Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive302

This is an archive page, last updated 10 November 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>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <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)

Andy's Definition of Demagoguery

Demagoguery is not being comfortable with the part of God's plan that includes getting pregnant from rape. And Conservapedia predicted this would be the Leftist reaction. Whoover (talk) 18:04, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Say what you will about Andy's framing of this issue, but frankly, he's more consistent than a politician (faint praise, indeed!). If abortion is wrong because it takes the life of an innocent fetus and such beings have a right to life, as most pro-lifers argue then what does it matter whether the cause is rape or incest? The fetus itself is equally innocent and equally deserving of a right to life in these cases. In this occasion, Andy's basic position is not hypocritical. If abortion is wrong for the usually stated reasons, then it's also wrong in rape cases. Phiwum (talk) 18:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

That's all true, but beside the point. Andy is talking about people he knows don't share that view. If "leftists" don't accept that a blastula has a soul, they too are consistent in their horror at telling a violated woman that she's received a gift from God. Unless you believe that Obama has had a visit from God informing him he's wrong, which he chooses to ignore for political purposes, there is no demagoguery in his reaction. Whoover (talk) 18:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd love to know what Little Phyl thinks of her dad's view, or for that matter, what Andy's reaction would be if Little Phyl did get knocked up, especially if she was hypothetically raped by a black man. I think the chances of Big Phyl or Andy allowing God to give the family a little coloured child would be zero. --PsyGremlin^{話しなさい} 11:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Steady. Isn't that too personal? Ajkgordon (talk) 12:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

A-log? Is that you? --Sasayaki (talk) 21:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Whoover, thanks for your reply. I see your point now. Phiwum (talk) 18:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Ken, you're not a southerner...

Please stop trying to sound like one.

I do note, though... for once, Ken actually identified one of his supporters by name. It seems that the church he lists is real.

So, let's be a little detective-y. Ken lists two names, Doctor James Thomas Kennedy and Doctor Robert Carter. The church's member directory is borken, so we can't use that. The home page doesn't list the pastor, except for a "Mark Liddle" on the picture of the sign.

They have a listing of sermons, and... a-ha! if you click "Show Filter" you can get a listing by preacher and... neither of the names Ken mentions are listed.

They do have an e-mail link for the pastor. I just asked if it's for real... aaaaannnnd the e-mail bounced.

So, if Ken's claims are for real, his affiliated with a church that can't even keep up an e-mail address for their pastor. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 11:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

A tidal wave is about to hit the SS Evolution in Alabama! See my irrelevant copy+pasted arguments HERE, HERE, and HERE. MDB, do you have a lack of machismo? :-) --Andy^{not Schlafly} 12:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and if you google "Doctor James Thomas Kennedy", the only ones you find are doctors of medicine, not theologians. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 13:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, those creationists love to trot out their diploma mill faux-PhDs at every opportunity. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 14:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Using the dullest tools for detecting plagiarism, we find "Doctor Joseph Thomas Kennedy" is another anonymous blogger[1]. His "contribution" to Ken's blog was a cut and paste from here[2]. London Grump (talk) 19:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

As a former quasi-Southerner (Okie) who loves Southern idioms and tries to pepper his speech with them, I've gotta say that the mule chewing on bumblebees thing is lame as hell. First, I've never personally heard it, though Google shows some hits (which is where Ken got it, surely), but it also just makes no damned sense. Slicker than owl shit on a brass doorknob? Sure, that's pretty slick and could happen. But a mule chewing on bumblebees? Man, that's just stupid. Phiwum (talk) 15:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm originally a Tennessean, and I never heard that one. "Madder'n an ol' wet hen" was my maternal grandmother's favorite. (She also used to say I could "drive an iron man crazy" when I was a misbehavin' young'un. My paternal grandmother used to say something abotu a "spoiled calf crying for buttermilk" when she thought the grandkids were asking for too much, but I never understood that one.) MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 16:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, though, if you want to get Southern, Ken, this one's for you. "That boy, ah say, that boy, is about sharp as a sack of wet mice." MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 16:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Love Foghorn Leghorn. "As bright as a bucket of mud." Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 16:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, Ken never claims that Dr. Kennedy and Dr. Carter are preachers at the church. But thurr probly hillbillys anyway, right, rashunal guys? --184.105.253.2 (talk) 19:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone made fun of Kennedy or Carter for being Southerners? We've made fun at Ken's pathetic attempt to emulate Southern speech and we've commented that there are an awful lot of dubious theology PhDs out there in the evangelical community, but I don't see any regional jingoism here. In fact, two of the comments above are from more or less Southern folk (an Okie and a Tennessean). Aside from that, a very well-placed sensitivity you got there, son. Why, you're just as observant as a flea on a coon dog's tail in the hot summer son. (Okay, it's kinda hard to come up with these idioms, but I tried.) Phiwum (talk) 20:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The guy's name isn't James Kennedy, it's Joseph Kennedy. So that's strike one against Kendoll's supposed outreach, he can't even get they guy's name right. He's 85, and about as crazy as Kenny is. Whether Kendoll actually talked to him or not is highly debatable. He's been using a quote of his for years in his various spams, the same one he uses in the blog post. I'd strongly suspect that's where he got the idea to make this claim. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

It seems that Ken's knowledge of cultural differences comes exclusively from Looney Tunes. We've already discussed his Foghorn Leghorn impersonation. Now, he's channeling Speedy Gonzales "Wait until millions of Latin Americans find out that Señor Charles Darwin was a gringo who was muy loco! ... Olé! Olé! Olé!"^img I just hope that he gets a fictional French supporter next, because I was always fond of Pepe LePew. Phiwum (talk) 11:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't stand that moronic bastard. It was an insult to the intelligence that occupied valuable space and time that could have been occupied by something infinitely better like a Roadrunner cartoon, or even the friggin' test-card. It was the same brain-killing shit over-and-over again, without a single sign of an original idea, or anything approaching creativity. And Pepe LePew wasn't any better either…-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 18:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

With due respect, you couldn't stand repetitive entertainment so you would've preferred a Roadrunner cartoon? Okay, there were some original gags in many of those cartoons, but the premise itself was as repetitive as any of the great examples of chase-and-not-catch cartoons. Phiwum (talk) 18:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not that I can't stand repetitive entertainment, it's repetitive shit I can't stand, and for me that summed up Pepe LePew. And Pink Panther for that matter.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 22:17, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I can understand not liking Pepe LePew, but when you disparage the Pink Panther, you are dead to me. Phiwum (talk) 21:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

How about: "The mouse of creationism has stuffed a frying pan down the throat of the great big not-so-scary pussycat of Darwinism." The Real James Brown (talk) 14:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC) If you don't know what I'm referring to, you're just too young.

Or: "Creationism is on the march in France. These evolutionists are crazy!" The Real James Brown (talk) 14:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC) If you don't know what I'm referring to, may the sky fall on your head, by Toutatis!

Or again: "Your evolutionary arguments cannot harm me! My creationist wings are like a shield of steel!" The Real James Brown (talk) 15:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC) Tea-break's over...

Ed forgetting to sign his comments

A while ago, someone brought up (on this page) the question of whether Ed ever forgets to sign his comments. Someone else then said that since Ed was one of the first people to use a wiki, he probably wouldn't forget to sign his comments. Well, I was browsing random pages on CP, and came across this^img. I guess Ed sometimes does forget to sign his comments! (Sorry if someone already brought this up or if this is the wrong place to do so.) --Andy^{not Schlafly} 19:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Ed is an appalling wiki-editor. He routinely doesn't add categories, can't add references properly, abuses templates doesn't wiki-link, etc.- all from the man who is user #188 ay Wikipedia. He's a complete joke. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 21:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Ed is an appalling wiki-editor. He routinely doesn't add categories, can't add references properly, abuses templates doesn't wiki-link, etc.- all from the man who is user #188 ay Wikipedia. He's a complete joke. Skitt's Law in action! --Andy^{not Schlafly} 22:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

That should be the perils of iPad keyboards. Генгис^evolving 06:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this is an example of Skitt as it wasn't pointing out a particular mistake of Ed, just his general imbecility. Whereas Genghis. like most (but not all) editors here, manages to edit in a proficient and usually self-correcting manner, so the occasional typo is unremarkable. I wonder if there's a law for people who attempt to use Skitt's Law improperly? Pongo^{Orangutans are sceptical} 08:47, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Fine. It's a generalization of Skitt's Law in action. Happy now? --Andy^{not Schlafly} 11:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

It's in the Bible so it must be true

Linked from CP's MPR, there is this gem from Roseann Insanitary. Her clutching at straws is awesome in its desperation. The poet who wrote Genesis chapter 1 had a lovely metaphor of God creating the heavens as being like beating out a metal bowl and setting it over the Earth. According to Insanitary, the 'fact' that God stretched a supposed substance in this way means The Bible Knew All About The Inflationary Period Following The Big Bang. Wow. Except she ignores the fact that hyper-inflation lasted a fraction of a fraction of second, not a whole day, there were no waters on the Earth (or anywhere) immediately after the Big Bang, the sky isn't a big metal bowl... oh heck, just look for all the places where she ignores things that don't suit her and where she shows herself completely incapable of understanding a poetic metaphor. But hey, "the Bible isn’t a science book. Science books are often wrong and have to be revised; the Bible is always true and never changes." So she must be right. Cardinal Fang (talk) 19:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Terry about stars singing in the morning: "Maybe not today. And maybe not according to how we usually define the concept sound. But if you substitute music for another concept, i.e. signal, then a “song of the stars” becomes an apt metaphor." Oh boy.... --Andy^{not Schlafly} 19:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

What? The Bible has metaphors? I thought it was all LITERALLY true. - Генгис^mutating 19:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I think Terry's saying that star literally do make "sound"...if we extend our definition of sound. Or something. I don't know. My brain hurts. --Andy^{not Schlafly} 19:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7687286.stm Ajkgordon (talk) 08:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

See, it's kind of weird. I'm an author so I love the poetic metaphors and the like. The beaten out metal bowl... Kind of cool. Accurate? Hell no. So, I can totally understand digging that kind of cool, poetic nonsense, like saying "he appeared in a flash". It's not a literal flash, it's just fast. We get it.

But I'm always perplexed by the same people who say things like "Oh yeah the metal bowl thing is obviously a metaphore, of course it's not *real*. But do I hate gays? Yep, says so in my literally always perfect and timeless and correct Bible. Right next to not eating shrimp, but they're tasty so screw that, I'll just pretend like this part of my timeless, perfect, unchanging Bible doesn't exist.

In a way it's like reading Harry Potter and going, "This is literally true. Potter is a literal account of actual events and Harry really existed/exists, but Ron is just a metaphore. He's not real, obviously. I don't like Hagrid, so I just ignore any part of the book that has him in it. Furthermore Harry should have ended up with Hermione so I'm just going to pretend that they did-

Oh. Oh God.

They're shippers. Fundie brains operate on the same wavelength as fanfiction shippers. --Sasayaki (talk) 21:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Fundie brains operate? - Tygrehart

Fundie brains operate? That made me lol. --Andy^{not Schlafly} 00:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

You know, it is permissible to use quotes instead of channelling PJR. Pongo^{Orangutans are sceptical} 08:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I never knew that! --Andy^{not Schlafly} 11:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Is Romney cracking?

