four years. An Obama win will also hand Andy what he actually wants - four more years of being able to whip up the conservative base with FUD over Obama instead, of having to do spin control defending Romney's policies. (The irony there is that if Romney wins, EVERY failure on his part will be blamed on Obama, even as they've been saying Obama has to stand on his record regardless of how deep Bush put this nation in the hole). --DinsdaleP (talk) 03:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, Ed.[edit]

"Unlike liberals, Conservatives are willing to admit their mistakes; they don't hide differences of opinion; they concede the existence and value of other perspectives than their own." Exact quote. He makes this remark on a page that sysops keep trying to manipulate, while Conservative is blocking and oversighting reversions in RC. Oh, remember the spat he had with AugustO? Must have been so long ago...
Tuzki-UGH.gifTuzki-UGH.gifTuzki-UGH.gif (Can't find the head exploding gif, so this'll do) AndyToad.gifNorsemanCyser Melomel 01:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of admitting things, on the topic of the Muslim sniper who's conservative because she's pregnant, Jpatt and Andy are going on about how they're always right. "you cite NYT but is there any discussion from NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, WaPo, LAtimes on the athlete in question?" In case anybody with access wishes to answer this query, here are ABC, CBS, HufPo, LAT, NPR, WaPo and CNN. It might be fun to watch them make up why this still proves Conservapedia right. Whoover (talk) 03:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I notice you talk alot Whooever, but the productive contributions are lacking... im afraid im going to have to ban you for being a talkative liberal.Mikal Harass Follow 04:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

User: Conservative, there's a word for people who make fun of people's weight.[edit]

That word is "bully." You're a really horrible little person. Theory of Practice "the standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies." 02:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I hope this isn't news to you.--ThunderstruckA Bastard Poster, For Bastard People 15:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
You mean, "I hope this isn't news to you, you obese atheist pig." Q0 (talk) 18:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this is the first time Ken has pointed and said, "Look at that fatty! Har! Har!" without suggesting that the person in question was an atheist, a lesbian or a member of any other group Ken finds "un-Christian". This is a new low.Spud (talk) 08:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh Andy[edit]

Still bitter about Becks carrying the torch,img while Tebow is a nobody? And they dared to take a pic of a basketball player who actually won something? Wow! Oh and get over Tiger - you know the guy who just finished 3rd in the British Open. Also, you provide no link for him missing the cut in an obscure PGA tournament... cos the only reference I can find is to a missed cut on Jul 7th. So I assume you're lying through your teeth again. Oh yes, and Tiger has missed 6 cuts in his career. And earned $99 million in prize money. Sounds way over-rated to me. --Psygremlin (talk) 15:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The only thing I can gather is that Tiger didn't even play in this tournament. Although he left his wording obscure enough that if questioned, he can state he didn't mean the one currently going on, but some previous one. Aboriginal Noise with 4 M's and a silent Q 17:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
one question - what does an 8 month preggers athelete have to do with conservatism. Are all pregnant women conservative?--Green mowse.pngGodotL'important c'est d'aimer 18:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
(1)Liberals never carry a pregnancy to term. Never.
(2)Some humans are born.
So, all births are from conservative women. Carlaugust (talk) 23:22, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I am amazed that Andy hasn't said anything about the Olympics opening ceremony celebrating everything that's worst about atheistic Britain. While watching the celebration of the NHS, I couldn't help thinking "I bet Andy's hating this". He must have been shouting "Filthy socialists!" and then that Satanist J.K. Rowling showed up. Oh, well. I guess if Andy hasn't said anything about it by now, he never will.Spud (talk) 08:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes! Another thing CP has ruined for me. But my first thought was how confused he must have been. It opened with four hymns for the four nations, had various other prayers and hymns scattered throughout, and then the NHS! In his black and white world it must have blown his brain up. Ajkgordon (talk) 18:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Easter Island heads[edit]

This one made me giggle, especially the fact that it's under "Does God Have a Sense of Humour?" (I add the British U simply to spite Andy). In his quest to prove god is omnipresent and all powerful, Andy reduces him to basically being a graffiti artist tagging some island with crappy looking heads. Also, for any interested, this is one theory on how the heads were moved to where they're placed (or buried, really, since the heads actually have shoulders and a torso that is buried below the ground). So Andy doesn't know what he's talking about, part infinity. P.S. how fun is to actually hear people yelling "Heave! Ho!" when performing a manual task in real life? Very fun, is the answer to that. X Stickman (talk) 06:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