Andy seems to think that Romney has given up on Ohio which would be terrific news for O'Barmy (big state, lots of electoral votes, knife-edge marginal). Is there any truth in this? I thought I should ask because one can't always trust The Trustworthy Encyclopedia. Cardinal Fang (talk) 00:03, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Did Andy just refer to "the scourge of early voting?" Oh lord...WilliamR (talk) 04:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Romney hasn't given up on Ohio, he is just coming here to Wisconsin to campaign on Monday and it's for the first time since August. I know he spent the entire day in Ohio just this last Thursday. The original article, no surprise, doesn't say anything about Romney "giving up" Ohio, Andy just made that part up himself for reasons unknown to sane people. Just like his "the scourge of early voting" comment that Wisconsin is somehow "spared" from. Hate to break it to Il Duce, but here in cheeseland, we could vote since last Monday.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 08:39, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

When Andy talks about the "scourge of early voting," he's just parroting his Mommy. Andy uses Phyllis's two main arguments on CP's early voting page^img, and of course neither one of them give any evidence whatsoever of voter intimidation or voter fraud. --Tabrcg23 (talk) 13:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you favor or oppose the power of political parties?

This is the dumbest question^img Andy has ever thrown down. He gives only a short, bullshit, description of party politics and then believes he can grade the answer based upon the gibberish he has provided. Studying party politics took me months, years, of study and observation. No easy feat yet here is this Harvard educated lawyer trying to explain it in a sentence and grading hopeless home-schoolers in critiquing it. If it is this easy I want my $700 I paid to learn about this single topic back from the university I attended. Aceⁱ⁹ 00:59, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but you were taught by liberals who don't have the conservative power of concision. The only things it's really necessary to know about political parties is that Andy's gods were against them, but they provide a counterbalance to the great Satan of the Liberal Media. Those being the only two things that it is possible to know, it makes and interesting debate as to whether they're a good thing or not. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 01:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I feel so aggrieved. Sell the site to Ken and CMI. Jesus Andy, stop fucking pretending. Aceⁱ⁹ 01:25, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

"If everyone thought for himself, then how can anything be accomplished?"^img What's not insightful about that? Phiwum (talk) 01:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I spent, and still spend, thousands of dollars on my education. But then this prick, with his Harvard silver-spoon trust fund, rocks on in and lays the most resplendent vomit on his students and gets away with it. Fuck it makes me mad. Aceⁱ⁹ 01:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

"What role is the internet playing in the 2008 election?" Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 07:41, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Spoiler alert: the correct answer is "LAMESTREAM MEDIA!!!" 99.50.98.145 (talk) 10:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Spoiler alert 2: Check the year. Генгис^{Gum disease} 11:26, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh. Well, uh...maybe it's a history question (with him roleplaying as someone still in 2008, to explain the "is"). The media was lame back then too. 99.50.98.145 (talk) 03:55, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The Epistle to the Hebrews

So...if it was PERSONALLY and DIRECTLY written by Jesus himself, surely the epistle of Hebrews shouldn't need a conservative retranslation...*snicker* Obviously Andy could just use his ridiculous "language is getting more conservative" justification for his censorship of the Bible. I can only guess that some parodists will come in and start making draconian edits to the textWilliamR (talk) 19:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

AugustO certainly got his knickers^img in a twist...^img

larron (talk) 22:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Does AugustO have some pictures of Andy? How has he avoided being Damnatio memoriae by KJ or Uncle Ed? --Revolverman (talk) 22:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you blame him? I mean, assuming he's really who he claims to be, look at it from his point of view: you're a Christian, maybe a conservative, and a fairly intelligent guy. You catch word that there's an openly edited encyclopedia written from a Christian, conservative point of view. So you go check it out. You see that it's run by: a hateful bully; a cult member who's obsessed with movies about teenage girls; a guy who cannot read or write above a seventh-grade level and who openly calls for armed insurrection against the democratically-elected leader of the country; a guy who may also be a woman who may also be a multitude--he's not saying--who's obsessed with fat atheist bestiality freaks, and, running the whole show, a guy who wants to re-write the Bible to have it fit his point of view/who pulls "insights" out of his ass and calls them the truth. This, THIS, is what the greatest technological advancement in the production and diffusion of knowledge since Guttenberg has given you. That's gotta hurt. Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 22:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't blame him at all. Its kinda inspiring, in a small way. I just don't know how he seems so untouchable. Both Karjack and Ed poorwiki hate his guts, and have to be chomping at the bit to ban hammer him all the way back to the great flood. I have to assume Andy is keeping that from happen, but why? It is the same reason he lets Ken do his thing? --Revolverman (talk) 22:34, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Isn't "august" basically an open RW sock? (Of a certain user who used to have an account there for the same Andy nitpicking, always comments on augusto threads, and has the same occasionally slightly odd english?) Don't know why not banned.^{— Unsigned, by: Benod / talk / contribs}

Do you think of me? AugustO certainly is a fellow German and we similarly struggle with the English language. The main difference between us is that I don't speak any Greek: while I like to read what he is doing, I couldn't do it myself. larron (talk) 07:03, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Ha, I like how Andy's God speaks about himself in the third person^img and writes anonymously. I guess Jesus wouldn't be able edit CP. Also, the serfs point out some big holes^img in Andy's arguments bare assertions^img. --Night Jaguar (talk) 22:37, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

The great early Christian scholar Origen said about the authorship of Hebrews, "only God knows the truth". Wikipedia says that most serious modern theologians share that view. Does Schlafly have a hotline to the Almighty? Or is he a git? You decide. Cardinal Fang (talk) 22:54, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Talks about himself in third person and writes anonymously? My god, is Kendoll Jesus? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 04:30, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Andy even believes Jesus has a bad sense of humor!^img No wonder. You couldn't ban Jesus, even if he plastered the front page with advertisement to his blog or articles linking atheism and bestiality. --Night Jaguar (talk) 08:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm admittedly late to the party (and frankly not all that interested in the silliness at CP), but whoever said that Hebrews was "personally and directly written by Jesus himself"? As far as I know that's never been a serious proposal by anyone with any sense. The early church regarded it as likely (or at least possibly) having been written by Paul, though that view now is largely discounted. Doctor Dark (talk) 02:08, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

" whoever said that Hebrews was "personally and directly written by Jesus himself"?" Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 02:09, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Amazing. I see that my "anyone with any sense" proviso was spot on. Doctor Dark (talk) 02:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

As expected, Andy has started editing the Conservative Bible's Epistle to the Hebrews to fit his theory^img. --Night Jaguar (talk) 08:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

"See, after I properly edit translate this, its clear it was writen by Jesus!" I'd pay good mine to be able to walk in the head of Andy Schlafly and find out what makes it tick. --Revolverman (talk) 08:14, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

"I don't understand this part, so it's probably just Jesus being sarcastic."^img 99.50.98.145 (talk) 14:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I think we can prove Andy wrong with his own words. He has repeatedly called the Gospel of John the best written work of all time. Is John a better writer than God? Or did Jesus write the Gospel of John too? DickTurpis (talk) 15:26, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Wow, Andy's really given up his Catholic upbringing in favor of the certainty of his own insights. His latest argument: "Many have attributed the Epistle of James to a brother of Jesus, and if His brother wrote a letter, then why wouldn't Jesus?" Obviously, it's a stupid argument (if His brother wrote a letter, then so would Jesus), but my point is that an observant Catholic does not believe Jesus had any siblings. Phiwum (talk) 15:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Really. Even though Gal 1:19 says "But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother?" That seems pretty implicit to me. --PsyGremlin^Speak! 16:26, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Catholic theologians are nearly as crafty as Andy: wp:Brothers_of_Jesus#Roman_Catholic_view --larron (talk) 16:35, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Fucking sophisticated theology, how can you argue with that? Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 19:51, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I just had a thought...

....If liberal Protestant women are "whores," as Kenny calls them, shouldn't they naturally have bigger families? (Apologies if someone already brought this up.) --Andy^{not Schlafly} 11:21, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

No, Kenny boy seems to think they are addicted to abortions !. Naca (talk) 11:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

And they're cold fish. And lesbians. And barren because their wombs are beset with all manner of horrible sexually transmitted disease. 14:06, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

And men won't have sex with them because they're feminists. 14:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

And they all have breast cancer from those abortions and gay bowel disease from the fun with the rear entrance (can I say anal sex on here?) Naca (talk) 15:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I think 'buttsecks' is the polite term here. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 19:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Andy has picked his excuse for Romney's loss.

The "the GOP should have picked a True Conservative" excuse might come later, but right now, Romney lost the election because of early voting.^img. November 7th -- Conservapedia Proven Right. Wait for it. Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 13:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

The trouble with making so many conflicting opinions, though, is that yes, when the event happens one of them will probably be right, but anyone with a single brain cell, even if it's on time share with the guy who cleans out the public toilets in Gloucester, will pull out all the other predictions and get banned shortly before jamming them down Andy's throat and making him choke on it. --جئت ورأيت أنا القرف ^{gross, isn't it?} 13:55, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

"more Republicans than Democrats ultimately voted in 2008" What does that mean? Wouldn't they have won if that was true? Or at least get the popular vote... Jaxe (talk) 15:41, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

This election right now is a complete toss up, and early voting will likely be just as split as Election Day voting. I wouldn't be shocked at all if Romney did win this.

That's my reading of it too. It's 50/50 either way. I also think it'll be an insanely close election. If Romney wins, the left will scream "It's Bush/Gore all over again! Recount! Recount! Recount!" and if Obama wins, the right will scream "It's rigged! It's voter intimidation! Early voting! Recount! Recount! Recount!". In case you're wondering, if it really is that close, I predict three recounts. --Sasayaki (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I also vote early and I never seen anything remotely considered voter intimidation or corruption. Usually it is just me and the typically bored looking county clerk.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:03, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

The popular vote is that close. The popular vote is also irrelevant. Most statisticians have Obama winning the electoral college with room to spare. Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 18:57, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I hope you're right left correct. Proxima Centauri (talk) 20:31, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Thats likely what Andy is going to latch onto if Mittens loses, but gets the popular vote. --Revolverman (talk) 19:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Since the UK Labour Party spectacularly blew an election under Neil Kinnock, I'd say it ain't over until the fat lady sings The Star-spangled Banner on inauguration day. Генгис^{Gum disease} 19:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually RealClearPolitics (as of October 27th) has the electoral college as: Obama: 201 Romney: 191 Toss-Up: 146 (you need 270 to win), so yeah, it is a total toss-up in popular vote and electoral college; to say Obama has this in the bag is hubris.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:43, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Isn't Andy directly responsible for Romney losing because he expelled Rob from CP? Rob's MPL screeds were the going to be the linchpin of the Republican campaign. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:57, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Fivethirtyeight, Horse's Ass, InTrade, Betfair, Princeton Election Consortium, Votamatic... virtually every projection has Obama's chances at at least 70% (some much higher). There are only ten days left. It's possible that everyone but Unskewed Polls is wrong, but "everyone is wrong" is different. It's not hubris to start to feel some mild confidence.--^talk 03:33, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Fivethirtyeight, which I think is recognized as the authority on the subject, has Obama winning 295 to 242. Basically, if Obama wins Ohio, Romney won't win. If Romney wins Ohio, then it's probably a true "toss-up". Oh well, either way, we'll end up with a center-right conservative, or we'll end up with Mitt Romney. Carlaugust (talk) 23:10, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh Andy...^img--Umichcynic (talk) 03:00, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Early voting infringes on people's rights? FFS, what has he been smoking??? rpeh •T•C•E• 06:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Specifically the right to not vote., because only unions bully their workers to vote, unlike say the Koch brothers. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 08:25, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

This seems to be a common theme in wingnut thinking: that the availability of a right is somehow offensive to people who don't want to use it. Early voting is one, letting gays get married is another, pornography, violence on TV, etc, etc. I just can't understand this mode of thought. rpeh •T•C•E• 08:42, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Someone, please, ask loudly and publicly to Andy whether Conservapedia will be "Proven Right" if Obama wins the elections, or if Romney wins them. --Maquissar (talk) 14:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Meat Loaf

Can someone who knows more about rock music than I answer a question? Is Meat Loaf known as a particularly intelligent guy? Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 14:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Not especially. He will do anything for love but he won't do "that", yet more than 20 years later nobody knows what '"that" is. 14:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

He supports Romney. Of course he's intelligent. Phiwum (talk) 14:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

"That", is vote Republican. And some people will do anything fo Rmoney. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 14:44, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Pedantry: "that" is forgetting the way you feel right now, forgiving himself if he doesn't go all the way tonight, doing it better than he does with you, and forgetting everything (it was a brief interlude and a midsummer night's fling) and seeing that it's time to move on. Balaam (talk) 17:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course, if ML had endorsed BO, then he would immediately be the "overweight, washed-up, over-hyped, former heavy metal singer." --PsyGremlin^Hable! 15:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Ya forgot Hollywood Values. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 15:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Ya also forgot to think like Conservapedians. The fact that Meat Loaf is intelligent is proved by the evidence that he plumped for Romney. Only intelligent people do that, so therefore Meat Loaf is intelligent. And, of course, the fact that such intelligent people plump for Romney is obviously proof that Romney's the right choice. 31.53.239.3 (talk) 19:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Gary Busey and Meatloaf had a fight. Busey came off as the more reasonable one. 'Nuff said. --Night Jaguar (talk) 22:20, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

However, it's much more fun to imagine that Andy is a big fan of Meat Loaf, wouldn't you agree? Vulpius (talk) 01:03, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

If this were the old days, we'd already have a page about Andy's favourite Meat Loaf songs. I'll get us started, "Read 'em and give it up, Liberals." --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 06:25, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

What, you didn't know Paradise By the Dashboard Lights was a song about abstinence until marriage? Aboriginal Noise ^{What the hell is that thing?} 15:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I thought he was killed by a pickax and eaten by an unsuspecting uncle, asshole, and slut? Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 16:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Another Ed Poor gem

"International relations, considered as an academic field of study or as a public policy field, is concerned with relationships between countries."

Next up: "Red Corvette, considered as a noun signifying a thing, is a vehicle called a Corvette exhibiting or displaying the color red." Phiwum (talk) 15:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Baseball

That all American sport; think Andy will congratulate San Francisco for its sweep of the World Series? He will either ignore this entirely, or attempt to spin the Giants romp through the play-offs in some way to "conservative values" despite his near constant "insights" about how sports teams in liberal states and cities are automatically burdened by mediocrity.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I love trying to make predictions about Andy--because either (a) he will act as expected, and we will feel all warm and fuzzy for being right about the loser, or (b) he comes up with something completely new and off the wall, granting us all the Monday morning lulz that we so desperately need. -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Andy Schlafly - the gift that keeps on giving. Генгис^unbelieving 17:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Andy doesn't have to deliver because El MA-CHEESE-MO Kenny boy does instead. Because he cannot slam the San Francisco Giants team directly, he decides to make the correlation between the low ratings for a nationally televised series into San Fran just being too full of teh gheys and those wussy gheys just wouldn't support their team like real men^img!--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 06:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Seriously Ed...

...stop it. Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 19:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Man, Ed's on a roll this week. Can't wait to see him have a hissy fit on some poor serf. --Revolverman (talk) 19:42, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

God hates New Jersey

God may well have sent this vast storm into New Jersey to spank Andy for attempting to rewrite the BIble. Hopefully he can hunker down and stay busy writing the global warming article.

As an aside, I loathe the hideouly sanctimonious concern the cable news anchors are always prattling on at the storm reporters. "We're concerned for your safety there Chad. We're going to pretend we'd cut away from you, but make sure you stay there until that crane plummets through the sidewalk and annihilates an emergency bunker filled with grannies and babies" DogP (talk) 20:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Still waiting for CP or CNAV to jump on this bandwagon.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 21:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh that's excellent. God thinks in incredibly complex ways, and long-term global geopolitics are indeed high on his agenda. Mind you, he could be sending the storm because of The Gheyz - hard to tell. Mind you, the Jesuits don't agree.

Is there ever going to be a point when humans stop trying to interpret the weather and various comet/planet activity as signs from the invisible man in the sky? It was funny in the middle ages, but now it's just getting sad. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

No, there is never going to be such a point. It is more than sad, it is farcical, and can only be considered to belong in the realm of comedy. DogP (talk) 22:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

This is pure bullshit. Hurricane Sandy is anthropomorphic and not an act of God. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 22:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Cool story, bro.. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 23:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Chris Christie loves Obama. Christie was already a RINO in CNAV land - I wonder how they'll react to this. Unless Andy and Chuckarse take the point about Obama helping their state. And flying pigs are used to deliver aid. rpeh •T•C•E• 15:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Horace99 gets in first^img (a year ahead, one might say) Cantabrigian (talk) 16:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Dear Andy.

We -- I -- say some pretty nasty stuff about you here. But I know that your home state of New Jersey is getting hammered pretty hard right now, and I hope you and yours get through this okay. Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 02:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

He's still actively editing CP, so he's evidently doing okay. Of course, whether his property is doing as well might be another story. Phiwum (talk) 02:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, any idea where in New Jersey Andy lives? Phiwum (talk) 13:57, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

No, and if you do, please do not answer this question. Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 15:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to flip a coin and either drop TOP's or Andy's dox. Check pastebin. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I apologize if you think that I'm going too far in my question. I thought that asking about the city he lives in is not too personal for such a public figure as Andy, but I can understand others disagreeing. No offense intended, I assure ya'll. Phiwum (talk) 21:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I wonder will we see any softening of Andy's tone on global warming over the coming months? Worst storm in the region in over 150 years, etc etc. Now that storm damage is closeup, I wonder might he ever change his mind, even slightly? DogP (talk) 17:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

No no no, you don't get it, do you? It was slightly chilly out today. Global warming disproven. DickTurpis (talk) 17:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

One storm doesn't say anything about global warming. You're making the same mistake as denialists do when confusing climate with weather. Ajkgordon (talk) 17:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Not in normal person logic it doesn't, but it does in andy's "today's weather in one town disproves a global theory" logic. X Stickman (talk) 19:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Andy's general location is not a secret and it's hypocritical faux-concern to pretend otherwise. We have the transcript of an interview with him on Eagle Forum which quite clearly states this. Генгис^marauding 19:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I was unaware that there was anything more specific than a state on the record. Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 20:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I believe that more precise details have been published by some people but the nearest town was also mentioned in another of Phyllis's phone in programs when Andy made a cameo appearance as a caller. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 22:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Couple of years ago someone (SusanG) put up a google maps of his house entrance drive. He's easily locatable from his court pleas and such stuff. Scream!! (talk) 16:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Will liberals clamor for a postponement to the presidential election 2012, using Hurricane Sandy as an excuse?

Andy, I know it's hard to keep your bullshit straight, but your argument is that voting early is terrible and has to be stopped, not that liberals are trying to delay voting. C'mon man. Carlaugust (talk) 03:49, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I can haz link?^img. rpeh •T•C•E• 05:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Makes perfect sense to me. If the election is delayed there'll be more time for early voting, which of course is a liberal plot to install a communistical muslimish dictatorship in the good ol' US of A.--Fergus Mason ^{Thruppence I got for selling my coat, tuppence for selling my blanket. If ever I 'list for a soldier again, the Devil shall be my Sergeant.} 09:04, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

People can conspiracy theorize all they want, the election isn't going to get postponed, the federal government doesn't even have any express authority to do so.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

This was a question I was mulling the other day--maybe someone who took a US civics class or studies constitutional law would know. What if it was impossible--massive flooding, huge earthquake, what have you--to vote in one or several states? What would/could happen then? Also, what if for some reason both of a party's candidates are unable to run this far out--they get abducted by aliens, decide to run off with their mistresses, whatever--Does the party have to rush to get another couple of names on the ticket, or are there provisos to make accommodations? Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 15:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

In a typical East Coast/New England fashion, Andy appears to be under the impression that what happens in the tiny sliver of the country that were the original thirteen colonies determines what happens in the other thirty-seven states. -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Andy...

...is starting to sound a lot like Ken^img. A hurricane of political ads? Really? --Andy^{not Schlafly} 10:57, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

How about: "Will the hurricane of political ads decapitate Obama's reelection bid? 12 ways that bestial evolution makes Obama a secret Muslim." Phiwum (talk) 13:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

How long before Andy starts saying things like that? --Andy^{not Schlafly} 17:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Wait wait wait... Is Andy using 538 as a reliable source for whatever his claim is? Dendlai (talk) 18:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Andy could never "sound" like Ken to me. I know this is weird, but when I read conversations, I assign voices to the parties involved. Since I know Andy sounds like a diarrhea-gargling muppet in real life, I just hear his natural voice when I read his crap. Ken, on the other hand, sounds a lot like Forrest Gump in my head. His posts start to take on that flair if you start them with "Mama said..." or end them in "Jenny". "Mama said, unlike atheists, Christians have a great many songs including dance music." --Inquisitor (talk) 18:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

"diarrhea-gargling muppet" HAHA! So true! --Andy^{not Schlafly} 11:56, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Which Ken? Where do the doll and the mayoral newt fit in? 212.85.6.26 (talk) 19:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

What chagrin?

"Pennsylvania may be the state that picks the president, to the chagrin of the Dems." The source (538), along with every prediction/poll site I've seen, shows PA as a "Strong Obama" state. -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:06, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Dvergne sets himself up for a poor kicking.

here^img, here^img, here^img and here^{img — Unsigned, by: Oldusgitus / talk / contribs}

Some snippets of classic Ed there. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 13:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

The fact that he's still doing this says such hilarious things about him. I love that he's still enamored with the magical concept of transclusion 8 years later. 15:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I just invented a term for behavior like Ed's here: pooronic. You're welcome. 15:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

What's the bet Eddy Poo gives him a writing plan for these gems. Naca (talk) 15:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Andy about thermodynamics again

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Second_Law_of_Thermodynamics&action=historysubmit&diff=1011432&oldid=1011378

• entropy is caused by quantum uncertainty
• the 2d LoT makes systems to derail. Note: not entropy, but the law itself. And, against what the real 2d LoT teaches, energy in a system can remain constant
• atheists deny quantum uncertainty.

^{— Unsigned, by: 109.132.135.173 / talk / contribs}

Andy pretty much condones Republican electoral fraud.

Now that the observers have been banned, there's no reason Romney won't win. Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 02:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

It's only a crime when the Liberals do it.--Mikal ^{Harass Follow} 04:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Better link. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 11:12, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I am sure from Andy's point of view, banning them prevents electoral fraud; as I am sure he is quite convinced that the observers would be immensely biased towards the Democrats even to the point of looking the other way, or even activity helping them throw the election.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not worth a section, but Obama-supporter Michael Bloomberg insisted on holding the marathon despite the suffering of many without power. Never missing a chance to tie Obama to something dumb, Andy pounces on the Anti-Christ's latest sin -- being endorsed by Bloomberg. Even though the NY Marathon has been canceled, I'm sure Obama will be much derided for Racegate. It must be great to live in such a black and white universe. Whoover (talk) 21:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

This could need a screen cap before it's deleted.