And nominative determinism is just God having a laff. Utterly bizarre. --Psygremlin (talk) 08:20, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Wait, what?[edit]

If you look hard enough the funny will comeimg. Theory of Practice "the standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies." 15:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Holy shit. Clicking onwards, that's about three minutes of my life I will never get back, and I don't regret a single second. Where is capturebot when I have a job for it? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
You have unrealistic expectations of a guy who seems dissociated from reality so much of the time that people can only express amazement when he's coherent. Every factual claim he makes here is objectively false, every opinion so poorly informed or worse. Spending under Dems is lower than under Republicans. GDP increases while unemployment, deficit, and inflation decrease. Obama's decreased gov't spending, not increased it, but you'll hear nothing but lies from the right. And reform? This is a joke right? Were they honest about it, the best the right could say is that there's been no reform because they don't like what Obama got through on his own and what he continued implementing from Bush's presidency. Oh right. And they've successfully shifted lines toward the center, and hence away from meaningful reform in my view, by intransigently stonewalling in Congress. This liar would do well to look at our national recovery from the great depression and on to WW II, and knock off the ad hominems and feigned revulsion at John Maynard Keyne's personal life and actually engage the reality that empowering workers is a far more effective way to stimulate the economy than coddling business. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 16:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Right - I'm an idiot. StarFish (talk) 19:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Not really. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Capped. That caption is probably him restoring something from some previous trolling, but it's priceless anyways... Theory of Practice "the standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies." 22:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Awesome. It's still there too. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 12:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

What's this?[edit]

Is Ken implying creationism isn't science, and isn't backed up by science?img Did someone show CMI some evidence and forced them through their escape hatch?

By the way, Ken, which translation of the Bible would you say is God's inerrant word? There are so many to choose from...--"Shut up, Brx." 04:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

If Ken's stopped believing in science, he'll have to rewrite all those pages about how being fat is bad for you.Spud (talk) 08:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Really Ed?[edit]

Yep, it's the Liberals Who are using the Shooting for gain! (Which, btw, there have been and they are terrible for doing it) No Conservatives at all. None at all--Mikal Harass Follow 08:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

How did I miss this before? Anyhow, what a totally blind remark. Both sides have been clamoring for political gain from this tragedy, some even before there was a body count, and I'd imagine some before they even knew the name of the shooter. Aboriginal Noise with 4 M's and a silent Q 22:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Faster! Harder! Deeper![edit]

Let the spinning begin!!

Gay-marriage lovin' South Africa won gold, which means they've already topped their medal count from the last Olympics. And Spain are out of the soccer, but underperforming and increasingly atheistic Britain are through to the next round. --Psygremlin (talk) 10:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Not through yet - we need a draw against Uruguay to be certain. rpeh •TCE 10:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
"Increasingly atheistic Britain." I like the sound of that. A good "blankety blank name" formula that sums up CP's perception of our country. El TajDon't make me do stuff 11:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm surprised CP hasn't whined that the opening ceremonies included a tribute to the NHS. I'd expect Andy to have griped about glorifying socialized medicine, and Terry to spin some conspiracy that Obama forced the Brits to promote government run health care (and probably claim the Big Bad Barack also insisted Voldemort be defeated with magic and not guns.) MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) 11:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
And now Andy's put across the top of the Main Page "Politically correct Brits have trouble filling seats for the 2012 Summer Olympics amid so much censorship of the athletes (link to an article he didn't read from NPR). Tim Tebow and other outspoken Christains have no such difficulty." The truth is that there's plenty of demand for tickets for some events (not for others) but there's been a massive cock up in allocating them. In Andy's world, people don't want to see the Olympics because they think that Greek athlete wasn't being racist and has been unfairly punished.
It's also further proof that he can no longer write the word "Christian' without sticking "outspoken" in front of it.Spud (talk) 12:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Of course. The religious sect that includes every member of congress and the senate, including the POTUS, is obviously being oppressed. When will someone hear the tiny voice of Christian Americans? --Sasayaki (talk) 12:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Let's get this straight. By and large the empty seats are not the result of a British cock-up. As part of the agreement for getting the games a large number of seats have to be given to the national sports federations of the competing teams and they simply have not bothered to turn up - I would imagine that many would only be interested for their own country's participants. Where were the American officials when Britain played Switzerland in the tennis? As these sports federations are VIPs in Olympic terms then their seats are usually in the prime locations. LOCOG are doing their best to get any unwanted tickets returned to them so that they can distribute them to the general public but it's really up to the IOC to get their members to take more of an interest or hand back unwanted tickets. So far, ticket sales at these games have outstripped all previous games. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.Moderator 12:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
The Brits have nothing to do with expelling the athlete - her own federation did it. And good thing too. Good to see Andy openly showing his racist bent. --Psygremlin (talk) 13:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I wonder if Andy would keep banging on about it if instead of a Greek athlete making a crack about African immigrants to her country it had been an American one making one about Mexican immigrants to hers.
And I suppose I was oversimplifying but I never said it was a British cock-up, just a cock-up. Spud (talk) 13:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Andy really should read past the headline...[edit]

Andy thinksimg that Ryan Lochte is less self-centered than Phelps. But what does the first line of his source say? "Ryan Lochte strolled the deck of the Olympic Aquatics Centre wearing diamonds in his mouth". Also, his shoes have his name inscribed on the soles. A paragon of selfless conservatism. Carlaugust (talk) 01:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Andy should also click on some of the links within the story. Here is a photo of Lochte's diamond studded Stars and Stripes "grill". Not showy at all. Makes him look like a paragon of humility. --Horace (talk) 02:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Mind you, in fairness, maybe he just thinks it's a bit of fun. I could buy that. I just dislike Andy's (all too predictable) spurious attacks designed to push his spurious ideology. --Horace (talk) 02:20, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
In Andy's world - being a conservative makes you win; also, winning makes you a conservative. Carlaugust (talk) 02:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Andy's fucking stupid "media-promoted" nonsense is one of his most ridiculous "insights". As though it's somehow strange for people to talk about the most decorated Olympian in US history. Someone who could very well take over the record for most medals all time. Why would anyone talk about him? Idiot. Hiphopopotamus (talk) 03:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Also, his rooting against American athletes drives me fucking insane beyond belief. Hiphopopotamus (talk) 03:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
The only true patriotic Americans are Christian conservatives. It is a Christian conservative value to root for the underdog. In America, American athletes favored to win everything, just because they're Americans. Therefore, it is the epitome of American patriotism to root against American athletes. Random surfer (talk) 05:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Lochte is almost comically self-centered. His tagline for the 2012 games was "This is my time." Andy is never wrong. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
On the WP page about Ryan Lochte: 'Lochte later said, "My last Olympics (in Beijing), I had a girlfriend -- big mistake. Now I'm single, so London should be really good. I'm excited."' Truly an inspiration to conservative youth. The Real James Brown (talk) 16:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

You know what would have made the opening ceremony better?[edit]

After all the celebration of British culture and heritage, we should have had Tim Tebow lighting the torch and then tebowingimg. Of course! It was so obvious. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 12:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

That would have been better if it had come from Andy, but at least we had Abraham Lincoln in the opening ceremony! Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.Moderator 12:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Oh, c'mon -- Conservative was trying to be funny -- see the smiley face. I think he was prodding Andy a bit, even.
Even at the depths of CP madness, I don't think they'd insist an American star of a non-Olympic sport light the torch at a British Olympics. MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) 12:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Hm, he can't seriously believe that. Instead of one American footballer that most Brits have probably never heard of, we went with seven youngsters nominated by our finest athletes that can't be branded overrated because, as an example, Kelly Holmes got the long distance double in 2004, the third person to do so ever. They actually win shit. Even Kenny has to realize that that's a much better choice than Tim bloody Tebow, who yes he's better than average, but is only really noteworthy because of his overly outward-projected Christianity.
"Tim bloody Tebow, who yes he's better than average"...Since when? He was ranked 34/34 last season. -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Hm. Two things. Number one: My mistake. Number two: If he is 34/34, what the hell is he getting hyped up for? --جئت ورأيت أنا القرف gross, isn't it? 09:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
If it's any consolation, Kenny, the American street preachers are here in force. I had to outmanoeuver two to get into Hyde Park today. --جئت ورأيت أنا القرف gross, isn't it? 13:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, weird as it may be, I think Ken made a funny at Andy's expense. --Psygremlin (talk) 13:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Yep, Ken cracked a funny. Not like him to be fucking funny, is it?Spud (talk) 13:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Between that and the "females" crack above, maybe he's outing himself, finally? Theory of Practice "the standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies." 13:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Wasn't the females thing added by Sharon? I think it was included because Ken's been oversighting stuff. --Psygremlin (talk) 13:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