1. User:Reactionary22
2. Another Adventure to ConservapediaThe story behind this page
3. My Amazing Journey to Conservapedia More on the story behind this page

Proxima Centauri (talk) 09:57, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

And we need to keep a record of people trolling CP why? --PsyGremlin^Tala! 11:34, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think those two were trolling, they were testing out the anal retentive blocking policy there. If you think it's not important we don't need to do anything. Proxima Centauri (talk) 12:16, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The blocking isn't something unexpected, what's more interesting is the little argument brenden and EJamesW had over the block, with some intervention from JPratt Naca (talk) 12:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

It would have been more interesting if they'd been blocked while doing something worthwhile, like handing Andy his ass on relativity or writing a factually correct article that happened to disagree with TPTB. Simply posting "Reagan sucks!" as your first post, is going to get you blocked. It's not even an ideological block - it's blocking a sad wanker who can't even be bothered to put together a decent reason for them to be blocked. And for them to cry about it on LP makes them even sadder wankers. They haven't proven that CP is bad. All they've done is prove that CP doesn't tolerate sad wankers who spray graffiti on their walls. Ah, come back Bugler, all is forgiven. --PsyGremlin^Sermā! 13:38, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm with Psy on this. Perfectly dull little occurrence. Phiwum (talk) 13:52, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Phiwum. We shall now kiss with tongue. --PsyGremlin^Parlez! 14:02, 3 November 2012 (UT

Wait. Kiss where with tongue? Whose tongue? This is all moving so fast. Phiwum (talk) 14:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

oh, great. I suppose you'll be wanting dinner AND a movie next... --PsyGremlin^{말하십시오} 14:24, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Nah. A DVD rental and a happy meal should suffice. Better make sure its a good toy though. -- Tygrehart

Be careful with Psy, Phiwum. He'll wear your knees out if you let this go much farther. 16:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

No actual mention of the Hurricane?

Is it just me, or has there been no actual mention of Sandy, the damage, or even the usual expected "the affected people are in our prayers" statements on the CP main page. Plenty of political snark, but nothing on the storm itself aside from the "will it be used to delay the voting?" story. I can only guess that Andy, Ken and Terry are still not sure how to spin it yet. --DinsdaleP (talk) 13:38, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

They have a small but reasonably sane article on it. Which hurricane was it when Andy went off on a rant about how shutting down the New York subway system was an over-reaction evil Liberal plot? Cantabrigian (talk) 15:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Irene, last year. Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 15:19, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

yeah, he went on about how they shut everything down because the storm wasn't that bad. Funniest was him moving^img the "Hurricane Irene" article to "Tropical Storm Irene" to back up his point. Although the official reason is "downgraded." Which is exactly why we talk about "Tropical Storm Katrina" today. --PsyGremlin^Siarad! 15:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

There has also been no mention of the many lives lost to this cyclone in the Caribbean. At least 60 in Haiti alone. Wonder when they will start to denounce Chris Christie. Naca (talk) 15:38, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

PsyGremlin is perhaps too modest to mention his excellent blog post on the subject. Cantabrigian (talk) 15:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd forgotten about that one. Thank you Mr Canta. --PsyGremlin^Parlez! 16:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Andy finally added it to MPR. Apparently, the story is so poorly covered, he links to coverage of it from Fon du Lac, Wisconsin. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 15:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Anyone know where Andy lives? He must be scathing Christie by now for supporting Obama's response. How long before he vandalises the Christie article? Doraemon^{話そう！話そう！} 15:54, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

See above. Cantabrigian (talk) 15:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Everyone knows he lives in NJ. I was wondering if people know where in NJ. Doraemon^{話そう！話そう！} 18:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I take it it that reading comprehension is not your strong suit. Генгис^pillaging 18:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

The information is publicly available...start your search here. -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

You don't need to search, the information is presented in the link I posted above and which we already host. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 19:56, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

@Seth - thanks alot - that's really useful :) ; @Genghis Apologies, because of the nature of wiki conversations I don't tend to re-read convos in the middle of the page, and didn't notice that 'see above' was a link. Doraemon^{話そう！話そう！} 12:58, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I guess he lives near here. Cantabrigian (talk) 15:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

In related news, I see Flingbotty hasn't posted since the 29th. Hope he's ok, because if he had power/a house/etc, I'm sure he'd be telling us all how Christie is a traitor and must be shot and how Ayn Rand would fix the flood damage. --PsyGremlin^Prata! 15:47, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

God moves in mysterious ways. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 15:58, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Terry's still alive; he's back online on Skype. However last time I looked at his blog it hadn't been updated, or even commented on, for days. Pity really, as CP has turned into a tedious self-parody these days. I might have to start hanging out at WND instead.--Fergus Mason ^{Thruppence I got for selling my coat, tuppence for selling my blanket. If ever I 'list for a soldier again, the Devil shall be my Sergeant.} 22:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

It Begins!

Hey man, why isn't all the power restored, transportation reopened, homes repaired, and all flood water receded yet? Well it must be because of the liberals in government and their union cronies!^img Oh Andy, you never disappoint! --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

"Wouldn't free enterprise restore power more quickly"? Unchecked by regulation, they just might...and electrify the waters. -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:34, 31 October 2012

I'm not well up on the details but isn't the power already supplied by private companies? Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 19:38, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Those privately owned electrical companies don't have power restored yet? Must be the liberals^img! Free enterprise would have worked! Stupid private electrical companies!--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, he's also fingering unions, but I'd like to see him run an electric company without a steady supply of tried professionals. And I'd like to see him work for an electric company without any benefits hard won by unions.--"Shut up, Brx." 20:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, for My Little Andy, free enterprise is magic. It's been less than 24 hours, how the hell does he think anything short of witchcraft could have all the damage repaired? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not just Andy. The right feels that the federal government's main role in a disaster is to legalize price gouging. Then stand back and watch stuff happen. Whoover (talk) 20:38, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

The difference though is the Times opinion piece isn't arguing for a complete hands-off government approach but instead feels the government's role should be different and more de-centralized. Andy just thinks the "free market" would have everything done by now as by magic (and probably prayer).--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

"I also pray for the victims, and that free enterprise be allowed to restore power quickly with the continuing delays being caused by government and union control." I can only imagine this this as a verbatim excerpt from Andy saying grace at the dinner table. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:49, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Sad, really. In Terry's "Ayn Rand World", everyone would own their own stretch of roads, bridges and infrastructure, and be leasing the access rights to the utility companies. Imagine trying to rebuild in a setting like that, where clearing even a thousand-foot stretch of road is left to an assortment of parcel owners who may or may not have the means to do anything. Can't even get past a downed tree to fix a power line if the road owner doesn't take care of it first, and in a free market driven by supply and demand, the people with the equipment to clear debris will charge whatever they can get away with and delay the recovery for the people who are outbid - one man's "invisible hand" is a another man's price gouging. No reason the gas stations that still have both working pumps and fuel to sell can't charge $50/gallon while they can find buyers - that's unregulated free enterprise too, right? For Andy to look at billions in infrastructure damage and assert that anyone could have restored essential services and pumped out flooded areas in 48 hours is delusional, but delusional isn't out of character for him. --DinsdaleP (talk) 16:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I think I'm going to start calling it Ayn's World. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 17:09, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Christ, you think city states were bad, how about HOUSE states? --Revolverman (talk) 17:12, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Andy: RINO Christie a useful idiot

Oh Andy, so predictable^img. Now that Christie's been close to Obama he has cooties. Come on, Ken. Now you call him fat. --Night Jaguar (talk) 01:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I was just thinking how interesting it might be to know what Andy said at the time about president Bush's visit to New Orleans and telling Brownie he was doing a heckuva job. Just having this great archive of Andy's outpourings almost makes me want Romney to win so we can see Andy spin 180 degrees on everything he's ever said before CP goes titsup for good. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

If Obama wins it'll be funnier. Complete denial at first, followed by a hissyfit worthy of a toddler. --Night Jaguar (talk) 02:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

You're right of course. Plus Terry will probably go the full Waco. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 03:52, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Andy is just following Terry's lead in this case as Launchboooty and his gang on CNAV have been hostile to Christie for quite a while now.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Someone on Conservapedia tells the truth!

He won't last long, nor will his message^img, but it is nice to see someone there just come right out and say it, even if everyone else is too cowardly there to do so, (or worse, actually agree with Andy).--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:00, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

It would have been better if Andy had imposed the block himself but I smiled at this addition to Andy's reply. Also the reference to "blog" went unchallenged. Генгис^marauding 09:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of Truth

Andy's headline about non-union power repair workers being turned away is just another rumor being pushed as "news" by Faux and friends. --DinsdaleP (talk) 20:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

The site is growing rapidly

I know you can take those site rating sites with a pinch of salt, but according to ant.com, Rationalwiki has seen a 360% growth in traffic, whereas Conservapedia - despite Andy's claims about record numbers of visitors - has dropped 30% since 2009. --PsyGremlin^Fale! 14:31, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I notice that on the right-hand side, it says that "evolution" is not applicable to CP. Of course it isn't. I believe in a Young CP, created as it presently exists by ASchlafly about 6000 years ago. Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 14:38, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Can't help but notice that chart stops at eighteen months ago. --جئت ورأيت أنا القرف ^{gross, isn't it?} 17:12, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Better?--Fergus Mason ^{Thruppence I got for selling my coat, tuppence for selling my blanket. If ever I 'list for a soldier again, the Devil shall be my Sergeant.} 00:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC) CP_RW Traffic rank 11_2012.jpg

Ayup. --جئت ورأيت أنا القرف ^{gross, isn't it?} 13:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

edits per month at CP

edits per month at RW

--larron (talk) 13:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Ken Doll hatches a new plan to obliterate evolution / Ides of November

This sounds very familiar. ^img Naca (talk) 14:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Reminds me of something very enjoyable. Ole Ole Ole ^img Naca (talk) 14:20, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I haven't said it before but Question Evolution is a really stupid name for anything. X Stickman (talk) 16:38, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Um is there anything that comes out of CMI that isn't stupid ? Naca (talk) 16:41, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Remember, remember the 5th of November. The day yet another one of Kendoll's fantasies disappears in to the ether. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:16, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Nether flows better with that then ether. --Revolverman (talk) 17:19, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Ken reminds me of those end-of-times preachers constantly squealing about the end of the world, or other dire prophecies. If I predict, every single day, that today there will be an earthquake in a populated region of the United States, eventually I'm probably going to be right. That doesn't mean I get to claim I can predict the future when it finally does happen. Eventually, something bad will happen to the "atheist cause" (probably some survey that claims in a certain region non-religious affiliation was somehow low, or lower than expected, or something) and Ken will claim victory. But until then... --Sasayaki (talk) 20:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