It was added by someone, but that's not Sharon's style--she plays it straight. Theory of Practice "the standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies." 13:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Andy's whole "From Pagan Roots to Christian Achievement" Olympics fantasy would seem to have a snag: China. Does their medals success show that state-mandated abortions and militant atheism are no match for the goodness that accrues from not having gay marriage? Or is it something else? As of today North Korea plus France have more golds than we do. Gotta be God's sense of humor. Whoover (talk) 22:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Christianity is totally expanding rapidly in China, didn't you hear? Sheesh. Peter This is not my first temporal anomaly 23:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
The reason that some communist nations do well in the Olympics (such as China this year) is because they use slave-training methodsimg, according to Andy. --Andy Franklinson (talk) 10:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Quick! Somebody grab those goalposts as they go whizzing by. The crazy is getting stronger in Andy, but at least now he can discount the results by the Chinese. --Psygremlin (talk) 10:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Andy's problem is that when the Chinese medalists talk about their training, it sound more like Ken's Protestant Work Ethic. Whoover (talk) 14:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Laughing at teams that don't win...[edit]

A Conservapedia valueimg. Theory of Practice "the standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies." 04:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

If that country is Britain, yes. Is Andy the only American with a chip on his shoulder because some 240 years ago his country was a colony of another country?
And by the way, Andy. It's been four sodding days since the opening ceremony. It's a bit early to say that Britain hasn't won any gold medals. you wanker! Spud (talk) 07:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it's that, I think he hates Great Britain because it's the most noisy English speaking country in Europe to criticize the US. If he had any idea what Danes, Germans, French, Spanish, Swedes and Italians are saying about America, he'd think Great Britain is leaning towards conservatism and continental Europe was a communist hell-hole. --K. (talk) 09:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Dammit Andy, please just say "England". I don't pay attention to the Olympics, so I had to look up which country he meant... (talk) 08:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
@Bon, England is one country of the four which Team GB represent (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) so calling Team GB "England" is incorrect. Andrew Schlafly, History Teacher™, doesn't actually know the difference but occasionally gets it right. El TajDon't make me do stuff 13:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Ah, I see, thanks. He called it "the host nation", so I figured he meant either "England" or "the UK". (talk) 14:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, it is "Team Great Britain and Northern Ireland". The Country is The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, where Great Britain is England, Scotland and Wales. CS Miller (talk) 19:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
You've got to love the way he's deliberately ignoring the fact that China is top of the medal table. rpeh •TCE 08:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Also, if the results are anywhere near last year's, then the medals per capita tables will be rather interesting. I mean, expecting a rather insignificant island off the North West coast of Europe (I can say that because I'm a Brit) to get any medals is asking quite a bit. Given the resources available to them then the "underachievers" are.... Bad Faith (talk) 10:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Currently (as of 12:30pm UTC) if you go by the gold metal counts, which is what is important to Andy at this time, the top five are: Socialist atheistic China (9), good ol' USA under Obama (5), Socialist France (3), communist dictatorship North Korea (3), with Italy, South Korea, Russia, and Kazakhstan (MUSLIMS!) tied for fifth (2). Of course if this information cannot be spun in some propagandist way, it will be fully censored on CP.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Heh. I see a 16-year-old Chinese girl was faster than Andy's new mancrush Ryan Lochte. Yanks call the whaambulance. --Psygremlin (talk) 12:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Is that the same Ryan Lochte who has 130 pairs of shoes? Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.Moderator 12:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm surprised there hasn't been more fallout from him losing twice to France's Agnel: first in the last leg of the 4x100 freestyle relay; and then in the 200 freestyle the next day.
Also, it just wouldn't be an Olympic year without the US accusing someone of cheating. Q0 (talk) 13:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm an American, so it's totally okay for me to say thisDo You Believe That?, but I really really can't stand Lochte. He's a completely self-involved asshole, and it was very, very satisfying to see Agnel beat him. It's a national embarrassment every time they show his giant closet, especially considering the stories being shared about other athletes who could barely afford to compete and/or train. — Unsigned, by: ORavenhurst / talkDo You Believe That? 13:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Sarah Robles comes to mind, I read an article about how she struggles to pay the rent. Not that Andy cares -after all, she's a poor, fat (and therefore atheist) woman outside the home who isn't pregnant or competing in shooting events. Get right with Jesus, Robles! As for Lochte... if he's a self-involved asshole, he's in good company among athletes. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 14:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello Kenimg - good to see you throwing Spain under the bus. --Psygremlin (talk) 16:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Yep, Spain is socialist because it's ruled by the People's Party. Never mind they're the European center-right. And still no mention of China's golds. Whoover (talk) 16:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
That'll be why Spain won Euro 2012 one month ago. It was a shock to see Spain going out of the Olympics. CS Miller (talk) 16:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
These are people who think Obama is a Marxist. They must think that here in Europe we all go around calling each other comrade and plotting to behead anyone with more than 200 euros on their person. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 16:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Don't you? You're crushing my fantasies. Whoover (talk) 16:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, it's the weekend entertainment for the proletariat. And then we all sing the Internationale. It's in the Treaty of Lisbon. Ajkgordon (talk) 19:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Ken — shut up. The US didn't even qualify. --K. (talk) 17:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Ken's evidence that Spain is socialist: bank bailoutsimg. It sounds loony, but it makes perfect sense. Obama allowed bank bailouts. Obama is a socialist. Bank bailouts are socialist. Whoover (talk) 20:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