"God willing, starting November 4, 2012, our Question Evolution! Campaign group is going to collectively spend over 70 hour weeks engaging in Question Evolution! Campaign activities" - can anyone decipher what the fuck Ken is trying to say? "Spend over 70 hour weeks"? Absolute gibberish! Генгис^mutating 21:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Presumably, it means that he's going to devote 70 hours of the week,every week, for the benefits of the campaign. I'm honestly concerned that this will have a negative impact on his health...but there really is no stopping him from doing his thing, is there?WilliamR (talk) 21:38, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I rarely have the stomach to even look at Conservapedia. Ugh this "Conservative" is a creep. I just learned that liberal protestant, atheist, agnostic, and "evolutionist" women are not just cold fishes, but more often than the general population to be short haired, butch, lesbian, men hating feminists, oftentimes mean and hate babies, are frequently hags and mean-spirited witches, are often whores and more prone to catching sexually transmitted diseases which make them barren, sometimes have bizarre sex change surgeries and claim they are men, may be whores who cheat on their husbands and put on weight watching scandalous soap operas, and are often unable to marry because of their sullied reputations. I'm glad "Conservative" doesn't speak for Christians in general. He is a cultist who seems to live for nothing but to spread hate. Nate Keaton (talk) 22:20, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

While User: Conservative's obsession with creationism is absolutely fervent, I don't think that "cultist" is an accurate descriptor of him all. To him, creationism is a movement that he himself is deeply involved with. His obsession is not because of the inspiration the religion has to offer, but because any uptick in creationism could be interpreted(from his point of view) as a result of his own actions. You'll see this with shockofgod, too. They pour all of their vitriol into the arguments that the politicians have emphasized and disputes between Catholocisim and Protestantism, but the finer points of Christianity ? They never discuss them at all. They rant because there is a certain bit of pleasure in "winning," though their victories are only illusory. They are mercenaries that are purely in this for the fun of it. Most of those arguments you hear about atheists being fat and whatnot are from his "parodies..." which aren't actual parodies, but are instead arguments that are permitted to make tremendous logical leaps. It's an approach that might make sense in the mental world he has constructed, but is in fact nonsensical.WilliamR (talk) 01:41, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

You mean he's a complete shitcunt?--Fergus Mason ^{Thruppence I got for selling my coat, tuppence for selling my blanket. If ever I 'list for a soldier again, the Devil shall be my Sergeant.} 02:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I feel it is correct and right to say he's a shitcunt. Also, probably (mildly to modestly) mentally ill. --Sasayaki (talk) 02:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

He's not just a creationist. I know lots of creationists. I'm a creationist just not the right kind fo fit in with the CMI cultists. We don't call women whores or make our entire focus in life defeating atheism and "evolutionism". we use the faculties God gave us to examine reality. It's a lot harder than walling yourself off behind a silly restrictive reading of a metaphor. I used the word "cultist" because CMI is a cult. It's a group whose purpose is to venerate creationism and their reading of Genesis. I doubt anyone here would disagree that creationism has greatly overshadowed their "Christianity" to the point that you could easily say it's their religion. CMI is nasty and dangerous. It makes me sick to see them have access to children. I'm not the least bit surprised "Conservative" is attracted to its hateful rhetoric. He is as incapable of humility as they are. Such sad birds of a feather. Nate Keaton (talk) 13:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

"we use the faculties God gave us to examine reality" - Clearly not, or you wouldn't be a fucking creationist, would you?--Fergus Mason ^{Thruppence I got for selling my coat, tuppence for selling my blanket. If ever I 'list for a soldier again, the Devil shall be my Sergeant.} 14:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Wow, that was unpleasant for someone who apparently doesn't know anything about my position. I'm not YEC. At most I'm an OEC. I am not inclined to reject any reasonable conclusion of science, and I fully admit that my acceptance of a basic tenet of Catholic doctrine that God created the souls of men is a faith position that's not based on evidence. LIkewise I acknowledge that accepting a general idea of intelligent is also a faith position and that there is no way to tell supernatural design apart from no design at all. There's no point in debating it. You're left making fun of me for believing a few things unsupported by evidence that really have no impact on how we deal with the broader issues. Please don't do that. It's easier to bridge this small ideological divide than it is to get

nasty. Nate Keaton (talk) 17:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not making fun of you; I'm merely pointing out that OEC and YEC are both degrees of bad. OEC is only "better" than YEC in the same sense, and to the same degree, that forced sodomy with a frozen Bratwurst is "better" than forced sodomy with a nail-studded baseball bat. Both are utterly unscientific and irrational positions that are completely undeserving of any respect whatsoever. I'm sure you're a lovely person and I'd be happy for you to marry my sister, but OEC is crap. It's just not quite as runny and festering as the particular brand of YEC crap promoted by Ken.--Fergus Mason ^{Thruppence I got for selling my coat, tuppence for selling my blanket. If ever I 'list for a soldier again, the Devil shall be my Sergeant.} 17:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Update

It's the 4th of November over here in Australia. Still feeling very atheistic. No God or Gods exist and Stacy from high school still hasn't given me that blowjob I prayed for back in the day.

STACY... WHY.

Is it just me, or does anyone else picture the Hitler ranting in the bunker scene from Downfall every time Ken turns up with yet more unrealistic tripe about his great QE offensive? Darkmind1970 (talk) 21:42, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

It's quite similar, yeah, except Downfall!Hitler's speech was one where he'd suddenly realised the war was lost. Ken's speech would be exactly the same, except he'd be utterly convinced he'd just executed his masterstroke that would win them the war once and for all. --Sasayaki (talk) 02:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Ken's latest blog post says that 2012, not 2013 but 2012, will be the worst year ever for atheists. Does that mean that things will be bad for the next eight weeks and then start to get better in January?

I'm also rathered tickled by the big diagram Ken put at the top of his blog post, showing how works of fiction build up to a climax and then inevitably slow down and come to an end. His destruction of global atheism is certainly an unfinished work of fiction but it looks doomed to come to a close without ever reaching that climax. Spud (talk) 08:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

There's a section in most bookshops specialising in self-help books - those books which promise to help you turn your life round, make you popular, successful in business, rich, attractive to the opposite sex, improve your eyesight without glasses and banish wrinkles, only if you adopt some simple rules or behaviours. To my mind, Ken is the sucker who has all these tomes on his bookshelf but still stands at the very back of the queue thinking amazing success lies round the very next corner. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 09:31, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Even if we suspend skepticism about the value of self-help books and assume that they do have a net positive impact on people who apply the strategies described, it wouldn't do Kendoll any good because I'm certain that he'd never make it more than the first 40 pages through any of them because the core message of self-help still comes down to "you need to do it yourself" and that's too much work for not enough attention.. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 13:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Ken reminds me of bright but very naive young teenagers who, whenever they learn something new, need to share the important revelation with everyone. It doesn't matter whether its a largely irrelevant historical nugget, a graphical representation of a narrative or a new song, they believe nobody else knows about it because, if they did, they too would be blown away by it. When I see things like the graph, I kinda like Ken. London Grump (talk) 19:11, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's sunset on the 4th here, and here I sit, on top of a koppie, cold beer in hand, watching vast, majestic herds of Christians sweep across the dusty plains, in search of their next pool of atheism, in which to slake their bloodlust. Oh wait... no... that was just an acid flashback. Carry on, nothing to see here. --PsyGremlin^Tala! 14:36, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

It'll be the 5th in half an hour and while Guy Fawkes is still dead, my atheism and evolutionism appear not to be. Ken better hurry up with whatever it was he's planning.--Fergus Mason ^{Thruppence I got for selling my coat, tuppence for selling my blanket. If ever I 'list for a soldier again, the Devil shall be my Sergeant.} 22:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd been expecting fireworks but all we've got is a damp squib. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 23:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

How did you learn about my social life? MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 14:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Kind of disappointed

Only 70 hour weeks, Ken? Phht. Typical WoW players put in as much effort, and being video game playing atheists their numbers are legion. You should push for 90 or 100 hour weeks straight on the Question Evolution! campaign. That's eight hours of restful sleep a night (which you desperately need), plus an hour and a half for some food, water, a quick walk, a shower (which you desperately need) and ablutions. What more can a man ask for? --Sasayaki (talk) 18:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I read that as "a quick wank" Brain bleach! Stat! PsyGremlin^Fale! 19:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

He likely needs that just as bad. --Revolverman (talk) 19:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Cop that militant ninja atheist cats !

Ken doll is launching another campaign with a dicky name. ^img (I'm sure someone could make up a funnier thing though). Naca (talk) 07:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

If you follow the link, it is literally nothing, just the hope of creating a coalition of 200 creationist groups, so far they have two that expressed interest, no doubt one of those two is Shock's little blog and the other is PPSimons. In short, a real serious let down.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 08:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

So is this the huge, atheism-shattering news we were told to expect on 4 November? rpeh •T•C•E• 09:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Crap, Ken was telling the Truth^TM all along. I guess it's time to look for my hat... the party's over. --Inquisitor (talk) 09:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't you just want to grab Kenny by the lapels and shake him until he gets a clue? If he actually did something rather than continually talk, talk, talk about his grand plans he probably could achieve some sort of actual success in his crazy little field. He keeps talking about getting grants and raising funds, so why hasn't he taken the first step for that and set up a company? Its not like it costs a fortune, and he wouldn't even have to leave the basement. He wants to create a coalition? Wouldn't it be good to have a website, with the aims of the coalition on it? You know, something other than your free blog filled with crazy screeds about why women are whores. I still doubt anyone would give him money or join his coalition, but at least that would be something. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 11:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd shake him by the lapels all damn day if he actually has sufficient intelligence to put clothes on. And continue to breathe. --جئت ورأيت أنا القرف ^{gross, isn't it?} 12:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

What gets me is that it's the same thing every time: he's setting up some thing with a target of x other things, and already has y promises, then nothing else ever happens except maybe a parodist expresses interest and we get an update crowing that there are now y+1 promises. It's all so predictable. rpeh •T•C•E• 11:35, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

If Ken ever actually did something he'd be indiscernible from all the other deranged creationist parrots; his childlike antics and Walter Mitty persona at least give him some unintentionally humourous individuality. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 11:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to think Ken's reputation precedes him and most of his calls to "creationist groups" - are there seriously "200 creationist groups"? Doesn't he mean fundie churches? - go something like "Hello, this may or maybe not be the individual or group of people known as user:conservative and I'd or we'd like to talk to you abo-' *click* --PsyGremlin^Prata! 12:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I would bet that Ken never identifies himself as such - even to his fellow non-travellers - but uses one of his silly aliases, probably David Jensen. Генгис^mutating 12:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Given that the CP sysops don't even know his real name... --PsyGremlin^Parla! 13:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

"The name is... Servative. Con Servative." Cue theme song as Ken wanders off the the boudoir with a beautiful woman an average looking woman Phyllis Schlafly his right hand, a jar of Vaseline, and a copy of Playboy's "Girls of the Creationist Colleges". MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 14:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Wonder how long this will last ?

Parodist or genuine user ? ^img I'm guessing genuine user about to get banhammered as parodist would know not to post in homeskoolerz homework. Naca (talk) 13:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Just noticed homework was from 2009, wonder what assfly will do ? I vote ignore it and wait till swabby decides he is sock of Horace/SamCoulter/AmesG and banhammers into oblivion. Naca (talk) 13:23, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

It's a while ago now and I can't remember whether it was covered here, but what a stupid question #6 is: "Why did the Renaissance occur in Europe, and not in other areas of the world, such as Asia?" Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 13:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Because Christianity caused the Renaissance, and there was no Christianity in Asia, you stupid liberal. --Andy^{not Schlafly} 13:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Reverted (not by Andy) with comment 'Should not comment on homeschoolers [sic] homework/marking'. Don't put them on a public website then! Cantabrigian (talk) 15:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Trying to find

Andy's list of why Obama is a Muslim, but can't. Any kind soul have a linky for me, please?--PsyGremlin^Parlez! 13:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

[3]--"Shut up, Brx." 13:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Question: In the first one, it says "Obama is referring to his childhood residence in Indonesia, a Muslim-majority country." Doesn't that clear up any doubts as to what Obama was saying? How does that imply that Obama is a Muslim? --Andy^{not Schlafly} 14:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Short answer? Because Andy wills it so. The long answer is that conservatives, in an effort to alienate Obama from the voter base, have contrived to see everything as evidence for his being a Muslim, and any counterexamples as evidence Obama is hiding his Muslim faith.--"Shut up, Brx." 14:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Brx but that's not the one I'm looking for. It was either in the main article on Obama, or a mystery or an insight, and it had points about him not dancing, etc. --PsyGremlin^講話 14:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not a list, but he does address dancing and Obama here--"Shut up, Brx." 14:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Checking revisions, it's possible that this was the list in question, but he took out the reference to dancing. It used to be there[4]--"Shut up, Brx." 14:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Merci! --PsyGremlin^Hable! 14:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

2008: the year of the Presidential Election Question Evolution! campaign

Edits per month at Conservapedia for pages whose title contains the words "Obama", "Bush", "Clinton", "McCain", "Palin", "Romney", "Ryan", "Question evolution!" or "election". E.g., "Obama" is in the title of 380 pages, like cp:Barack Hussein Obama, cp:Talk:Obama eats dogs or cp:File:Obamageddon.jpg, while "Bush" pops up in 140 pages, including cp:Bush hater and cp: Bushido. In 2008, the site was obsessed with Obama, but the articles of cp:McCain and cp:Palin were edited, too. This year's election doesn't show up in the edits to the articles of the candidates - clearly, "Question Evolution!" is bigger news. --larron (talk) 14:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Nice, would be nice if you could have included: evolution, creationism and atheism in that graph. Naca (talk)

Once again, I am in awe of your work and I want your wife to have my babies. Or something like that. Added to the above comment, adding "bestiality" and "homosexuality" should be interesting too. --PsyGremlin^講話 16:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Place your bets...

...on what happens and Conservapedia's response. My money: Obama wins, Andy stays silent, denies reality for a while then throws an epic tantrum blaming liberals and RINOs (err, more than usual). Considering how fuckin' boring CP has been in the last few months I hope he doesn't disappoint. --Night Jaguar (talk) 01:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Already started, he has. Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 01:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Capping for the record. Andy: "By Tuesday night, most American voters will have cast their ballots against Barack Obama. Not even the lamestream media could persuade most voters to support him."^img --Night Jaguar (talk) 03:27, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, shit. Won't it just be delicious should Obama win? I wonder if he'll oversight that delightful insight.--"Shut up, Brx." 03:39, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the subtlety is that, should Obama win, it's because of all the fraud that allowed non-Americans to vote. Whoover (talk) 03:46, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be "non-white Americans"? Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 09:32, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

"non-white, non-male Americans". -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Obama might get <50% and still win. It's very possible. I thought that was the sleight of hand. Does someone wanna try trolling Andy Conservapedia into making a more concrete prediction so it can be proven right? --Night Jaguar (talk) 04:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Going to say there will be an upset and Romney wins, although this is just a hunch and I could be horribly wrong. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy

" Mitt did not to be as strong a fundraiser as expected, nor were the Super PACs effective on his side; some of their comments to the press, like Karl Rove criticizing Todd Akin, were actually hurtful.^img" Did not to be as strong? Wut? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy

He'll blame voter fraud and intimidation by Democrats, despite the fact that almost all the voter fraud so far has come from the Republicans, and it's a rightwing organisation that's threatening people at polling booths. rpeh •T•C•E• 08:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Alternatively, Romney will win by a razor-thin margin and they're going to make it out to be a conservative landslide. --79.218.21.109 (talk) 10:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

JPatt makes a prediciton: "It's not even going to be close, Romney landslide: R 54% O 46%."^img --Night Jaguar (talk) 10:30, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

As does Ken: "Despite being a member of the Gang of Seven, Boehner seems sincere, confident and credible about Romney winning Ohio (based on his experience in Ohio in 2008 election and 2012 election and what pollsters said in 2008 and now about Ohio), so I say a narrow victory for Romney. Boehner has a habit of crying in public so he gets sincerity points. :)"^img Mine: Obama wins electoral college by a lot, and the popular vote, though not as decisively. Let's see if reality has a liberal bias. --Night Jaguar (talk) 10:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

My fellow US-politics-ophile and I made our final predictions on Sunday evening. Mine matched the final fivethirtyeight predictions perfectly (Obama wins everything he got in 2008 bar Indiana and North Carolina), plus I had the same share of the vote (51-48). Here's hoping... rpeh •T•C•E• 10:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I heard it described thusly; Obama's path to victory is an OR gate (Ohio OR Florida OR Iowa and Wisconsin OR ...), where Romney's path to victory is an AND gate (Florida AND Ohio AND Colorado AND ...). Carlaugust (talk) 12:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Still going to be the minority here and say Romney, by a very thin electoral and popular margin (Fractions of percents).--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Really, really sad

So on the back of Ken's November surprise^img we get this 'vague prediction' like we have been subjected to since 2007 but what makes this so sad is a recently created CP article^img which is basically Ken speaking about himself in third person about something exciting that is never going to happen. Where is this booklet which has been promised since promised since February, nearly finished in June but now will be definitely ready in January. Fucking terrible how far this has gone on. Aceⁱ⁹ 06:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

He said back in August, and I quote, "The booklet, written by a member of our Question Evolution! Campaign group, has been completed and has been sent to an editor."

Its flying fortresses all over again. Always just on the verge of being completed, but strangely never materialising. He wrote about a dozen blog posts saying each chapter of this phantom booklet was completed. This is such bizarre behaviour it just boggles my mind. Kendoll, it's obvious to everyone this booklet doesn't exist. I really don't understand what you're trying to achieve by maintaining this ridiculous pretence. People remember what you said, they don't just forget 5 minutes later that you promised you'd do something. Stop escalating with your silly fantasy projects and get help. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 07:27, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Surely the "intelligent" thing to do is quit the blogging and actually write the booklet? I'll wager that more words have been written on the blog about the booklet being written than there are actual words in the booklet itself. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 09:37, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Except the booklet will consist of chapters saying something like "Chapter 2 is coming soon and it will destroy atheism totally!" and "The author has heard than another author may be able to write another chapter for this booklet! Stay tuned to this booklet!". rpeh •T•C•E• 09:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Is it actually possible to create such a booklet for him, so Ken would have something to fall back on?70.68.144.61 (talk) 22:02, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Generalissimo Chuckbooty gets ready for the next hurricane

"For the future, I plan to put in one of those stand-by generators. My neighbor had one, so I could recharge cellphones whenever I needed to. And when I have that in place, if a thing like this happens again, then this neighborhood will have a well-regulated militia, with, as like as not, myself in command. We didn’t get any government representative, and we won’t get one next time. Nor will we need one."[5] WARNING: links to CNAV. London Grump (talk) 21:55, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. The "with, as like as not, myself in command" is simultaneously hilarious and deeply worrying. rpeh •T•C•E• 10:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

That's typical of Captain Chuckarse; you can read in the super-seekrit forum how he muscled in and appointed himself commander in chief of the Conservapedia Bible Project. Генгис^pillaging 10:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

That was 100% hilarious. You don't even have to go to the forum, there are some juicy^img examples^img on CP itself, along with various^img shots^img directed^img at some peons. When Chuckarse turns it on, even his Andiness can't match him for pomposity. rpeh •T•C•E• 11:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

"In fact, she was playing the part of every over-passionate stepdaughter playing up to her step-dad in order to trade, shall we say, favor for favor." Wow. I didn't need to read that little view into Terry's mind. Phiwum (talk) 16:30, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

As someone who lives in a natural disaster-prone area, my understanding was that the idea that in these sorts of things is to be as prepared as you can be and to render as much assistance as possible to everyone you can, to the extent that you do not worsen the problem by also making yourself a victim (share supplies but don't give away all your food immediately, assist your neighbours but don't go into collapsed buildings since you too may get trapped, etc). The last thing people need to be doing in a natural disaster is shooting one another. The idea that Chuckarse or someone like him would appear at my cyclone-ravaged front door, ineptly armed to the teeth, and say, "You. Yer, you. Yer part o' my 'well regulated militia', boy." / "Actually, I don't think so. You're not a police officer, nor have any right to be in charge any more than any of us." / *creepy sneer* "Ahm afraid that sounds like Lie-buh-ruhl talk to me. Ahm in command here, like it or not." / ""Command?" What is this, Terminator? How about we just fucking sit tight, cook this rehydrated food, check that our neighbours are okay and pool our supplies, see what working communications we have and treat anyone who's injured, then get to boiling some water because, you know, water born disease and all that?" / And then I don't know what would happen, because 'unhinged' is a fairly generous way to describe Chucky's statements on this matter. And why do I get the impression that "well regulated" is a euphemism for "ruled as I see fit, like some kind of delusional bandit warlord"? --Sasayaki (talk) 11:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Replying to my own post, but also, what the fuck? How does "I will be in charge, like it or not" gel with his Ann Randian, every-man-for-himself, dog-eat-dog, fuck-the-poor, every-home-a-castle philosophy? I mean, if I choose not to join his union (I mean militia), will he force me? Kill me? What the hell? ... I mean, I guess that old saying is true. To test a person's character, you give him power. --Sasayaki (talk) 11:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Not unlike a child with a ball threatening to take it home if he isn't made captain, Chuckarse will be the one with the generator and might not have enough power to provide to those who don't vote for him. rpeh •T•C•E• 11:49, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

With Vomitbottom it can't be a "community group" or a "neighbourhood society" or something. No! MILITIA!!! Because that's what you need when the power goes out. He was probably sitting in the dark, clutching his shotgun until the lights came on. In other news, Terry probably thinks "Revolution" is a documentary. --PsyGremlin^Parla! 12:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I did like his comment about how he couldn't be an effective and respectable leader without a generator, though. It showed a nice failure to grasp any single aspect of what leadership is about.--Fergus Mason ^{Thruppence I got for selling my coat, tuppence for selling my blanket. If ever I 'list for a soldier again, the Devil shall be my Sergeant.} 14:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Y'know... Terry's mine gripe is that "my power took too long to come back on!" Does New Jersey have a government run utility? (Yes, I know utilities are among the most regulated privately owned businesses.) MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 13:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

No, actually it is four different private utility companies; who you get depends on your geographical location within the state. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:49, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I guess this is the naked truth behind all of Chuckarse's apocalyptic fantasies and randroid dreams. When the world ends, he'll be in charge. I notice he wasn't out there like the randian superman he wants to be chainsawing up trees. Nope, he waited meekly like a good little dependant for the government to come do it for him, and still had the temerity to complain about how long it took to get proper services restored. Carry on, Captain Mainwaring. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:43, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I am just glad that Launchbooty's neighbor with the generator was a decent fellow who let his neighbors charge their phones freely instead of Randian attempt to charge them (in gold bullion) for the privilege, and then attempt to press-gang his neighbors into a militia. I wonder why? Oh right, because his neighbor is a normal human being.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

God Chuckbooty is so more more dangerous then Andy. Worst thing Andy will do to you is pontificate about the liberal media while your face goes numb and you wish you could summon an MP3 player of a Gameboy. Fucking Commando Chuckbooty would be running around with an AR-15 illegality converted to fire full auto running around a disaster zone declaring it the independent republic of Aynistan and him as the glorious leader. Our only saving grace is that I'm sure Launchbooty would be too busy going full retard with his rifle to actually hit anyone, and anyone who even knows the basics of shooting could handle hit. --Revolverman (talk) 18:50, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

You think? "That’s how I plan to gain the real power—the willingness of my neighbors to follow my lead."--Fergus Mason ^{Thruppence I got for selling my coat, tuppence for selling my blanket. If ever I 'list for a soldier again, the Devil shall be my Sergeant.} 23:22, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, you think that Terry is scary? Nah. He's a fantasist only slightly more grounded in reality than User:Conservative. I really can't see him doing anything violent, because I can't really see him doing anything more relevant to the world than writing a blog. Phiwum (talk) 00:23, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, he certainly seems to be giving scary things a scary amount of thought at the moment. I don't see him going nuts with a gun and hosing down the neighbourhood though, just wasting time trying to well regulate a pointless militia when he could be cutting up trees. Violence doesn't seem his style, except vicariously.--Fergus Mason ^{Thruppence I got for selling my coat, tuppence for selling my blanket. If ever I 'list for a soldier again, the Devil shall be my Sergeant.} 00:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Will Barack Obama actually do what the Constitution may require? The cad!