And Great Britain now has a Gold Medal! In Rowing, which Andy doesn't believe to be a sport. TheLateGatsby (talk) 12:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

And cycling. So logically that must a socialist non-sport too. Cantabrigian (talk) 15:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Ahhh, giving billions of taxpayer dollars to large, privately owned, for-profit financial institutions. Spain truly is a Marxist utopia. It reminds me of what Lewis Black said when Glenn Beck was comparing bailouts to Naziism.
Beck - "First they came for the banks..."
Black - "When they came for the Jews, they came to kill them. When they came for the banks, they came to give them trillions of dollars!"
Anyways...where was I? </tangent> Carlaugust (talk) 20:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Alas for CP's iron-sure predictions, underperforming Andy Murray of atheistic Britain has beaten one of the Greatest Conservative Sports stars Novak Djokovic in straight sets. MrChris (talk)

An Olympics contest.[edit]

Here's a game to play with yourself. How many times does the term "atheis*" (whether -ist, -ism, or -istic") appear in CP's article on the games? Award a million internets to the person who gets the closest without going over. Theory of Practice "the standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies." 22:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you want us to guess or count? My guess, 37. Aboriginal Noise with 4 M's and a silent Q 22:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
So, that's just on the article titled "2012 Olympics", not on its talk page, the Main Page or its talk page? There are eleven days of the games left and only 9 occurences of "atheist", "atheism" and "atheistic" on the article at the moment. One of those says that officially atheistic China has won thirteen gold medals, so that one will probably soon disappear. My guess is 16. Spud (talk) 07:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I refuse to play with myself in a public forum. Redchuck.gif ГенгисGum diseaseModerator 07:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand the game. Are we guessing the number of atheis* on the page right now or when the Olympics concludes? Anyway I guess 11. ONE / TALK 08:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The idea must surely be guessing now how many will be on the page when the Olympics end. You can count how many are on the page now (and I did). Spud (talk) 09:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I just want to say that gay-marriage loving le Clus beat self-centered Phelps. That is all. And 42. That is always the answer.--Psygremlin (talk) 08:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I've not been keeping up. Why does CP say Michael Phelps is self-centred? Commentators on the (admittedly atheist and socialist) BBC say he's a modest guy who's keen to help bring on young swimmers. Whereas CP's toyboy Ryan Lochte (sp?) is allegedly a git. The Real James Brown (talk) 10:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I guess 20. --Andy Franklinson (talk) 13:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm going with 12. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I think my point was--hey, there's a word that doesn't tend to appear very often, if at all, in most accounts/analyses of sporting events. The fact that it appears at all (I got 15 with a Control-F while looking for a particular passage) says so much about Andy. That's all. Theory of Practice "the standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies." 14:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Pardon my ignorance, but is Andy into that whole "Atheism and <insert whatever thing here>"? I thought that was Ken. I mean, I'm sure that Andy believes it as well, though perhaps not to the degree that Ken does, but does he write that stuff? --Andy Franklinson (talk) 16:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
They both do. Andy tends to focus on how atheism affects real-life outcomes, especially in sport, but also in terms of personal achievement. User: conservative tends to tie it to unrelated things like dog-fucking and obesity. Theory of Practice "the standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies." 16:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh that's right, Andy's into the Sports and Christianity thing. I remember now... --Andy Franklinson (talk) 17:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

As of now, the top ten medal countries are China(30), US(28), Japan(17), Germany(13), South Korea(12), France(12), Russia(11), Italy(9), Britain(9), Australia(8). How would Andy categorize these? One guess: Slavery, Jesus, Fanaticism, Overthrowing the Liberal Hitler, Capitalist Jesus, Who the Fuck Knows, Slavery, Jesus, Host Nation Effect, Even Though Religion Matters Less to Aussies than Russians Monkey Posters. Anyone have any other guesses? Whoover (talk) 20:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)