"Rasmussen and Gallup final polls agree: Mitt Romney 49%, Barack Obama 48%. But will Obama claim the office despite losing the popular vote?" It sounds as if Obama would be a jerk to "claim" the office, if he loses the popular vote. Goodness, yes! After all, what has the U.S. Constitution to do with who is elected President? Why, to follow that outdated document really is to usurp the rightful leader his role. And no Republican (say, oh, I don't know, George W. Bush in 2000, who was every bit the conservative Mitt Romney is) would ever defer to the electoral college rather than the popular vote. Phiwum (talk) 16:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize MattyD had already raised the same point on CP's Main talk page. Phiwum (talk) 16:49, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Phiwum: that's false. When it comes to conservatism, Mitt Romney makes George W Bush look like Michael Moore. -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Thought I just had: George W. Bush ran as a centrist, but governed right wing. Romney ran hard core right wing, but will presumably govern as a centrist. (If he wins, which I don't expect.) MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 16:58, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

"Romney ran hard core right wing" During the primaries. Afterward he became a centrist (again). If he thought being a deer increased his chances to be president he'd pretend to be a deer and act like he always was one. --Night Jaguar (talk) 17:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Romney did veer to the center during the general election, but not as much as I expected. If he wins, I expect he'll be so centrist that... he'd... be... like... something very centrist. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 17:43, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

(ec) When I see Andypanys write things like that I have to question just how out of touch with reality he is. Does he seriously not know how the election works? Does he seriously not remember Baby Bush - which he does, because I remember him replying to a query of mine with something along the lines of "Well the guy who got the most votes didn't win, I suppose you'll say it was fraud." Is he really that twisted with hatred for Obama that that's the excuse he's going to use? I can't wait for follow ups. Use capturebot guys, because there could be a few posts vanishing when Obama wins. --PsyGremlin^Speak! 17:46, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

From what I can tell, Andy's hatred of Obama goes beyond "everything is political" and into the realm of the personal. Andy hated him being the editor over him in college and now, decades later, hasn't forgotten it. Furthermore, Barack went on to become POTUS and generally be successful and happy, while Andy is miserable, unsuccessful politically and career wise, known only to a select group of liberals and the unfortunate children of hardcore Republicans, whose efforts online are mocked daily. Barack Obama has done everything Andy wishes he could do. --Sasayaki (talk) 18:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Okay, I know it's Andy I'm talking about here but he just might mean "claim" in the almost-neutral sense of "take" (Hurricane Sandy claimed 80 lives, for instance) instead of "demanded". Obviously, if that's what he meant it's not the best word to use, and in any case I very much doubt that's what Andy means. rpeh •T•C•E• 18:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

This is the Republicans' strategy for the next four years. Redouble obstruction, with the justification that the president is even more of a usurper than he was before. It will not be the same as Bush's first term because -- they will say -- Bush won a clear popular mandate for his second term while this imposter was voted out save for the technicality of the electoral college. This will be Boehner's refrain. Whoover (talk) 18:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Ha, centrist! I don't think most Americans know what that means. Генгис^{Gum disease} 18:22, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

A centrist by American standards, which means a rightist in the rest of the world. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 18:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Seth, I don't have any desire to argue whether the formerly pro-choice author of Romneycare really is conservative or simply pretending to be. I tend to think that his lack of political convictions is fairly obvious, but that wasn't really the point of my post in any case. Phiwum (talk) 00:17, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Florida

So, given that we are still waiting for Miami-Dade to report in, and apparently people are still waiting (or at least were waiting to vote past the poll closing times) to vote there, and the vote there is more likely to tip Florida to Obama than Romney, is there any sign that Andy's cracked open the whisky yet?-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 03:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, my uneducated guess is that Obama might just about edge over 50% when all is said and done. It certainly looks like he'll win at this point. I suppose if the news people start calling Florida, Romney will retire to work on his concession speech. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 03:17, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Anger Bear is in deep denial.

Birds. Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 05:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Is this true - not cp related directly.

BBC radio 5 here in the UK has just said that it is possible for Romney to win the electoral college but for Biden to end up as his VP? Seriously? Is this really possible under the US constitution? Oldusgitus (talk) 21:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Not quite. If the electoral college is tied, the House picks the President and the Senate picks the Veep. The House is Republican, the Senate Democratic. So yes. Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 21:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Goat, the US constitution is not really up to that much in that case. Did I say that nicely enough to show the face-desk interaction without insulting our US colleagues? Oldusgitus (talk) 21:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

And if both Houses deadlock and don't agree on their respective picks, the Speaker of the House assumes the presidency on Inauguration Day. President Boehner. Whoover (talk) 21:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

At least we had the decency to write our constitution down on paper. (And by we, I mean, of course, America) Really, it's amazing that we ended up being the most amazing perfect awesome country in the history of the world DESPITE what crappy parents we had. It's like when a drugged-out hippie that everyone hates gives birth to a cross between Mother Teresa and Bill Gates. In conclusion; America, fuck yeah. Carlaugust (talk) 21:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Parchment, not paper. -- Seth Peck (talk) 21:42, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The short answer is "Yes", but it takes a really, really weird set of circumstances for it to happen. rpeh •T•C•E• 21:32, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

And, yes, you have a written constitution, but even after the last election in the UK, at least we knew who had won each seat - it just took some time to work out the final result. I'd love the UK to have a written constitution, but the starting point would be "Right. Here's how the USA has fucked it up... how should we do it?" rpeh •T•C•E• 21:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

We don't have a written constitution but we came close with the Bill of Rights of 1688/9, London Grump (talk) 21:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

You could say that our (British) constitution has evolved since 1689 without cutting any monarch's head off, no civil war, not even a serious rebellion... In theory, our constitution evolves to changing circumstances. It's not perfect - e.g. I think we need to curb the Prime Minister's powers - but I think it's a heck of a lot better than an unchanging, written constitution. Cardinal Fang (talk) 22:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

A document that can be easily updated to reflect the realities of a changing society, rather than trying to read the minds of a bunch of dead white men from the end of the 18th century? Whatever, Comrades. Carlaugust (talk) 23:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

1. Lots of people--perhaps most people--subject to British rule engaged in serious rebellion since 1689: the Indians, the Americans, Mau Mau, "The Troubles." When you stop thinking of "British history" as something that stops at the white cliffs of Dover, it looks a lot less peaceful than you describe it. 2. Do you understand the concept of "amandments"? There have been several to the US document. Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 23:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I have to admit that I have no idea what "amandments" are. Can you please explain in layman's language. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 09:17, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

(1) Perfectly true but these rebellions/ revolutions were largely by people who were disenfranchised. I think my point still stands for the UK itself. (2) Even so, there is a lot of sentimental attachment to a document which may have worked 220 years ago but is now outdated. It's as if the UK were still governed in essentially the same way as under George III. (The USA Constitution is essentially based on the British "constitution" c.1780, immediately before the premiership of Pitt the Younger.) Cardinal Fang (talk) 01:28, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Is there a Godwin-type law for Americans calling the situation in Northern Ireland a rebellion or some struggle for freedom? London Grump (talk) 09:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

In the olden days, the vice president was whoever got the second highest percentage of votes. Thankfully, this discordant system has long since been changed, and now two candidates work on the same ticket. Interesting historical fact--"Shut up, Brx." 05:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

The problem with the US constitutional amendment process, and with most "higher law" processes is that the normal equilibrium of a democracy makes them unworkable. Everything is balanced around even splits and then you add this outlier that relies on a larger majority to take effect. The Westminster approach is very simple: No future binding. Nothing that parliament decided yesterday, let alone in a previous incarnation binds the current parliament today. The parliament recognises (as have English rulers since at least Canute) that it can be bound by Physical Law, but it rejects other attempts to bind it, including a written constitution. This meant that momentous changes like the creation of the Welfare State, the various incarnations of "Universal suffrage" and even Devolution are achieved by the normal legislative process, and not by some special means that can be held hostage by a minority.

The US experience in the 20th century illustrates that written constitutions offer no tangible benefit. First, the "protections" instituted to avoid spurious amendments to the document were ineffective in averting Prohibition. Secondly, the distinction of a "constitutional right" was shown to be worthless by the widespread, frequently unpunished abuse and sometimes outright open murder of people who tried to make use of their rights during what is euphemistically called the "civil rights era". 82.69.171.94 (talk) 12:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, and I would go as far to say that you are incorrect and that some of what you are saying is untrue. The binding nature of the constitution ensures that there is a basic framework for any government actions, and that changing things like election laws can't be done at a whim by an unscrupulous congress (of course, the consitution is far from perfect- or at least was far from perfect, considering the lack of women's suffrage, among other things- so that is a slight flaw in my thesis: some of the binding rules from the constitution actually make things worse). Secondly, the 1st and 14th amendments together have had a monumental positive impact on this nation: the right to freedom of speech and freedom of religion is simply immutable, and any violations of the 1st and 14th amendments whether on the local or federal level, can be brought to the Supreme Court and nullified, under the power of judicial review. Granted, there were some troubling times when thorough application of these parts of the constitution encountered some vile resistance, but ultimately, we were successful in providing, at least nominally, equal rights for all citizens (I say nominally because you can't expect every single place in the US to follow the law by the letter, but in the grand scheme of things, I think things have greatly improved).--"Shut up, Brx." 19:57, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Recounts

In an election this close I predict three recounts. --Sasayaki (talk) 02:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't look terribly close from where I'm sitting. Unless Aliens came down and made Californians vote Romney, isn't it pretty much all over already? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:28, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

This is CP related how? Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 02:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, from my point of view my only interest in this election is that it'll be a lot funnier at CP if Obama wins, so there's that. Strangely, despite me being a citizen of the free world, I don't get to vote for its leader. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Though in actual CP news, Andy has set up his narrative^img for Romney's defeat. Too much economy, not enough abortion, stupid. If even CP is sounding a defeatist note, I think it might be in the bag. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:57, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's cute. Voters are turned off by liberal Republicans, so they vote Democrat instead. Keen insight! Phiwum (talk) 03:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually that's a fairly common argument from extremists. In the UK when the Labour Party wasn't winning, the far left argued that it was because the party wasn't socialist enough, and similarly in the Conservative party when they were out of power, the rightist a were saying they needed to be more Thatcherite. I think it's probably a defensive mechanism because they know that the party actually needs to move in the opposite direction to win voters so they need to nail their end to the floor to stop it moving too far. Генгис^marauding 09:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Election Night Meltdown

No specific links, but it looks like Andy's started on the 7 stages of grief. So far it's still in the denial phase, but there are also a few "anger" posts from stage 3 about Democrats. rpeh •T•C•E• 04:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

My guess is we'll get around to bargaining when the counting is done and it is reported Mittens did OK in the popular vote. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 04:34, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Seems there's been a server meltdown too, maybe in a fit of race assfly decided to nuke the project. Naca (talk) 04:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

After a flurry of early updates, it's all gone quiet... rpeh •T•C•E• 05:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

The top of Main Page still proclaims that the Republican majority of the House increased last night. Andy counted his chickens before they hatched and he refuses to count again, I guess. (He actually has no edits after 11:00pm last night. There's no way he went to bed without knowing who won.)Phiwum (talk) 12:27, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I reckon that Andy - although not a Romneyite - was, like many on the right, fairly confident that the GOP would take the day and his nemesis would be out on his ear. When his hopes were dashed he just slunk off to bed. I'm confident that he will be revising CP history, tidying up the embarrassing tit-bits, and moaning like a sore loser later on today. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 13:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

JPratt waves his tiny fists

Bawwww, he's literally angry with rage. America, you have failed the founders! You didn't send the commie back to Kenya where he came from. That's the stuff I wanted from this election. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 05:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

My favorite quote? I refuse to #VoteObama because he is a big commie--"Shut up, Brx." 05:55, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes how dare America reelect that damn uppity nigg-uhhh MUSLIMCOMUNISTSOCIALISTKENYAN. It always warms the heart to see such repulsive people be reminded of their impotence Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 06:43, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

So Jpatt runs CP's twitter account I guess? Hardly surprising to find him in the intersection of two of the most idiotic things in the world: Conservapedia and Twitter. DickTurpis (talk) 08:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

It would be more accurate to say that JPatt promoted his personal twitter to represent "Conservapedia" and not just himself. I've never seen him use twitter to talk to a friend, he just uses it for hashtag laden raving. Really, it has nothing to do with Conservapedia, I guess JPatt needed something to make himself sound important. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 08:55, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Ken owns MPR, so the poor fool had to stake out his own claim elsewhere instead of getting into a turf battle with Kendoll. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 04:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I love how angry CP and Co. are acting

When this all they wanted. If Mitts won, it'd be 4 years of never ending spin, now they get to keep playing the victim, and they LOVE that. --Revolverman (talk) 06:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, as much as they love to play "oppressed minority," they also like the "triumphant majority" angle. And let's face it, conservatives would find some sort of national security threat to worry about should Republicans come into power. Communists, Muslims, whatever.--"Shut up, Brx." 06:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Actually, as I said earlier, it's gone quiet. What will be interesting is tomorrow morning. rpeh •T•C•E• 06:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations from Eastern Europe on your wise decision not to elect Romney. --Max Sterling (talk) 06:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I love the way they are calling voter fraud despite almost the actual causes of dodgy practices coming out were from True the Vote and the electronic voting machines owned by GOP linked companies. Nice little alternate reality they have going there. But yeah, I think Andy is pretty conflicted between his right-wing craziness and his need to be the victim and root for the underdog - hard when you are a Harvard educated lawyer (though still a failure) and the "underdog" is a multi-millionaire backed by multi-billionaires. --Llegar a las estrellas^¿Dígame? 08:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

At least some of the claims of voting machine tampering veered into conspiracy-theory territory. Both sides attempted to overinflate legitimate but minor concerns into enormous scandals. ListenerX^TalkerX 08:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Yup, Romney the RINO

Here we go^img. rpeh •T•C•E• 13:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

And if Faux had not been pushing for Romney? Then that would be liberal domination of the lame-stream media. Генгис^pillaging 13:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Wow, Romney and Faux thrown under the bus in one fell swoop. Are we going to see Andy's mancrush on Santorum again? --PsyGremlin^Siarad! 13:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it's time for someone to suggest that Andy should consider running in 2016. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 14:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Suicide bid by AugustO?

If he gets away with this^img I'll be surprised.--Fergus Mason ^{Thruppence I got for selling my coat, tuppence for selling my blanket. If ever I 'list for a soldier again, the Devil shall be my Sergeant.} 13:46, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't expect Andy to do much but one of the butt-hurt baboons will probably need to make his presence felt. Генгис^mutating 13:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I love Andy's claim that he's giving appropriate weight to each of the branches of government. From this, one can infer that state legislatures are a more important battleground than the presidency, because he's seen fit to comment on state legislature elections, but the presidency can wait. Phiwum (talk) 14:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm pleased it's not just me that noticed that they really don't mention it. It's proper head-in-sand stuff over there. ^moral 14:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

You have to love Andy sometimes: "August, our main page has long stated very clearly that its priority is 'what the MSM isn't fully covering.'"^img That's why he's not mentioning that Obama won the election; it has nothing to do with his personal butthurt. I do love, however, while Obama is not reportable, Bachmann and and King's wins get banner treatment at the top of the page. Maybe August should point out that those are also covered in the MSM.

Andy is so shallow, if you waded in him, your toes wouldn't get wet. --PsyGremlin^Snakk! 15:05, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

That may be so but it would take you months to get them feeling clean again. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 15:21, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

To that I would say he had a nice crow about Obama's performance in debate number one, which got pretty decent MSM coverage. --جئت ورأيت أنا القرف ^{gross, isn't it?} 15:30, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

It looks like it's all too much for Andy

Not only does he seem so apoplectic over a Republican loss for the Presidency and Senate that he's doing his best not to mention it, he also seems to be completely unaware, or at least doesn't want to acknowledge, that for the first time the population of four states approved same-sex marriage, and the fact that the Republican Party already seems to be going into simultaneous schism and meltdown with Marco Rubio coming out and essentially saying that if the Republican Party wants to win at the federal level they really need to be less Republican. Personally, I can't wait to see Andy's reaction when the shock and whisky finally wears off, and the news sinks in. I don't think it helps that, as it got pointed out repeatedly last night, that minority groups as a whole will shortly become a majority of the electorate, and if the Republican Party doesn't find a way to get their votes on a consistent basis the Republican Party faces being wiped out in about 25 years time.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 15:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

It's been a veritable perfect storm for Andy and those like him: Obama back in, Dems hold the Senate, gay woman elected to Congress, 4 more states allow gay marriage, 2 legalize pot, almost all the pro-birth rape denialists are voted out. --PsyGremlin^Sprich! 16:29, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

And in almost echo of the last point, it appears that those standing with Tea Party leanings last night were mostly wiped out as well. Bachmann managed to hang on, but only with a very slim majority.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 16:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

it also appears that some voters would rather vote for a dead Democrat than a living Republican. That can't be good for your ego if that happens to you...-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 16:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I can't imagine that this is being lapped up by the GOP. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 16:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

You know, if Obama's got any sense he should use the gap between now and the fiscal cliff-edge to really get the Democrats behind him and push for statehood for Puerto Rico. Either the Republicans will support him, in which case Obama can strongly argue that he is bipartisan when the shit hits the fan in January, plus in Puerto Rico the message will be that it was the Democrats who gave them statehood, or the Republicans will oppose him, in which case it will really hammer home the message of the election - if you ain't white or filthy rich, the Republican's don't give a shit about you, a really handy message for 2014 and 2016.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 17:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Andy's poster boy for true Conservative values, Akin, was crushed in his Senate campaign also; I sure like to see how that one will be spun.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

All I can think about it what it must be like to be Andy's wife right now. I hope he doesn't lash out against her. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Unlike his CP goons, I don't see Andy as being the violent type. She's more likely to be suffering from his extended rants in that annoying voice. Генгис^mutating 17:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if Andy's wife even lives with him any more. Or maybe they share a roof, but nothing more than that. He never talks about her, and nothing he does on the site seems to indicate that she has any kind of impact on his life. It's kind of weird.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 17:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

She's probably out with her tennis coach, getting banged like a swing door in a hurricane a very private person, who likes to curl with a good book. --PsyGremlin^Parla! 17:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Andy comes off as a person who keeps his personal life private and who keeps CP separated from his personal life. He may not mention his family for those simple reasons alone. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

It isn't so much that he doesn't mention her, it's more he never seems to make time to be with her. He seems, or at least seemed, to be much more interested in CP, judging by the hours he puts in there.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 17:43, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

He's been married 28 years; the novelty eventually wears off and you run out of fresh things to say. Holding hands and gazing into each other's eyes really aren't all they're cracked up to be. (Sorry AD.) Not every couple has identical interests so you share the commonalities, but unless you are a possessive control-freak you allow your partner freedom to do their own thing and take pleasure in their pleasure. So Mrs. S. might be a mighty fine amateur tennis player who really needs extra work on that backhand while Andy tinkers with his blog. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 17:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh what bollocks. Give it a rest. This is silly and just a little bit creepy. The guy doesn't talk about his private life on CP and that tells us only that, you know, he doesn't talk about his private life on CP. Ajkgordon (talk) 18:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

That's what I was trying to say. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 18:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

If he truly insists on keeping his personal life personal, why does he so vehemently endorse the republicans tinkering with people's personal lives on issues such as abortion and gay rights? Or do the personal lives of others not matter if they're not conservative? Doraemon^{話そう！話そう！} 18:45, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Good God, man, what a spurious "argument"! It's one thing to choose whether you should talk about your family online and another thing to be opposed to what you view as the murder of babies (or even opposed to what you view as a perversion of a sacred religious rite). We can disagree with whatever political stances he takes, but there's no evident inconsistency of the sort you suggest. Phiwum (talk) 18:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Andy has a lot of pent up aggression. How is he going to take it out? He can't really do it on CP. Well, look at his positions on the family (who I assume is about all he has left). Consider the fact that he thinks there's no such thing as marital rape. Just sayin... Occasionaluse (talk) 19:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, even as a joke, that's a detestable comment. Andy is a real person (okay, that sounds implausible, but still...) with a real family (slightly less implausible than imagining Conservative with a wife and urchins), and you're imagining that he violently attacks his loved one. Really. This is worse than the above comment that presumes JPatt's only reason for detesting Obama is that he's a nigger. Phiwum (talk) 19:26, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I think Occasionaluse is thinking of Phyllis Schlafly's views on marital rape. ListenerX^TalkerX 19:29, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but even if one thinks that marital rape doesn't "count", it's a long and nasty step to suggest that Andy is going to force himself on his wife as a result of pent-up rage over the election. It's really a nasty joke about real people. Phiwum (talk) 19:43, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

While I've been gone, I've developed a thing for moralfags. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

At the risk of exposing myself as a know-nothing: huh? Phiwum (talk) 19:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

He's a rebel via internet slang, and being moral is squaresville. 99.50.98.145 (talk) 21:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

It's a 4chan term. --Sasayaki (talk) 21:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC)