Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive323

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 29 September 2013. 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>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, (new)(back)

Six degrees of wingnuttia[edit]

Normally, this bit of Bradlee Dean whining about how persecuted he is would be beneath our notice. Actually, I'm not even sure why Chucky decided to reprint it. But if you go to the article he's moaning about, who do you find in the comments but our old friend Jinxy "penisbone stuffed butts" McHue. It really is a small world in Wingnutia. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 13:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

There's a lot of inbreeding. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic?Moderator 15:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Is it really fair to make fun of Conservapedia...[edit]

...for doing things like block IPs for no good reason and dodge questions when our friends at Wikipedia (I say "our" friends because I'm a fan of both CP and WP) do the same thing? 1 2— Unsigned, by: DMorris2 / talk / contribs ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Editing blocks are very different than server hardblocks. So yes, it is fair. Hipocrite 21:29, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Yes it is. Hiphopopotamus (talk) 05:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Seems like trolls can be blocked anywhere they waste people's time. ħumanUser talk:Human 07:09, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I think it depends on what your definition of "no good reason" is. Spud (talk) 08:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Increasing edit blocks on WP for persistent vandalism from a single IP, compared with blocking the world from even viewing the site? Get a sense of perspective. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.Moderator 08:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Conservapedia blocks IP ranges from where we see nothing but trouble come from. Administrators at Wikipedia block shared IP addresses from where a mixture of good and bad edits have come from without even giving the said IP addresses four warnings (which is tradition at Wikipedia). Maybe one has to be a conservative to appreciate the long standing Wikipedia fundamentals of assuming good faith and properly issuing warnings before instituting a block on IPs belonging to schools and military installations. DMorris, on the EIP Network 1 855 282 2882 16:36, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
FFS, Wikipedia doesn't block people from even viewing the site, which CP does. And CP's range blocks are far broader than anything WP imposes. Redchuck.gif ГенгисGum diseaseModerator 18:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I see a dozen warnings on the talk page. You apparently assume a school deserves four warnings each time its access is restored after a history of vandalism. Just like CP. Right. Whoover (talk) 18:13, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
And realistically, what added value might Wikipedia expect from a school? Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.Moderator 18:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Schools have employees with college educations just like General Electric and IBM. Even some first graders could fix a spelling error or a typo. School districts have institutions like the Charlotte Technical Center which have adult students, some of which may be perusing a degree (which would make them college students). I do RC patrol at Wikipedia, and I see good faith edits from schools all the time. In my opinion, if a school IP isn't spewing out tons of vandalism (five incidents of it in 7 days isn't spewing out tons of it), or engaging in sockpuppetry, the admins need to back off; if major ISPs like CenturyLink and Comcast started NATing thousands through one IP like this, 3/4s of internet users would be softblocked due to a few dumb kids vandalizing. DMorris, on the EIP Network 1 855 282 2882 20:50, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Are you seriously trying to justify the fact that not only am I blocked from editing CP, but I am also blocked from viewing it? If so, you are delusional on both counts. If you can even find one vandalistic or mocking edit by me on CP... That site is run by paranoid morons. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
If there are people wrongly blocked I can investigate the specific circumstances and offer to unblock but if by an admin I'd need to discuss it first. But how did you manage to get blocked by so many different people if not doing anything wrong?[1] I looked through your edits, cross-checking some of the edits you made immediately before getting banned and really couldn't see anything wrong with them.[2] You edit on really complex, technical subjects though and don't use sources so I can understand why misunderstandings might occur. You'd save yourself a lot of trouble if you'd just source things better. In your case, looks like you received your latest blocks from both Karajou and Andy so it would need serious discussion first with them to overturn a block. -- (talk) 03:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Isn't that the question at hand? I never made any questionable edits EVER. I got blocked and then blocked again because I edit RW. CP's "policies" are hilarious. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
I'd suggest emailing Andy about this or getting in contact with him somehow, he's always seemed pretty reasonable as has Conservative (who seems to just pretty much keep to himself). Unfortunately it was Karajou who blocked you and he doesn't want to overturn the block, probably because he made it and he never, ever admits being wrong... about anything. I'm not sure if Karajou is a parodist or a heavy-handed tyrant but he's the main reason I see Conservapedia blocking policy being the problem it is. About the only one who can stand up to him seems to be Andy. I've tried reasoning with him several times and the previous time I got a short-term ban. The only reason it wasn't indefinite I'm sure is that because I've contributed much of the site's best content on major articles mine is kind of a special case, and it's got to be really obvious I am what I claim to be. Anyway, point is you'd really need to bring it up with Andy, because he's the only one who Karajou will listen to. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 06:01, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
If you aren't able to get in contact with Andy I can try talking to him but since Karajou is on a hair trigger over the issue I'd prefer to avoid that. I wish I'd just talked directly to Andy, Karajou is always completely unreasonable and talking to him always causes trouble. He actually seems more reasonable, interestingly, on his civil war forums.[3] I don't really understand why he left Wikipedia either.[4] The guy is a mystery. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 06:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
I said realistically not theoretically. Maybe WP is being heavy handed in this instance but comparing it to CP's unthinking sledge-hammer is plain daft. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.Moderator 21:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
But is it? Correct me if I'm mistaken, but Conservapedia went from user blocks to IP blocks, to rangeblocks, to massive rangeblocks, to blocking IPs from even viewing the site. Now if you look at Wikipedia, it's gone from assuming good faith, to blocking harshly, to blocking really harshly, and it's only a matter of time. DMorris, on the EIP Network 1 855 282 2882 21:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I cringe whenever I see a school project infesting one of the WP pages I watch. A group of accounts shows up, and spends a lot of time congratulating each other on their user talk pages for the good work they are doing. Once, I even saw a professor admonish a WP editor to get her word count up. The edits involved do not tend to be of high quality, but neither are they vandalism. Exposure to collaborative writing practices can be eye-opening experience, I suppose. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 21:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I used to cringe whenever I saw the some idiot had tinkered with one of the articles I was trying to get to FA status, but then I got over it. Should it really surprise you though that someone who's mothership started as one big school project cringes over schoolblocks? DMorris, on the EIP Network 1 855 282 2882 21:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
If I were you, I'd be too busy cringing over CP which is now all bestiality and fat "jokes." Why do you even bother defending them? CP is hellhole because of the policies of its creators. Wikipedia seems to rub along quite nicely. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 21:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
CP has good content if you're looking up information on politicians or anything of political nature. I really wish for a return to building good, encyclopedic article content at CP and less chatter about fat atheists and flying kitties, but hey, sometimes Conservative does make good points. DMorris, on the EIP Network 1 855 282 2882 22:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, if you wish it, why the hell don't you say it? You seem to have no problem at Wikipedia voicing your concerns, but at CP you've never said a damn thing about the complete lack of a quality filter. No, wait, let me answer that question for you. Because you'd be banned if you spoke up. Just like Rob was. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 22:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
We, the good-faith contributors at Conservapedia, have internal discussions via private email all the time; just because you don't see it on CP doesn't mean it doesn't happen. 'Nuff said. DMorris, on the EIP Network 1 855 282 2882 22:23, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, we know. Nice and private so Andy is never embarrassed by his complete lack of management skill and can safely ignore everything you say. Cowards, the lot of you. You know Ken is mentally ill and is dragging down CP, but you'll never, ever say it. You'll never attempt to draft new quality standards that make sure CP isn't clogged up with countless articles repeating one incredibly weak "joke." You'll just go on pretending that CP is still relevant, when your only audience is people coming to laugh at how incompetent you are. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 22:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Conservapedia blocks IP ranges from where we see nothing but trouble come from. Really? My static IP address is currently blocked from viewing CP. I've only very briefly ever edited CP (years ago, quickly receiving a ban from TK), and certainly have never vandalized it. I was blocked for weeks, earlier this summer, briefly had access restored, and I'm now blocked again.
What sort of trouble have I caused? Phiwum (talk) 20:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
This is kind of my point though. Conservapedia blocks ranges where they see a lot of trouble come from (my guess is you're caught up in a range block), and to hell with any collateral damage. I used to think people like TK were awesome for having the balls to institute mass rangeblocks like that, until I saw that it could potentially hurt the project. Wikipedia is kind of doing the same; admins are blocking IPs that they think are troublesome (even if they're only mildly troublesome) and to hell with any collateral damage. Five years ago, collateral damage was a big deal on Wikipedia, but that seems to have gone by the way side. By the way, it's not just schools that I've seen long-term blocked over a little bit of vandalism; I've seen universities, major corporations, government agencies, and ISPs receive the same treatment from time to time. DMorris, on the EIP Network 1 855 282 2882 21:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
No, he isn't caught in a range block. Andy is blocking specific IP addresses that view CP. At this point, we're reasonably certain he's doing it by referer header in their requests. He's basically blocking anyone critical of CP from even viewing regardless of if they've ever edited. Many of my IP addresses have fallen down that rathole despite the fact I've never edited from them. It's cowardice, pure and simple. He can't stand criticism, none of them can. Check out all their blogs... only Terry even allows comments and he blocks and stalks people who make them. If you're comparing that to wikipedia, you're insane. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 21:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Same here. I've never vandalized CP but any IP I access it with goes "bad" unless I block cookies. I don't know what exactly they're doing or why, but my firewall-blocked IPs are unjustified and nothing like that happens anywhere else as far as I know. I couldn't be bothered to read CP anymore because the predictable BS isn't worth the hassle of dealing with a proxy. If you can show me an IP that has vandalized CP and been warned a dozen times and is still editing, I'll bother with a proxy. I'd love to see that. Whoover (talk) 21:36, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
My IP with CenturyLink changes every time the modem goes off (which has been happening quite a bit here lately). It was static when I had Prism TV though. DMorris, on the EIP Network 1 855 282 2882 21:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I can't tell whether I'm part of a range block or not. Can you? In any case, my ISP is a small regional provider, and I'm using a static IP (which I assume is from a pool from the dynamic IPs). You may guess that I'm part of a more or less justified rangeblock, but you have no real evidence that's the case. Phiwum (talk) 22:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
The blocking of IPs and ranges from even viewing the site was needed to stop the DDoS attacks. Andy blocks what he thinks is part of an attack on the site, as I understand. DMorris, on the EIP Network 1 855 282 2882 22:08, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
What evidence do you have to substantiate your beliefs? Hipocrite 22:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I think we've kind of gathered that that was the motivation from Karajou's hilarious post on the Angry Dome. Of course, the real problem is that CP has outgrown its shared hosting and has no technical users left who would know how to migrate it to a new home, so they're stuck on a host that can't accommodate the volume of requests and the server returns 503 when it exceeds its max worker count. Mediawiki is a ridiculous CPU hog that can cause these problems. Just look at how many times RW has had to upgrade its hosting arrangements over its lifetime, and the cost of them now. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 22:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Nope, it's not overload. If it was the 503s would be random, but they don't seem to be. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Right, their brilliant cybersecurity team determined that my smartphone was part of a DDoS attack on them so they banned its IP. Whoover (talk) 22:29, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
(e/c)I'm going to be taking computer sciences at some point in the near future, perhaps at some point I can obtain a small server and convince Andy to host Conservapedia off of my own DSL connection, and he only have to pay for the additional cost of business class internet instead of whatever he's paying for hosting. Then, as the host for Conservapedia, I would gladly sue anybody that launches DDoS attacks or spam attacks on the site, rather than have to block so many IPs. That was the one thing that used to be cool about R-W; even though the content sucked/sucks, it used to be hosted off of the owner's little server. DMorris, on the EIP Network 1 855 282 2882 22:33, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't waste your time and money. You apparently have no talent or skills that would help with that field of endeavor. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Riiiight, I was the office aide in the IT department in seventh grade and worked with them on things like reformatting hard drives (which wasn't difficult) and setting up things like network printers on the school domain after a reformat (the old school way through Windows, without wizards and software for idiots). I read email headers and find the IP addresses in them, and edit wikis. I was using the MS-DOS command prompt and 5 1/4 inch disks before I was even in elementary school (yeah, being born in 1992 makes me old now I guess; a lot of high school students don't even remember Windows 98). Oh, don't you know I have not skills in that field of endeavor. Being liberal doesn't equal being intelligent, and being conservative (or a Conservapedian) doesn't equal being stupid. DMorris, on the EIP Network 1 855 282 2882 03:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
OMG you used MS-DOS and the small floppies. Get over yourself. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Please don't. My profession doesn't need nutters like you. Go be a lawyer instead. Apparently the law welcomes all sorts. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 22:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, as a lawyer who has all but quit certain of my former practice areas because of fucking scumbag lawyers, I can confidently say that Morris would fit right in. He's a real cretin who makes thinks up as he goes along. That's appealing to scumbag defendants he'd be representing in a system that can't deal with scumbags' dilatory and frivolous conduct quickly enough. Go to lawschool, Morris. I'd love to encounter someone as woefully ignorant of the law as you are of technology and politics. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 14:57, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
If it weren't for "nutters" like me, we'd still be bowing to kings and riding horses (or worse, living naked and in caves); most of the great innovators, like Noah, Ben Franklin, and Charles Darwin, were once seen as "nutters." As for creationism, are you really going to tell me that the Genesis account for creation, which says that everything started as dust, and that plants came first, then fish & birds, then land animals, then humans, and that God created Eve from Adam (pretty much telling us that Eve evolved from Adam with God's help), is silly, then go on to tell me that we evolved from dust single cell organisms, and in pretty much the same sequence that Genesis portrayed, whose writers were not scientists and didn't have the modern scientific knowledge we have today? DMorris, on the EIP Network 1 855 282 2882 03:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
God you're nearly as stupid as Brxbrx. If it weren't for nutters like you we wouldn't be rapidly abandoning the enlightenment principles this country was founded on and many fewer people would be sick and unable to get adequate care. Or functionally illiterate and innumerate. You don't even know what "conservative" means. You make it up it you think it sounds nasty and divisive enough. Hint: conservative refers to preserving a status quo, not implementing an anti-utopian rapturian cesspit. Get fucked. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 14:57, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Really, I hope some day you look back on the things you wrote and cringe at how stupid you sounded. You're seriously comparing yourself to figures of history like that? What have you ever done? Charitably, you've been brainwashed by your parents to believe you're in some great "Conservative" tradition that has done everything good in the world, while the evil socialists and communists only ever retard progress. Less charitably, you're just an idiot. I'm guessing a combination of both.
Let me start you down the road of discovering that the world isn't as black and white as you've been let to believe. Hopefully you'll actually do the required work to learn something about the world on your own after. Remember that crap you wrote on CP about "Socialist landfills". That was complete and utter bollocks. Do you know why retailers offer recycling programs? Because they're forced to by law, by the EEEEVIL big government you've been taught to despise and by the EPA your heroes want to abolish. More than half of the states mandate that retailers must offer these programmes by law, so they do. If you'd even bothered to research the topic at all, you'd know that printer companies fought tooth and nail against recycling printer cartridges, for example. They want them to end up in landfill, because their business relies on selling pennies worth of ink or toner for huge markups. Landfill is a subsidy businesses are only too grateful to receive, while recycling is an exceptionally marginal activity that only works at all because the consumer does free labour (ohh, EVIL COMMUNIST!) sorting their trash. If they had to pay people to sort it, recycling would be a huge loss making activity. Next time you decide something positive is "Conservative" and something negative is "liberal", please actually research the topic first. You'll find it's always more complicated than that. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 10:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Sure, I, believe it or not, actually support a certain degree of regulation. But when was the last time, for example, you saw a federal government agency fined by OSHA? They get cited, but they don't get fined. Big government is a monopoly, and IMHO, a lot of government programs like Medicaid, SNAP, and public schools should be divested into not-for-profit organizations run off of donations and regulated by the government. To ensure that people don't get stingy, there could be mandatory charitable donations, not to any specific organizations, but there should be some form of regulatory arm to ensure that rich people don't game the system by creating phony organizations (which is something they're already quite good at doing to evade paying taxes under the current system). But really, you people think Obamacare is going to help the average Joe? LOL DMorris, on the EIP Network 1 855 282 2882 11:50, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Leaving aside "Obamacare" for a moment, I presume that you would be against any form of state provided medical care. But tell me how it is that many other advanced nations do have perfectly good universal health care of one sort or another and that do benefit the average Joe? What, apart from ideological reasons, do conservatives in the US object to? Ajkgordon (talk) 12:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
State provided health care is a monopoly at worst, and has an unfair competitive advantage against privately operated health care at best. Monopolies aren't good for the general public, I'm sure you agree. I also assume you're not a fan a big, greed mongering corporations, well, what bigger corporation is there than the government? The worst part is that they could care less about the shareholders (the taxpayers), just as long as the filthy rich executives running it (the politicians) get what they want. We need to do the same thing with Uncle Sam that we did with Ma Bell in the 80s. DMorris, on the EIP Network 1 855 282 2882 19:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
What you fail to perceive is that there is a big difference between monopolies which are not for profit and ones that attempt to extract the greatest return for their shareholders. The fact is that in a stable and civilised society there are some things which should be available to all at a fair price. The National Health Service in the UK was instigated precisely because the free market could not provide decent care for all of the nation's citizens. Now having a healthy and educated workforce benefits all of society - the rich as well as the poor - after all, why would you want your sick servants coughing their foul germs over your food? So there are some things which are the purview of government. At one time communications was a private enterprise and until the advent of the penny post by a state monopoly it was unavailable to many. One can argue that things have now changed but comparing basic healthcare with telecommunications suppliers is bogus. In fact it was largely government funded infrastructure which usurped the private telephone monopoly in the US. Now I don't think that Obamacare is the best way to implement universal healthcare but a confederation of the reactionary, the misguided and the avaricious has made it difficult to do it in a way that most of us in Europe would recognise as decent. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.Moderator 20:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I Know it's out there somewhere but can anyone find it for me please? It is a FACT that hip replacements in the UK cost (iirc) roughly 25% of the cost in the US. That's the UK with it's socialised health care compared to the US where it seems that the free market isn't really doing very well for the patients.Oldusgitus (talk) 19:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Fine, since you trust monopolies so much, lets ban cell phones, VoIP, and CLECs and bring back the days of the Bell System monopoly; lets merge AT&T, Verizon, and CenturyLink together again. If an Uncle Sam monopoly can be trusted to lower health care costs, certainly a Ma Bell monopoly can be trusted to lower the costs of communications. Lets completely deregulate them too, so that they're just like a government health care monopoly. Just keep me posted as to when we're going to do that so I can sock a bunch of money into their stock. DMorris, on the EIP Network 1 855 282 2882 19:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
WTF are you on about? Seriously? What? Have you ever read a political text? Is all your political education derived from faux news? It is an undisputable FACT that heaklth care costs far less in countries where there is a form of national health service. It is undisputable, to anyone except undeducated wingnuts, that privatised health care costs more. Is there a place for private health care? Sure. In the UK we have several companies that offer that service and they all make very healthy profits. In the US? You private health care companies steal from the public purse, they over inflate their charges and con medicare/medicaid to line their own bloated profits. Seriously, you are one ignorant child. When you grow up a little I suspect your views may change slightly. Oldusgitus (talk) 20:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
You really need to understand the problem before you decide what the solution is. Your whole "throw the free market at it" solution completely misses the point. In the US healthcare system, the people you're paying and the people who provide the care are completely different, and both for profit endeavours. Because your insurance company doesn't provide care, they have a whole set of extremely perverse incentives like denying legitimate claims, and kicking you out of their coverage programme as soon as you need it. And that's exactly what happens. It's good business for them to pay out as little as possible. There's a distinct friction between care provider and insurance company that inflates costs unreasonably. A friction that civilised countries smooth out with a single payer system of some sort. That needn't create a monopoly, but in fact a monopoly not-for-profit is demonstrably the best way of providing care if you judge by positive outcomes per unit money spent. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 20:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
But there's no (real) regulation. Or are you saying that regulation is useless? Some sort of not-for-profit free healthcare would be nice, but decentralized and private. Like I said before, lets divest Uncle Sam and have mandatory charitable donations, that way these kind of outfits can operate efficiently outside of the political arena (for example, no atheists whining over the presence of a chapel or religious symbols in the free hospital, if they don't like it, let them go and start their own atheist free hospital). DMorris, on the EIP Network 1 855 282 2882 20:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Kid, your "mandatory charitable donations" (HA!) are called taxes. We already have them. All you want to do is add another layer of bureaucracy so you can pretend that this is somehow "private enterprise." Stop being an idiot. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 20:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Taxes are government money. I'm saying make these organizations be completely independent of the government, and let the people decide who to donate to, not have the government collect money and distribute it to government organizations. If organizations become corrupt, they won't get donations, so there would be a real reason for them to make the general population happy and not do foolish things like government agencies sometimes do. Church groups should be fair game as potential donation recipients too, as long as they provide service that benefits the community the same as (or better than) secular organizations. I'm not even sure that donations should be mandatory, but there has to be a compromise somewhere. Let the government be regulators and operators of the military and let the private sector do everything else. DMorris, on the EIP Network 1 855 282 2882 21:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Why do I even bother? You're just trying to weasel out of calling a tax a tax, and the body that collects it a government. Mainly by missing out the critical step, oversight. Do you have any idea how much effort it takes to administrate tax collection? You might go and check out the IRS budget if you aren't aware. What you are proposing is mental masturbation, unworkable. The only working implementation of the idea involves a central body with the power of enforcement of a tax law, that we call a government bureaucracy or civil service. What you actually want, but seem completely unable to express, already exists, in the form of voucher programmes. The tax collecting bureaucracy remains intact in its only workable form, but the money is distributed to various private institutions. There are any number of problems with this scheme, which I'll be happy to go in to if you'll drop your idiotic pipe dream and join the rest of us in the real world. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 21:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't think you're understanding. I'm saying that these branches of government need to be divested into private nonprofits, and not at all be part of the government, controlled by the government (except for the regulations that private enterprise are already subjected to, such as OSHA regulations, food safety regulations, etc), or in any way attached to the government. Forget about mandatory donations if that's confusing you, the idea is that if the people (and the government is supposed to represent the people) want these programs to exist, they will contribute money to these programs voluntarily. Personally, I wouldn't be opposed to voluntarily contributing money from my paycheck so that we have been schools, better roads, food for the needy, etc, IF I weren't paying as much in taxes. The only thing I was babbling about with mandatory donations is to prevent certain types from being stingy and not donating to anybody, but that's just an idea that I through out there mainly to appease those that won't hear of it otherwise. DMorris, on the EIP Network 1 855 282 2882 21:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
No, no they won't. Study the history of the 19th and 20th centuries. The institutions we have today exist for a reason. You don't know history, you haven't worked through the implications of your own ideas. You just have this dogma of decentralized and private. You have faith that if your dogma is followed it will lead to good outcomes, but we have two centuries of social experimentation that says otherwise. We know, not think, not speculate, we KNOW that charity can't cover the needs of the poor. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 22:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
The trouble is, it seems, that conservatives in the US are unable to raise their eyes and look abroad to see how other countries do it. Either insular USA-USA-USA thinking or fear of seeing something "socialist" that works. For the uninitiated, there is a wide range of different schemes around the world. The UK, probably one of the least socialist countries in Europe, has a state-funded single-payer healthcare system and free at-the-point-of-use. It has optional private healthcare as well, which is great for the rich who want to cut waiting times for a new hip or want a larger private room while they're recovering. (Actually qualifying for any treatments on their insurance is another matter.) France, one of the most socialist countries by comparison, has a mix of majority state-funded and mutual non-profit insurance. If you're young or poor or unemployed or old or pregnant or whatever, the state provides all. If you're able, then you pay a contribution through your insurance.
Neither system is perfect. The UK spends less per head than France so consequently has fewer resources and a certain amount of mismanagement and other factors can result in overcrowding or long waiting lists - although less common than it once was. France spends much more (although still nothing like as much as the US) but has a problem with spending control and heavy bureaucracy largely due to the complexities of the non-single payer system. (Bloated bureaucracy is a common feature in France not limited to healthcare.)
But in both cases and in most of the rest of Europe the system works. Virtually 100% of the population is covered and cared for, which is good for everyone, rich or poor. In the UK, there are a few dissenting voices from the Tory right (some of which are regularly interviewed in the US by Fox news during healthcare debates and elections spewing misinformation about the NHS) who would like to see the system broken up and given over to private enterprise but they are considered pretty nutty by almost everybody. Both political parties keep tinkering with the system but the NHS remains remarkably intact after over half a century of service.
I'm pretty sure the American conservative objections to universal healthcare or socialised medicine or whatever you want to call it are ideological. It's a monopoly, it's socialist, so it can't possibly work even though it obviously does elsewhere at a fraction of the cost and provides a much much better service for its citizens. Ajkgordon (talk) 22:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
If the people aren't donating to it, then they obviously don't want it badly enough. You make a good point though with neither system is perfect; no system is perfect, not the free enterprise system, not the socialist system. I'm not saying everything about the English, or the French, or the Canadian system is bad or that everything about the U.S. system is good, I just don't see how you people can be so content relying on the government when there can be an asshole like Hitler or Stalin come to power at any time. The less centralized things are, the harder it is for a dictator to take over everything. Furthermore, if socialized medicine is so great, how do you explain all of the people coming from Canada for U.S. healthcare? One more thing to note, a lot of people in other countries seem to think that poor people in the U.S. get screwed in terms of healthcare, and that all of the hospitals are for-profit corporations, well that's simply not true. There's county hospitals like Sarasota Memorial Hospital that collect tax dollars for "indigent care," there's church run and secular not-for-profit hospitals that won't turn anyone away, there's laws like EMTALA that require even the greediest of for-profit hospitals to treat the indigent in the event of a life threatening emergency, etc. It's the insurance companies that are the real money grubbers, and well, that's not just a problem for healthcare. Some say people shouldn't be making profit off of healthcare, well care is at some point "for-profit" even in the NHS, because those doctors and nurses aren't working for free. DMorris, on the EIP Network 1 855 282 2882 22:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
You might as well say nobody should rely on private enterprise because they might go bankrupt at any time. Most of us prefer to live with the concrete now than some hypothetical future. The concrete facts are that the US spends more on healthcare for worse outcomes than any other developed country. It's a serious problem that your young Republican bong session fantasies don't even begin to address. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 23:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I prefer not to rely on anybody; hopefully if one private organization goes belly up, there's another competing one to take its place, otherwise we're all screwed. You can't trust anyone; all of these people in power, be it businessmen or politicians, are in it for themselves, not the rest of us. Truth is, liberals and conservatives are both full of bologna, and we're all brainwashed one way or the other, if we weren't, there'd be a sequel to the American Revolutionary War in order. But we're all set in our ways. DMorris, on the EIP Network 1 855 282 2882 23:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Oh jesus wept. I'd tell you to put Walden down because it's obscuring your view, but I seriously doubt you've ever read even that dreary paean to your brand of unreality. I hope some day you grow out of this shit, but in the mean time I'm out. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 23:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
You lasted longer than I could Jeeves. This is the worst thing about US politics, the childish dogmatic adherence to a position even when that position is palpably wrong. I know of no other country, bar Zimbabwe, where people take the same kind of stance. Oldusgitus (talk) 10:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
OK, so it is ideology. You object to reliance on the government even if the system is known to be better. Your objection seems to be about what a dictator might be able to do with a universal healthcare system - withdraw its services or whatever. Of course a dictator could basically do what he wanted with a private system too so I'm not sure why that is important. Besides, the state controls a military monopoly which can be be used against the citizenry. But anyway, what happened to pragmatism? So there's a system that works but it has some risks associated with it because of something something Hitler something something. Then deal with those risks. If the US becomes a dictatorship (unlikely), a universal healthcare system will be the least of your worries. In the meantime, you are surrounded by other liberal democracies that almost all have a significantly better system than the US - cheaper and much more effective overall. You cling to your ideological fears and therefore fail the people. You fail to provide a service that many other countries see as a basic human right. Shame. Ajkgordon (talk) 09:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


Wow, there's a lot of discussion on the healthcare issue, so I might as well interject my own 2 cents worth. I support a universal, single-payer healthcare bill to provide basic care for all. Our current healthcare system is not universal, it out-spends those European countries mentioned (and Canada) without even covering everyone. I support a basic system covering care vital to life, not socialism where government takes over the whole industry.

As a general rule, you get less quality and more cost inefficiency in government services because there is no competition or accountability. I've discussed this in more detail here.[5] When authoring my own prospective legislation in 2010 as an alternative to Obamacare (yes, I disliked it that much I authored my own alternative bill) my solution was to design a system for basic care where voting machines in hospital lobbies could be used with a card similar to Canada's care card for quick access and voting by patients on their experience when leaving so that higher-rated hospitals could receive more funding. Thus you'd avoid the problems of a socialist government service, and introduce competition and quality incentivization.

Anyway, the problem with Obamacare was that it was always a corrupt, dishonest, partisan bill designed contrary to the promises of bipartisanship and transparency Obama campaigned on. Obama ditched the public option in a deal with the hospital industry.[6] It had special deals for unions, AARP, and lobbyists. It was made in back rooms by Democrats with no Republican input into the bill authoring process whatsoever. And worst of all from a conservative's point of view, it was always designed to fund Planned Parenthood, the abortion industry, and was never about healthcare at all per recorded video of Obama speaking before Planned Parenthood in 2007.[7] It did not provide solutions for tort reform or the nursing shortage and its mandate is unconstitutional. It will harm jobs and cause employers to cut worker hours nationwide below 30 once the mandate kicks in in January 2015.

This is a bad, horrible bill on multiple levels. When discussing Obamacare, this is very different from the broader debate of whether the U.S. should have a basic healthcare system for the good of all (of course it should). Obamacare and our current healthcare system is usurping all industry and wrong on multiple levels however, will hurt jobs, is not even universal, and is just downright a horrible, despicable piece of legislation that should never seen the light of day. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 01:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Between your arguments here and your arguments at CP, basically what you're saying is..."librulsdidit." Hiphopopotamus (talk) 02:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
And as is often the case, they did it poorly, to be specific. The bill was a corrupt, dishonest, piece of garbage that Obama pressured the public and Congress to pass before it could be read. By this point liberal and liar are becoming synonymous. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 02:48, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
There is something perverse, even evil in insisting that all pregnancies end in birth, then not giving a flying fuck about that kid once it has been born, and denying it healthcare. American conservatives make all these claims about liberals and evil when in fact the mindset of the CP elite is evil incarnate. By the way, if it were not for "socialised" medicine I would be dead--Mercian (talk) 03:40, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Complete straw man, most pro-life supporters including myself recognize there should be exceptions for rape and life of the mother, and only oppose abortion when it's late enough in the pregnancy as to be clearly murder[8], like after the 20th week of pregnancy since the earliest pregnancy is 21 weeks.[9] Furthermore, virtually all legislation being put out by the pro-life movement has such exceptions, and the pro-choice movement opposes them anyway, just like they oppose the bill to make abortions after 20 weeks illegal.
Again, I at least am not opposing socialized medicine or universal healthcare, I am opposing the specific corrupt, dishonest bill made in back rooms by Democrats without any Republican input which will harm working Americans, unborn children, and the will of the American people. You are using the False Dilemma fallacy as though one must either support all abortions or none, all healthcare or none, which makes absolutely no sense.[10] The specific abortion laws supported by the pro-life movement are necessary to prevent murder, the specific healthcare bill in question is corrupt and dishonest. Pro-choice advocates are all about privacy until it comes to making taxpayers pay publicly for things they believe are wrong like abortion. -- (talk) 04:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Why an exception for rape? I thought a women's body had a way of shutting that down. Or was that a conservative being synonymous with liar? Hiphopopotamus (talk) 04:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
And now you're straw manning what Akin said too, very nice. Akin actually said that rape can occur, his argument was that the child shouldn't be killed due to rape. While his argument is more extreme than most pro-life supporters, he was not supporting rape like you and other liberals dishonestly claim. His full comments in context regarding whether babies should be aborted if rape has occurred were:
"Well you know, people always want to try to make that as one of those things, well how do you, how do you slice this particularly tough sort of ethical question. First of all, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something. I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child."[11]
Akin's comments were taken out of context, he specifically said, "that's really rare... But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something. I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child." His main argument, that rape-related abortion is rare, was actually correct, it accounts for less than 1% of all abortions.[12] And his argument that rape shouldn't justify killing a child, while more extreme than the pro-life movement in general, was not supporting rape - he specifically said rapists should be punished, just not the resulting children - and is not close to what liberals try to dishonestly distort it as. -- (talk) 04:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Who said anything about supporting rape? No one believes Akin supports rape. Talk about a strawman. Nothing was taken out of context. He was either ignoring science or lying to justify his extreme position. I think it was the latter, therefor making "conservative" synonymous with "liar". Hiphopopotamus (talk) 13:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Liberals tried consistently to distort Akin's arguments as supportive of rape at the time as seen from DailyKos, MSNBC, and other left-wing media. When you said, "I thought a women's body had a way of shutting that down" I assumed you were using that same distortion. His argument was not that rape-related pregnancy could not occur though but that it was in his own words "extremely rare" and that if it occurred the rapist should be punished not the child. He was right that rape-related abortion is rare, again, even if his reasoning for that is now better known as scientifically unfeasible as the result of recent research on the subject over the past decade. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 23:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Rubbish, Akin clearly said that a woman's body has a magical ability to not get pregnant if raped, and he for one took these comments back[13] which is more than you seem prepared to do. And lets face it, a good percentage of pro life conservatives will insist, except in certain circumstances, on the baby being born but will not be willing to pay a single penny towards it's welfare. That is why many conservatives deny global warning, not because they believe it is a hoax but because it will hit them where it hurts, in the pocket. One of the issues constantly bought up on CP is liberals/atheists and uncharitableness, I would guess that the likes of Ken and Karajou have never given money to charity. And I bet Andy has only given if he could get some political advantage out of it. As a man who has some influence of CP I would suggest you petition Andy to change CP's name to Hypocriticapedia.--Mercian (talk) 13:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't go as far as to say that K & K don't give to charity, nor that even most right-wingers wouldn't give to charity rather than paying taxes. It's just that the amount they'd give would not be as much. Also they'd be more likely to send frickin' bibles to a disaster area rather than serious aid in the way of food/shelter/medicine. Wasn't there some discussion a while back (about Haiti, I think) where Schlafly was advocating prayer rather than cash? Steven Kavanagh (talk) 13:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
I know he said that about the Oklahoma tornado a few months ago. There was also some discussion about adding a Red Cross link, which was rejected because the Red Cross was liberal--Mercian (talk) 18:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Todd Akin said that rape-related pregnancy is rare, in his own words, "First of all, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare." He did not say there is "a magical ability to not get pregnant" like you are claiming. His argument was that rape-related abortion was rare, not impossible, which it is. Furthermore, conservatives donate far more to charity than liberals do, and there are pro-life Democrats (e.g. DFLA) who strongly support welfare systems. You're trying to portray all pro-life conservatives as opposed to welfare systems which isn't close to reality. Pro-life, conservative Republicans held control of Congress from 1995-2006 and did not make an effort to eliminate welfare, correct? I think any moral nation should have welfare systems to care for its weakest and poorest so long as said systems require work in exchange in line with what Paul said, that if a man won't work he also shouldn't eat. (2 Thessalonians 3:10) --Jzyehoshua (talk) 23:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
[14]Saying he was referring to "magic" is a bit of an exaggeration, naturally. But in that clip he's either referring to some special defense the female body has against rape-induced pregnancy, or against rape itself, if he's really torturing pronouns and English in general. What's with the sudden influx of people who want to debate endlessly, and refuse to admit they're mistaken about anything? How can you be able to quote from that interview and not know what comes immediately after the phrase you plucked out of it? And why should anyone trust anything you have to say, since you seem to think digging in your heels and rephrasing the same argument suddenly turns bullshit into truth? Surely, you can admit Akin was being stupid without having to concede everything else in the process. -- Ellipsoidal (talk) 03:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Isn't it ironic that, while y'all are trying to say that I know nothing about botnets because I'm not an expert in the subject, knowing every detail about how botnets work, and because I don't work in IT security, y'all are here trying to pretend that you're experts in healthcare? How many of you that are claiming to know so much about single-payer healthcare and privately run healthcare are actually qualified to make such assertions; how many of you have worked in hospital administration in the United States and the United Kingdom's NHS (or another European government run healthcare system) and can honestly say, based on your experiences, that the European system is better? (talk) 15:33, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Erm, me. I work in a company in the UK that supplies prosthetic limbs to NHS patients, Private patients and soldiers who have been maimed during a right wing conservative inspired war in Iraq and Afghanistan so yes, I have some knowledge. I am also a consumer of both NHS and private health care, via work naturally. Now, what experience do you have of the NHS or similar to allow you to say it is so flawed? Oldusgitus (talk) 16:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I should point out the company is also one of the biggest suppliers to the US as well and currently they are seeing a situation where the US insurance companies are trying to claw back money on limbs already fitted beacause they say they are too high tech and the amputees in the US should make do with what is essentially carved wood, and I am not joking. There are amputees in the US who had their limbs fitted, the insurance paid and then the companies are now trying to claw the money back, either from the company I work for or directly from the patient. Nice system you have over there dick wad. Oldusgitus (talk) 16:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I used to work for a company supplying asthma inhalers around the world, the products with the lowest number of doses were for the US to save insurance costs, even though it just meant a repeat was needed quickly. The NHS is not perfect, but at least it means that the poorest in society aren't spreading communicable diseases around the rest of us, because they can't afford to pay for healthcare. Obama's proposal seems half baked to me, but I suppose he has to put up with people who are far too selfish to want others to be helped. And those people often call themselves Christians. Bevo74 (talk) 16:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────So so far that is two of us BON. I would like to bet from RW's editor base there are more. Now, what do you know from working in health care? Oldusgitus (talk) 16:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm a geologist/physicist but my wife has worked in UK social services and the health service for 40 years, while her twin sister lives in the US and is a fund-raiser for her local medical centre. As we're both getting on a bit my wife and I have also been on the receiving end of significant treatment. Mrs. K. was diagnosed with multiple myeloma having a tumour in the humerus of left arm which fractured the bone within. She had extensive radiotherapy and chemotherapy which were followed by a stem-cell transplant which required a month's stay in isolation while her immune system recovered. The bone in her arm had to be excised and replaced with a solid titanium prosthesis. That was almost ten years ago and she had to retire so she would not have been eligible for employer-provided medical insurance. Every two months she has to go for a chemical bone-strengthener and anti-cancer infusion. This is all provided by the NHS for free. I had intermittent cardiac arrhythmia and had to have ablation to cure it. All the tests, consultancy fees and hospital fees have not cost me anything above what I pay (and have paid) through my regular health service contributions. As a self-empoyed consultant if I wanted comprehensive private medical insurance it would cost me an arm and a leg. There is no way that we could afford private medical insurance if we moved to the USA. The NHS isn't perfect but on the whole it does a fantastic job. Seven years ago we had a vacation in Hawaii; on our first day, coming back from a walk on the beach I saw a guy who had collapsed on the tennis court, his playing partners were just standing around looking at him. I was concerned for his well-being and went across to him. The othe guys said that he had just collapsed so I told them to call an ambulance and I proceeded to give him CPR for about 15 minutes, he was a big guy and it was hard work. When the ambulance arrived it took them several minutes to get all their kit out and just cross the width of two tennis courts while I was still pumping and puffing away. Eventually they arrived with their AED and took over. Too late, he was dead. Redchuck.gif ГенгисevolvingModerator 20:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Hey y'all BON, I am an Irishman who emigrated to the US of A. When I came here, I noticed a few things. One, my gross tax take actually went UP slightly in the US, by about 1 or 2%. Ireland too has a good public healthcare system, and so I now also had to pay health insurance, which if considered as yet another tax, added quite a few more percent again to the total. My sister was a nursing staff ward sister and had a work-related accident in Ireland 25 years ago which caused a very serious series of back injuries, causing her eventually to have to give up working at the age of 45. With the State considering her 100% disabled, she earns enough from pensions and disability benefits to survive in a decent enough manner, and most, not all, of the medical care she has needed (over 10 back surgeries on her spinal column, and four neurostimulators implanted) has been free under the public system. My mother had a fall that left her brain damaged and she spent six months in hospital and survived two near death moments - all for free. My elderly father receives all doctors visits and prescription drugs for a nominal fee ($10 per transaction, I think it is). Meanwhile, here in the US, an Irish friend here had a friend visit from home. She fell 14ft off their balcony and was taken to the local ER, where after scans proved she had broken her spine, she was kicked out of the hospital and sent across town to the public hospital. Four days later, she was returned to my friends, her hosts, in a wheelchair, needing a 24 hour nurse. It was impossible for her to fly home, so my friends had to put her up for six months and hire a nurse for her. When she finally flew home, the hospitals sent a bill for $125,000 for her care. Finally, when in Mexico a while back, I had a firework explode in my face. The local doctor treated me for free and prescribed a particular ointment, which cost $3 in the Mexican pharmacy. Upon my return to the US, I renewed my prescription for the exact same medicine, which cost here $30. The medicine was identical, manufactured in the same plant in the US, packaged and sold under the same brand name. What is the point of a nation state if it cannot protect and improve the health of its citizens? The US health care system is based around profit, not healthcare. US healthcare is among the best in the world, if you can afford it. For everyone else, it's amongst the worst in the world. DogP (talk) 21:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Hey, you guys did realize that most states in the U.S. have state run healthcare for the indigent through the state Department of Health, didn't you? Also, there's a lot of not-for-profit hospitals (including some county/city run ones) in the U.S.; Bellevue Hospital, Sarasota Memorial Hospital, and Bon Secours Health System are examples. Those places don't turn the indigent away, and some of them receive tax money. Guess what? Just because things work a certain way in Europe doesn't mean they'll work the same way in the U.S. DMorris, on the EIP Network 1 855 282 2882 04:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


It's done:

Edits and Revisions at CP in Aug 2013

No other month has been nearly as impressive as August 2013: the runner-up is Jan 2011 when 38.1% of the nearly 9,000 revisions where made by Ken. In absolute numbers, Aug 2010 was the busiest for Ken, as he edited CP for more than 4,900 times - but this month saw 16,000 revisions in total... --larron (talk) 18:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

"I want to create an blog that masquerades as an encyclopedia. For a few years I will use it to redefine reality and it will be the laughing stock of the internet. After that, it will slip into obscurity. with its only remaining purpose being a channel for a severely mentally ill man's OCD." If this is what Andy set out to do then MISSION FUCKIN' ACCOMPLISHED. --Night Jaguar (talk) 21:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Wow. I've always enjoyed your analyses, larron, and this is no exception. Sobering, really. Poht (talk) 00:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
And we thought I had a small problem at Rationalwiki... This is just freaky. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:11, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I've said it before, and I'll say it again LArron, your analyses is one of the few reasons to visit this page. Excellent as always. I doubt Schlafly is short of money for supporting the server, but I feel that the 'end days' are nigh. Tielec01 (talk) 03:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you all for your appreciation! --larron (talk) 13:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Becoming Kenservapedia[edit]

Patrolled Revisions at CP

The graph shows the patrolled and not patrolled revisions at Conservapedia.

  • There are only very few manually patrolled edits (7,600 out of ca. 260,000). I didn't bother to eliminate these 3%....
  • 40 editors are auto-patrolled (AddisonDM, Aschlafly, BenjaminS, BethanyS, Chippeterson, ChrisS, CollegeRepublican, Conservative, CPWebmaster, DanH, DeanS, DeborahB., DouglasA, DuncanB, EdBot, Ed Poor, Freedom777, Geo.plrd, HenryS, JacobB, Jallen, JessicaT, JMR10, Joaquín Martínez, Joaqu�n Mart�nez, Jpatt, Karajou, Learn together, PhilipB, Philip J. Rayment, PhyllisS, RJJensen, RobSmith, RSchlafly, SharonS, Taj, TerryH, TimS, TK, Ymmotrojam) I didn't care for name-changes, so Joaquin is represented by three different entities...
  • The gray area shows the revisions which were not patrolled
  • Each auto-patrolled editor is represented by his or her own color, but I listed only the top 5.
  • the white line indicates 50% of the revisions per month

--larron (talk) 13:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Once again, you are awesome. What's extra fun is realising that of all those auto-patrolled, who were basically Andy's hand-picked goons, only 6 are left... PsyGremlinSermā! 20:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
actions in Aug 2013
Andy's actions
Andy's actions in Aug 2013
  • I'm still waiting for cp:User:CollegeRepublican to make his mark
  • Andy's contributions are on the lowest level ever: he made less than 120 edits last month, even down from an abysmal 230 edits in July
  • There was even one day (Aug 29, 2013) when Andy didn't do anything at Conservapedia - which is very untypical for him.
  • I suppose CP's future depends all on the cp:American_History_Lectures which starts this month...

--larron (talk) 07:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

If past history is anything to go by, we might see some homework for a week or two, then everything will mysteriously fall quiet again. I don't believe the last course Andy offered made it through to a final exam online. makes you wonder if he even has children in the church basement anymore. PsyGremlinTal! 08:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
The question is: will anything happen at all? At the moment, the course is only mentioned at cp:Conservapedia:Index ("American History (begins Sept. 5, 2013) "), but not on the main page. In the side-bar, we find the link to cp:World History, but I don't think that the side-bar was actually updated during the last years.
The last times, pupils in his class sometimes posted their material using a common account. I'm under the impression that pupils (and their parents) are more and more unwilling to put the homework on the net - and I can't see how Andy could argument that it is somehow beneficial to do so...
My gut-feeling: the upcoming course will be exclusively church-basement-based. Perhaps Andy will even claim that the task is so onerous that he has to neglect Conservapedia - until now, he hasn't made an edit in September, his only action were to delete spam on Sep 1, 2013. This is quite curious: Over the last years, Andy has religiously made at least one comment per day - other than the-week-that-never-was, you find seven days since 2008 without a comment by Andy ( Jul 10, 2008img, Jul 18 2008, Apr 14 2009, Oct 2, 2012img). Three of those happened during the last two weeks (Aug 22 2013, Sep 1 2013, Sep 2 2013) ....
I have no doubt that Andy is trying to pull a complete sanger, he just has to find a pretext: a home-school course just isn't enough...
--larron (talk) 14:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Patrolled Edits - showing my point...
Third day in a row without an edit from Andy - longest silence since the week-that-never-was! Should Ken and co. start to get worried? --larron (talk) 06:04, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

--larron (talk) 05:31, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


Terrible pun but how come nobody made it until now? - Bill Rawls (talk) 15:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Possibly because those of us who have lost family and friends to cancer don't find it the least bit funny. Doctor Dark (talk) 16:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I think it's funny, and someone I've known a long time just had her overies, uterus, pancreas, and a bunch of her colon removed. Don't tell her I said this, she'll get mad at me. Keep in mind the phrase "cancer on the Presidency" from the Nixon era. It's ok to use as a metaphor. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Since when is "well, it doesn't bother ME!" a compelling reason to think something isn't problematic or worse? --Kels (talk) 01:10, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
The main problem with it is that it implies Conservapedia is growing. DickTurpis (talk) 10:36, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Kels, shut up. Dick, good point! ħumanUser talk:Human 04:07, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Ah, such finely honed argumentation. I shall consider myself schooled, then. --Kels (talk) 21:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
I was simply countering DD's personal distaste for the joke with my acceptance of it, based on similar experiences. You brought nothing to the table. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:00, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Possibly, at least I didn't bring apologism, of very much the same flavour as a woman saying "well the sexism problem isn't bad because I don't mind those jokes" with the implied neither should you. If you hadn't noticed, there's quite a lot of that sort of thing running around lately, and I'd rather not see this become yet another place where such things are considered good form. --Kels (talk) 10:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I think there's a massive difference between mocking or making jokes about people based on their race, gender, or physical appearance (i.e. their differences), and making a joke about cancer (which can afflict anyone). So a lot of people die from cancer, but then people die in car crashes yet we use the term "car-crash" as hyperbole. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.Moderator 12:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Jesus, it must be hard going through life when one is such a vulnerable, delicate flower that a lame pun on a common medical condition is too painful to bear. Sorry, should I have prefaced this with a trigger warning? PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 13:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Genghis: Given that I was talking about the form of argument as Bad Argumentation, rather than getting into the specifics of the original (let's face it, in poor taste at best) joke, a good deal of that misses the mark. Fact is, I've had someone die of cancer in my life, and while I personally am not offended I recognize that this fact does not mean it isn't problematic. You see what I'm getting at?
PS&L: Why is it whenever anyone comments on problematic language and so forth, does someone always trot out the faux-machismo BS about how people are "delicate flowers" if they're bothered by something you can tolerate? It's so common, it's a bit tiring, really. And slippery slope regarding trigger warnings noted. Well done. --Kels (talk) 22:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Nobody made a comment about "problematic language." Someone made a comment about a lame pun based on a common word. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 02:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it's funny. I also think jokes about AIDS are funny sometimes. I was chastised by my mother and sister about 20 years ago... "You can't say that".

Yes I can. The taste may be poor depending on context, the joke may simply be weak depending on its humor, but. Yes. I can say that. "Knowing people who died of cancer" is not an argument about the quality of the joke, which was my point. I think I'm up to five, most under 40. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:24, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm kind of bemused at the argument that having "lost family and friends to cancer" endows somebody with a level of victimhood that needs to be taken into consideration when one is about to make a joke or comment. I cannot think of a single friend, acquaintance, or colleague that doesn't have someone close to them who has dealt with cancer. It's ubiquitous. We're all victims now. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 02:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I made no claim whatsoever about being "endow[ed]... with a level of victimhood that needs to be taken into consideration when one is about to make a joke." I don't mind at all that you or others disagree, but please don't put words in my mouth. Doctor Dark (talk) 21:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Relax. It was probably just a hifalutin way of calling you a hyper-sensitive dick. Robledo (talk) 22:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
In that case, it's fine. Doctor Dark (talk) 21:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Awfully quiet[edit]

While I am sure every one at cp is enjoying the reprieve, I honestly am a bit worried. Ken hasn't edited for around 36 hours. Hopefully he's out hunting flying kitties. This is Joya on her cell, not that it matters since i almost never edit.

nevermind, he's back.
He's probably been out panhandling in order to restock his meds. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.Moderator 07:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
The horrifying part is that he talks so much nonsense about mental health care (Dumbo's Feather - urgh) that I sincerely doubt he's in compliance with his treatment regimen. Do you really think he's taken meds in years? Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 01:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

For when your wiki needs more ridicule, call uncle Ed.[edit]

Demons'll getcha!img His source? A Daily Fail article about brainwashed kids casting out the evil spirits caused by Harry Potter books. If you didn't know Ed was CP's Biggest Idiot Emeritus you'd think it was parody. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 16:19, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I notice Andy has quietly[edit]

Reducedimg JZambranos user rights. Looks like arguing with anger bear is slowly costing him. Still think that conservatives have integrity do you? Oldusgitus (talk) 08:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I stopped believing CP had integrity after reading a few pages in early 2007. There are conservatives with integrity, but they get shouted down by the loonies so much that they're hard to find. SophieWilderModerator 12:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
What's obvious to Sophie since 2007 is lost on JZambranos. CP has never been a legitimate conservative site, it's just an echo chamber for loonies like Andy and Terry and Ken, and a place to assert authority for Ken and Karajou and Uncle Ed. Instead of integrity CP has all-consuming hatred for their strawman left and a "whatever it takes" attitude towards keeping their message pure. In this sense I think Karajou has the most integrity out of the five, as he is consistent if you understand his motivations. He explained it in a replyimg not too long ago.Shakedangle (talk) 14:05, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
As far as they're concerned, it's not a matter of integrity and I don't really see that as the issue either. Zambrano is the most irritating editor I've yet seen on RW other than Maratrean. Andy's got no patience at all for self-indulgent wall-of-text wankery. Add to that that Zambrano isn't a political conservative and doesn't have coherent theological views that line up with the CP party line and you've got a recipe for a 90/10 any time now. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 14:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
My point was more that the troll came here and started attacking us as being hypocrites, liars and 'liberals'. Now he is being hit with the lies and deceipt from cp I wonder if he is willing to admit that he was quite simply wrong. I know he is likely to come back with a no true scotsman argument about how they're not really conservative over at cp but you never know. Oldusgitus (talk) 14:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Andy's comment is especially biting - relatively little use - so maybe it'll change his mind about CP but not about liberals. Shakedangle (talk) 15:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


What have they been saying? Please copy/paste or make your own screencaps, since I can't see the site and capturebot seems to be broken/blocked. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Surprisingly little. There are a few posts that say "Fuck Obama and the French for considering attacking Syria because it's a violation of international law", and there's one neutral news item commenting on the proposed handover of Syrian chemical weapons. There seems to be very little frothing at the mouth going on here. - GrantC (talk) 03:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks I appreciate the update. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
No problem. I'll let you know if anything more interesting happens. As of yet, it's fairly quiet. - GrantC (talk) 04:48, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I think it's a case of Andy being pro war but cannot under any circumstances be seen to agree with Obama.--Mercian (talk) 05:15, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. Andy has always been at heart a moral coward all too willing to àbandon the most basic principles of his own dogma in order to satisfy his endless hatred of Obama, so its not suprising he is even willing to renounce his chickenhawk credentials just to spit imotently in Obama's general direction once again. Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 08:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Given Andy's undying love of the Soviet Union Russia, I'm surprise that there isn't a banner headline praising Putin for the latest diplomatic solution that he's put on the table. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 14:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Moral cowardice would certainly explain the relative quiet on this topic. However, I do agree with PS&L that it does seem quite strange that the chemical weapons agreement Lavrov "negotiated" was mentioned so neutrally on the news feed. There was no Obama bashing or cheering for Russia at all. - GrantC (talk) 15:00, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Jomar has been quietly inserting his usual hero worship of Arabic dictators, specifically Assad in this case of course, here and there. Does anyone actually know what it is with Jomar? Why does he have such a hard-on for brutal arabic dictators? He's never seen an arabic mass-murderer he didn't like from what I can gather. Oldusgitus (talk) 15:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
If you look deep enough into the archives -- I don't have time -- you will find some anti-Israel stuff that he has written that to some eyes may look like it goes beyond the realm of critiques of the political actions of a particular state, if you follow. Most of the Arab figures Jomar defends have pretty strong anti-Israel/anti-Zionist credentials. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 16:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
He's also strongly anti-imperialist, but in an illogical fashion where 1st world is always worst world.--"Shut up, Brx." 02:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Psy, I sort of knew he was anti-semitic in the kind of way that some of the more extreme Roman Catholics and other xians sometimes are, they killed jebus and all that stuff, but I don't see how that gets him off on supporting arabic dictators of all kinds, including the muslim ones. Oldusgitus (talk) 07:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

A Karajou Konspiracy[edit]

He's taken to adding angry comments to his blocks of the spam bots, e.g. "spam; all you're doing is proving us to be right about you" and "spam; just another intolerant, hate-filled liberal proving us to be right all along."

Is it possible that Karajou thinks we're behind the wiki spam bots? If so, that's fucking hilarious. Good ol' Karajou, never change your angry, angry ways. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 22:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

He manages to surprise me with how stupid he is. BTW, those are probably poorly paid marginal slave laborers posting that spam. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 23:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

This reads like a KKK manifesto[edit]

Here's the article linked to at the top of MPR on CP right now. This is a truly vile screed out of a disturbed mind; I am kind of at a loss for words on this one.--Umichcynic (talk) 02:31, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

CNAV, so not surprising. Also - "When was the last time you heard of an American Protestant, Catholic, Jew, Buddhist or even atheist call for the killing of Muslims? Never. America is civilized." LOL. I like how atheist gets tagged on there. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic?Moderator 07:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Uh, yeah Terry - "Ariz. Pastor Says 'Gays Should Be Executed'", Kevin Swanson Tells Gay Couples To Die On Their Wedding Day" --PsyGremlinRunāt! 14:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Also Erik Rush: Muslims are evil, let's kill them all. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 14:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
It's not Terry Psy, it's that nasty racist shit purpura. All flingbutt is doing is allowing purpur the platform to vent his bile. Oldusgitus (talk) 14:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Oh, Nicholas Skin-disease. Yeah, he's a vile excuse for a human being. I wouldn't piss on him if he was on fire. PsyGremlinParla! 14:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
I always say I wouldn't piss down his throat if his heart were on fire. Unless I was pissing petrol. Oldusgitus (talk) 15:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
One of the great indictments of CNAV is that Chucky's partners in grime almost make him look like a moderate. Despite that, you can bet that any criticism of Nick-head will be met with a resounding show of support from coke-eyes. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD memberModerator 18:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Substitute christian for muslim and you'd have a million fundie march on the capital. After all, they're the real victims here. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 19:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Genghis, notice that Terry isn't sticking up for Nick Skin-Disease for once. But he hasn't taken down Purpura's hate-blog (yet - there's still time, Terry...) Cardinal Fang (talk) 23:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I've already used up this month's wingnut exposure hours and need some time out if I'm to avoid any long-term mental damage. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD memberModerator 15:51, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
You need to distinguish between lethal and non-lethal wingnuttery. On CP you can be exposed to the relatively harmless unamusium777 (formerly known as aerofelicidaeum) which has a half-life of just a few picoseconds and decays into harmless god particles that pass through the human body without interacting. Empirical evidence suggests that you can be exposed to hundreds of gigaKens without any ill-effects other than total ennui. However, CNAV is fuelled by several highly charged elements such as angrium1776 or even the elusive generatium2012 which can deliver up to a Karajoule per visit which normally requires total cranial and sensory protection. PongoOrangutans are sceptical 17:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Brilliant. Ajkgordon (talk) 20:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
I laughed out loud! Thanks for making my morning, Pongo. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 21:06, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Karajoule as a unit of deranged anger - excellent. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic?Moderator 21:36, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Pongo, that was the Post of the the Year. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:52, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Part Two is up. To stir up hysteria, he exploits a not-so-polished speaker's saying "above the law" when he meant "beyond the requirements of the law." Quote mining for Jesus is the opposite of Liberal Deceit. Whoover (talk) 17:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Amongst the other total crap on Nick Skin-Disease's hate-blog (apologies to honest, wholesome crap everywhere) there's a statement that the director of the CIA is a Muslim. "Oh really?" I thought, "that's an interesting appointment". So I googled for <John Brennan Muslim> and - I should have guessed it - got links to totally-off-the-scale wingnuttery. Telling lies when that's more convenient than the truth: that's the True Conservative Way©. Cardinal Fang (talk) 22:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Part 3[edit]

Sorry - posted this below - missed this section.

I don't often go to Terry's website - but linked from the CP mainpage is an article by "NICHOLAS E. PURPURA" - described on the main page as a "tea party activist". The article is the third in a three part series. Ostensibly the first two parts established that Islam isn't consistent with American values - I don't know I didn't read them ... but the third article suggests solutions. When the first solution is to re-establish HUAC - I knew it was gonna be a good list.--Danielfolsom (talk) 01:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

He's asking the legistature to pass a bunch of shit that overrides much of the Constitution. Someone should tell him to start working on a let of amendments. Congress could bring back HUAC (his first demand). There are a lot of good candidates for McCarthy Redux in today's house. Issa would get my vote. Whoover (talk) 01:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I think we call dragging a whole religion in front of an Un-American activities commission a crusade. What are they going to do, after all? Repeal the first amendment and outlaw Islam? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 01:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
He also hits at least the fourth (no probably cause needed for "persons of interest"), fifth (no due process for yucky Muslims), sixth and seventh (deportation without due process or trial for, I assume, citizens saying stuff he doesn't like, and eighth (deportation for exercising first amendment rights) amendments. Whoover (talk) 02:07, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Clearly your head is still full of liberal deceit. When will you learn that the constitution only applies to straight, whi...NON CRIMINAL, christian (as long as they are the right kind), heteronormative humans... not filthy sand people and other degenerate untermench. Idiocy aside, I do find it amusing that given these scumbag's interpretation of the bible (i.e. everyone whose existance offends them must be killed or subjugated either by them or by god) the same hypothetical "solution" could easily be applied to them as well. Also is anyone else feeling increasingly tempted to break godwins law as this screed plays out? Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 23:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Exactly. Muslims are all lying murderers because it says so in the Koran, which we must assume they follow all of, daily. But Christians have the God-given right to say that gays should be discriminated against because the Bible says so. It says they should be killed, and some Christians espouse that line as part of their religious freedom. They actually use that argument to declare anti-discrimination laws contrary to the first amendment. Never mind trying to accuse Christians of buying into all the murderous and vile commands, like raping your military conquests' women. Just try pinning that one on "all Christians." It's in the bible so they must run their lives around raping women on the battlefield.
The most amazing thing about Purpura's "final solution" and Terry's defense of it is that they don't even recognize there are Muslim American citizens. Deport them all? To where? Their new homeland of Muslimia? Terry doesn't even see his argument flows from hate and not logic. Very sad. Whoover (talk) 02:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
The attitudes of racist scumbags like Nick and Terry likely stems in large part from good old fashioned psychiological projection. Since they themselves hold a deep and repeatedly stated desire to burn down modern civilisation, modern democracy, and modern society and rebuild it in their own bigoted, hateful image while subjugating or "removing" all whose existance does not fit into their ideal world (gays, uppity feminazis/negros, liberal degenerates, any and all non christians or the "wrong" sorts of christians) while enforcing their own insane and barbaric religious laws with threats of violence, they naturaly presume that this is shared by EVERYONE who is part of a "rival" religion like Islam (and like how catholicism was not to long ago) since only "RealTruChristians" like Hurlbut and Co or the evil followers of the antichrist (i.e muslims at this point, remember hurly's endless masturbation about the book of revelation) are genuine in their faith. The latter also allows them to demand the persecution and ethnic cleansing of millions of innocent people while pompously posing as holy and patriotic warriors of god. Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 08:53, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Seriously Though[edit]

Who the hell decides to hold a "Million Muslim March" on 9/11 and expect it not to be antagonistic?

Are the vast majority of Muslims peaceful and law abiding? Absolutely.

Have Muslims been the victims of hate crimes and harassment post 9/11? Yes.

Does more need to be done to stop this? Yes.

But there are 364 other days in the year where this could be done without pissing off as much of American society. There isn't even any mention of the fact that over 3,000 people died. I be all for it if the core message was "9/11 was a tragic event and we all need to pull together to condemn it and put an end to discrimination" but it isn't - it's "the evil US government has been oppressing Muslims here and overseas ".

Their website reeks of 9/11 conspiracy theories, that Al Quaeda is a myth, that more Americans have been killed by "radical Jews" etc.

Imagine if we lived in a small country town, my cousin killed your cousin, and my family (who weren't involved) faced a backlash from the rest of the town. The best way for my family to fix it's reputation isn't to go marching around on the anniversary of your cousins death telling everyone that we are being unfairly treated.

This "march" will do nothing for race relations, if anything it may marginalise the Islamic population more, especially if they get publicity for pushing conspiracy theories. (talk) 02:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

When would be a better day for Muslims to march for peace and civil rights? I tried but couldn't find the "reek" you speak of, perhaps you could link to the "reeking" pages on their site? ħumanUser talk:Human 01:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
You didn't try very hard. "AMPAC will focus on those issues that are of special importance to the Muslim community, and where there is a significant degree of agreement among Muslims. For example, there is widespread agreement in the community (though this is censored by the current leadership) that the “war on terror” is a hoax and that the official story of 9/11 is not true." Aslo, check out the "a plane did not hit the Pentagon" video on the bottom left-hand side of the main page.PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 02:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Try any other day of the year where, in recent history, 3000 people were not killed in the name of Islam. As I said before, the message has nothing to do with peace or unity, there's no commemoration of the attacks or people saying that bin Laden has misinterpreted Islam etc, the core message was that the US government was oppressing Muslims in America and overseas (ie we don't care about your victims, only ours), and there is a tonne of conspiracy material on the site. Choosing that date was deliberately inflammatory and the whole theme of the march was very divisive.
As it turned out their event was a spectacular failure. The majority of the hundred odd people were not Muslims but white 9/11 denialists, and their "message" was drowned out by a massive counter protest. (talk) 23:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
This is a fringe group, anyways. Other groups are refusing to support the march.[15]--"Shut up, Brx." 02:35, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Just read parts 2&3[edit]

Thanks for the consult, guys. I am sick to my stomach after the other bits. I may be a relative newcomer, but I must say, regarding this and other recent discussions, that CNAV isn't that widely-read (thankfully). Now that we've brought CP to its knees, we have to systematically focus our efforts on other online strongholds of the radical right. Nit-picking whirled-nut-daily isn't going to work here.

We need to be more systematic and attack the "sanity-clothed" fringes. "" or "" seems like a good place to start. We just have to pick one reasonably-sized target and stick to trolling it like we did with CP. The uber-right has waaaaaayyyy too much political power in the USA, if we're smart, we can actually protect democratic governance.--Umichcynic (talk) 07:54, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Erm, no imo. I had nothing to do with setting up RW but RW was not set up to troll CP. And equally RW should not be focusing on the radical right anymore than it shoudl be focusing on the radical left. Again IMO. And, speaking as someone who spent time with both AFA, Red Action and Class War here in the UK in the 80's and has not much drifted from those opinions, I am far from right wing myself. Highlight the insanities and lies, yes. Trolling terry, not for me I'm afraid. Oldusgitus (talk) 08:54, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Easy for you to say, tea sipping limey :P --Umichcynic (talk) 10:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
As it happens I am just finishing my last cup of tea of the day. Then I will be onto the beer for a while at least. :-) Oldusgitus (talk) 10:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Is Terry anti-democracy?[edit]

A few times I have seen anti-democratic views expressed on CNAV. This time he blames representative government for slavery, or RoseAnn Salanitri does who he seems to support. [16]--Mercian (talk) 03:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

It's part of the right-wing meme that the US was founded as a republic, not a democracy, and we have abandoned that principle with disasterous results. I think what's really behind it is that democracy sounds like "democrat" while republic sounds like "republican," but they go on and on with arguments I can't follow. I know Terry thinks it very important, and is why gerrymandering in order to disenfranchise the poor and minorities is actually pro-American. Whoover (talk) 05:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
As someone living in the UK, I can't get my head around the supposed difference between a 'republic' and a 'democracy' in the way CNAV uses the terms. Someone care to explain? Many thinks. Mick McT (talk) 06:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
If you succeed in getting your head around it, your head will explode. Trust me, there's nothing rational there. They claim that Republicans want a republic where the Constitution and rule of law are honored, while Democrats want democracy which is mob rule by crack-addled black people. It quickly devolves to conspiracies and worse drivel. But they feel very strongly that it's been downhill since we went to the direct election of Senators instead of them being appointed by state legislatures (Seventeenth Amendment, ratified in 1913). Yes, it's fundamentally an anti-democratic movement, which gains steam whenever a Democrat wins an election. Whoover (talk) 08:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Its all part of his very particular psychosis which sees all of modern society as corrupt and degenerate save for a few RealTruMuricans due to the fact that people he despises (libtards, faggots, uppity minorities, heathens, the wrong sort of christians, etc, etc) are given the same inherent rights and values he is, thus putting them in "equality" to him and his crew, something that likely makes him very, very angry. As society refuses to bow down and do as he says it deserves (and needs) to burn so that Hurlbut and co can "remake" america with their trusty generators. Hell the reason I harp so much on hurlbut about the whole generator thing is that its indicative of his worldview of not just wanting but genuinely believing the nation will crumble if his own dogma is not accepted and enforced, thus making a generator purchase necessary to help him take over when the dust is settled. Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 10:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
He should start his own church. Something Christian-based like the Moonies or the Mormons but with an extra parable or even prophesy. "Judgments 3-26: And lo, the dark night was banished by the starting of the Holy Generator connected to those strings of cheap decorative LEDs diligently looted from the local Blessed Best Buy." Church members wear string vests made out of Briggs & Stratton starter cords. Ajkgordon (talk) 10:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm no student of US politics but wasn't the US essentially founded by a bunch of middle-class supremacists concerned with protecting their business interests? And the whole electoral college system was devised as a way of preventing the plebs voting in a more populist president. (Admittedly, I might have over-simplified things here.) Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD memberModerator 12:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
The whole anti-17th amendment movement baffles me, particularly as it seems the tea party folks are the ones behind it, and they're the same one who would never have been elected without the amendment, as the state legislatures would almost certainly elect establishment candidates. DickTurpis (talk) 12:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
What drove the idea of the electoral college system is the concept of federalism, the idea that when it comes to most government affairs and how government effects people's lives, it is to be at the state level where one can vote directly for the state legislature and governor (and the electors when it comes to presidential elections). From there, it is the states through the designated electors who decide who is president of the nation is. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Well in American terms, when someone refers to America as a Republic and not a Democracy, what they mean is a constitutional republic. The idea there is that in a pure democracy, people can't vote themselves in a tyranny, or vote to oppress minority groups of whatever persuasion, or vote themselves endless governmental largess, or to have government censor all press, etc. and there is nothing that could be done about as that is what the majority wanted and whatever they want, they get, no matter how atrocious it may be because there is no limiting factor. The support for "America as a Republic" is the idea of having a constitution that spells out rights people still get to have no matter what the majority may say. So you can't just vote away free speech, or to make a particular religion illegal, or to legalize slavery again, or to have a dictatorship because it is what a majority of voters would want.
Now folks above me have pointed out that people like Terry may have corrupted this concept to fit his own agenda because he doesn't like his privileged position in society challenged, and that very well may be accurate and true, but the original idea is still sound.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Terry makes frequent reference to what the Constitution does and does not say when he's inventing these legal fantasies. In years of following tea party legal arguments fairly closely, I have yet to see one more coherent than their de Vattel natural born citizen argument, and that's a shambles. Does anyone have a better idea what of what this means:
The First Amendment cannot construe as to protect the “freedom” to “exercise” a political movement aimed at the overthrow of the rest of the Constitution, nor to protect the abridgment by adherents of said movement of others’ freedom of speech. And the First Amendment mentions the right to assemble peaceably.
I told you before: free exercise of religion does not extend to following religious commands to commit murder and/or treason. The probable cause is the Quran itself with its Fighting Words, and the Abrogation Principle that keeps those Fighting Words in full force and effect.
I understand the First Amendment as well as any non-specialist. I cannot wrap my head around this stuff and it strikes me that getting a better understanding of what he's actually saying is more meaningful than platitudes about what people think right wing fundie tea party cranks believe. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 14:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
It means whatever the barrack room lawyers who are members of the tea party want it to mean. It's the same kind of pseudo-legal bollocks you see in the FOTL arguments. I would love to see Terry try to argue his bollocks in front of someone who has legal training. I know he would huff and puff claiming that the courts are biased against the real true patriots but it would be fun to see him be humiliated in that way. Oldusgitus (talk) 14:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
He's right in that the first amendment doesn't give you the right to murder in the name of a religion, or other illegal acts. However in Terry's mind, this means the entire religion should be outlawed because someone may use said religion as the reason to commit acts of terror. Of course once a Christian does that here in America (again), Terry may have to alter his argument, but in reality he will somehow claim it wasn't sincere Christian beliefs that drove said terrorist.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 14:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
The fact that he is quite happy to support and encourage those who threaten to murder anyone who tries to infringe what he sees to be their second amendment rights is of course entirely different. Oldusgitus (talk) 14:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
He doesn't actually have to alter anything. It's quite convenient that in his world, not only can he read the minds of billions, but the US is a Christian nation subject to "natural law," which of course gives him the right to freely discriminate by urging dire consequences on those he disagrees with, as you all have said. That was a long sentence. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 15:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm not terribly familiar with his views. Is he one of those folks who believe that the First Amendment was only written to protect different Christian denominations? If he is, that might help explain the cognitive dissonance in his support for Purpura's views. - GrantC (talk) 15:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I haven't quite figured that out after all this time. It seems to me that all this US-as-a-Christian-nation stuff is intended to insulate their own brand of christianity. I draw this conclusion from their extensive efforts to cast Jefferson as a Good Christian™ instead of a deist anti-christian who wrote Jesus out of the bible and their rants against anything "liberal," which includes anything they disagree with, even if it's from outfits that only expound more radical theology in the same vein as their own, like Fred Phelps. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 15:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Genghis: Yes, that is an over-simplification but the FFs were suspicious of democracy and, obviously, never intended for the US to be a democracy of the direct sort. (There was some variation here, as Jefferson and other Democratic-Republicans were more populist and romanticized agrarian life and "yeoman farmers.") At the time of the founding, everyone who was not a white, land-owning male was disenfranchised. One of the reasons for this anti-democratic sentiment was the belief that in a direct democracy, the poor would just vote themselves the money and the property of the middle and upper classes. As John Jay was fond of saying, "The people who own the country ought to govern it." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

@Nutty: Yes, it's precisely that viewpoint that confuses me. Many dominionists make the argument that the First Amendment was meant to protect various denominations of Christianity, but Terry and his ilk seem to think it just fine to trash other Christians who don't quite agree with their worldview. Thus, similar to what you pointed out above, I have no idea what Terry actually means by his quotes on the First Amendment. As far as I can tell, the closest definition he really sees is that it protects the free speech of anyone he agrees with, and nobody else. - GrantC (talk) 16:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Terry is this guy, right? Doctor Dark (talk) 16:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I laughed out loud. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 17:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I think it is obvious what Terry had intended. In his mind, the first amendment doesn't cover Islam because he views the latter as wholly incompatible with America and its values. Islamic adherents instead shall willingly commit treason and murder in America for their faith as par for the course, because they have to, their religion demands it.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
He says as much and it's absolutely creepy that people actually think this way. Islam isn't a religion, it's a political movement. Even though it isn't a religion, its religious text is itself a call to violence, and therefore "fighting words," which Terry somehow thinks aren't protected by the Constitution since he doesn't like them. 99.99999% of Muslims are peaceful people who just want what everyone else wants? Nevermind that. The Koran instructs them to lie - Taqqiya. They're really just plotting to murder christians and implement sharia law. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 19:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Anyone consider enlightening Tosser and co on the bible's (old testament and thus applicable to both Christians and Jews) very clear instructions vis-a-vis slavery, turning female captives into sex slaves, genocide, child killing, etc etc? or is everyone as apathetic as I am on the subject of trying to enlighten these reprobates on how to avoid the most basic hypocrisy imaginable? Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 22:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
The argument I've occasionally seen and heard advanced by the likes of terry and his hateful crew is that those are old testament laws and jebus came to free us from the ot laws so whilst they applied to the jews they do not apply to good xians because jebus washed them free in his blood. The fact they then throw that argument out of the window immediately by trying to force the ten commandments on the world and by using ot writings to persecute anyone who has the gay is simply one of the reasons I despise them and their puported faith so much. Oldusgitus (talk) 06:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
I believe that there is a point where enlightenment is no longer possible. I believe Terry and company will continue to believe what they believe regardless of any and all evidence provided to them. - GrantC (talk) 22:35, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Assuming they even are genuine in these beliefs rather than using them in a hilariously impotent attempt to increase their own personal power and prestige by appealing to the fundie sector, especially given Terry's repeated projects like his "blackshirts" group (or blackrobe or some shit) or his very founding of the site to bring together the most contemptible fundies in the western hemisphere. Problem is, to believe that winning over the furthest fringe of the far right will gain one any real or vague "power" or "influence" requires the same level of stupidity needed to actually believe the horseshit dogma. Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 22:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Right, good point. I did neglect to consider that possibility. As you say though, the two are one and the same when it comes to trying to sway someone's mindset. Even if Terry knows that what he says is bonkers, I highly doubt he's going to change his mind and stop spouting it anyways. - GrantC (talk) 00:42, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
There is no point arguing with Terry if you're looking to enlighten him, because he (like many fundies) starts with a conclusion and works his way backwards. Therefore there are never any contradictions to his logic. The Bible did not endorse slavery -> the OT laws are outdated. The Bible condemns gays -> someone in the NT must have vaguely said something about it. A global flood happened -> here's insane "evidence"!
That said, if you're looking to see how much he twists himself into knots to justify his absurd positions, that's a pretty fun pastime. Cow...Hammertime! 14:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Right wing sites and dodgy ads[edit]

When I visit cnav now I get a dodgy ad pretending my browser is outdated and trying to get me to run an executable. Wnd is a minefield of ad links pretending to be stories, or generate your own electricity scams. Its to conservapedia's credit I suppose that it is free of such things. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 2013-09-13T18:38:19‎

You're right, CP is absolutely free of links to spurious sources.--Umichcynic (talk) 11:58, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Do you even read posts before replying to them? DickTurpis (talk) 12:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
So it's "to CP's credit" that it doesn't actively link to scams? That's like saying that it's to "the credit" of some random stranger that they did not assault you on the street. Not sending you to scam sites or not assaulting you in the street are part of the bare minimum of acceptable behaviour that we expect from our fellow humans.--Weirdstuff (talk) 13:18, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
It amuses me that Ken says all is fine with the US economy (by GDP per capita)in one post and in the next post Terry warns of the economic disaster with 90,000,000 sitting on or below the poverty line, which is then followed by another Ken post reporting how the most vulnerable in society are getting poorer. Maybe the high GDP is down to much of the cash being horded by billionaires and multi-millionaires getting tax breaks. But they are very generous when it comes to charity.--Mercian (talk) 15:50, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
No, when it comes to posts like those, its really a mix between "what can we blame on Obama" and masturbatory fantasy where Terry and his ilk will rise up and rule the new order on the ashes of the old.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Personally im still waiting for the inevitable fusion of the two where hurlbut predicts he will personally duel obama to the death in the burning ruins of the whitehouse after a muslamic nuclear strike for the ownership of the constitution using generator-backpack fueled chainsaws.... or maybe im just overthinking it. Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 22:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
That would make an easy-to-view movie Th. BernhardDas Leben ist ein Prozeß, den man verliert, was man auch tut und wer man auch ist. 11:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Of all the people...[edit]

... on CP that you'd expect to insert Myley Cyrus' twerking into an article, hands up who guessed Creepy Uncle Ed. --PsyGremlinSpeak! 16:55, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I just love the way user 188 create what he himself acknowledges are 'stubs'img but spends the time to insert what he HAS to know are red links in them. I can see why he was, and is, such an influential editor over at wikipedia. Oldusgitus (talk) 17:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I know why. It's because he isn't and wasn't. It didn't take long for them to realize that he's a self-aggrandizing incompetent. He was just an early adopted. You take what you can get when there aren't enough people to choose from. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 19:06, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, the same also applies to CP. Ed, Ken, Brian, and the two Terrys were all early arrivals and basically they proceeded to pull up the drawbridge once that they were ensconced. It's really quite shameful that a bunch of mal-adjusted, middle-aged men managed to ruin Andy's homeschool project. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.Moderator 19:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Andy let them do it. He could have said, "oi, out of the children's area." But he didn't, thus allowing a terrific project for kids (true, the kids of right-wing nutcases taught by ditto) to be ruined by a bunch of middled-aged wankers (literally). Cardinal Fang (talk) 19:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
It really was exceptionally poor judgment on Andy's part to not simply ask himself, "Andy, if you were the parent of a homeschool parent, would you want your children anywhere near these men?" Andy uniformly chose absolutely awful people to ruin his project. It could have been good - and I don't mean that as a joke - if the place was a true meritocracy, it would have been run by talented children and other legitimate editors who couldn't possibly have been as depraved as Andy and his goons and there wouldn't be jack shit he could do about it being so outnumbered. For god sake, TK was as bad a person as they come and Andy had every reason to know it. Ken is a creepy mentally ill cultist zealot who's even more extreme than Andy in the worst ways. Ed's behavior. Well. Ed's behavior. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 20:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I think Andy should be given a little credit (just a little). His political and social views are extreme and sometimes peculiar but he's not a racist, he's not as creepy as Uncle Ed, he's not as weird as Ken and he's not as much of a thug as TK. His main problem, and the fundamental reason that CP has failed, is that he lacks a backbone. Cardinal Fang (talk) 21:13, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Kudos on not being a horrible person, Cardinal Fang. You really deserve accolades for that. In other words, I think that's rubbish. He's a bad person down to his core. He's just not as bad as his goons. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 21:44, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Aye, one just has to glance at andy's misogyny, homophobia, and other assorted bigotry(s), his crowing over the deaths and suffering of innocent people so long as he stamp them as "liberal/proffessor/hollywood values", and of course his fanatical obsession with bilking and gravedancing any massacre he can find to smear people he doesnt like to see that he is at heart a fundamental bag of prick. Sure he lacks Hurlbut's bitter hatred, Angerbear's anger, Ed's creepiness or Ken's overall insanity, but he remains perfectly placed in such ignoble company. He may be pitiable but he is far, far from deserving any pity. As for Ed's latest act of supreme creepiness...yeah im getting serious Nephilimfree vibes from Ed now. Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 22:00, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the "not a racist" thing. He does seem to be in total denial that race is a factor in shaping social outcomes in the US. Some critics talk about this as "colour-blind racism," and Andy does it every time he argues that "only liberals care about race, we conservatives just deal with the people as they are," as though African-Americans' lower incomes, lower life expectancy, and higher incarceration rates are just some weird statistical glitch. And don't forget the "Affirmative-Action President," and the birtherism (remember his "parody" lyrics to "Born in the U.S.A."?) That said, even if he's not a racist, there's no doubt that just today he reminded us he's a giant sexist. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 23:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Because Andy lacks Hurlbut's bitter hatred, Angerbear's anger, Ed's creepiness or Ken's overall insanity makes him the more culpable and he has paid for it with whatever reputation he ever had. And Conservapedia could have been good. It is possible to have and express right wing views and remain decent and educational, Phillip Rayment for example seemed to be a nice enough bloke. But 100 plus articles on why atheists are associated with negative and immoral traits and 50 or so on how certain people from certain nations like to fuck goats has destroyed that. If Andy were wise and was to go into damage control mode he would not just sack the board but close the whole company.--Mercian (talk) 04:39, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Racism is not just a black and white issue; as with all polar issues there is generally a whole spectrum of intermediate positions. Andy is not an overt racist but his voiced opinions show some mild racist views. Even his homophobia is not as extreme as some conservatives, after all he does have a gay brother. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic?Moderator 07:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree with you about the race thing, hell I think it may be the one issue he has not proved himself to be an utterly loathsome specimen of humanity about, but the fact he has a gay brother just makes his already repulsive homophobia all the more contemptible. Sure he may not be as strident or obsessive as those like Ken or Bryan Fischer, but he is still resolute in trying to portray gays as soulless and degenerate untermench bound for god's S&M dungeon. Hell this article heavily hints he has made all this very clear to his brother which speaks volumes of how having a gay brother has "tempered" his views. Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 10:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
On the race thing, Andy's heroes include Martin Luther King, Clarence Thomas and the pizza bloke in Georgia who ran for the Republican nomination last time round, whose name I forget. That puts him a tiny notch above people who believe that a black person who seeks election to public office is ipso facto a criminal. His blatant sexism and homophobia are definite negatives, granted. But if I found myself next to Andy on a long plane flight, I'd think I was sitting next to a bit of a loony. If I'd been seated next to Creepy Uncle Ed, I'd move. I maintain that Andy's worst character trait and the one that has ruined CP is his spinelessness. Cardinal Fang (talk) 22:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad Andy is here to explain things to me...[edit]

I'd assumed objections to Larry Summers as Fed chief was to do with his associations with the financial crisis, but how wrong I wasimg. Apparently it's because of something he said once about sexual differences in mathematical aptitude he might have said once that nobody but Andy remembers... Does anyone know what he's referring to, or is he just making it up? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 10:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Andy is not making it up. Eight years ago, while President of Harvard, Summers said in a talk that the variance in cognitive skills amongst men may be greater than amongst women. Men would be over-represented in both the high and low end, and that this could explain why men tended to be more numerous in top science/engineering positions. It caused some controversy at the time, with some people saying the remarks were offensive and/or not well-supported. I still hear it mentioned every once in a while during discussions of women in the sciences. --Night Jaguar (talk) 10:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
On the 'flagship' Radio 4 news and current affairs programme Today here in the UK there was a discussion with a former Fed board member about why Summers withdrew his name. This former Fed board member, I can't recall his name sorry, explicitly mentioned Summers attitudes and comments towards women and theior abilities as one major reason he would not have been confirmed and felt the need to withdraw. It was not the only reason but it was mentioned as a major contributing factor. So, yes Andy's a douche but not entirely wrong in this one I'm afraid. Oldusgitus (talk) 11:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Many on the left also didn't like the role he played in financial deregulation while he was in the Clinton administration. (Funny, now with Summers out of consideration, this top position is likely going to a female (Janet Yellen) who many thought was better qualified.)--Night Jaguar (talk) 13:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think Andy understands the concept of proof[edit]

Apparently, whenever some dies it proves the Bible is true.img DickTurpis (talk) 14:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

OT — I think Andy finally wised up and blocked CaptureBot's IP address. Oh well. Time to change it's user agent and add a proxy. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 14:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Heh, the article he links to says the oldest person recorded was 122, so I guess the Bible is a little fuzzy on the numbers. Someone should point that out to Andy, it'd be amusing to watch him spin it. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 18:58, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Heh, that fact is near the end of he article. If it wasn't mentioned in the first paragraph then Andy's never going to see it. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.Moderator 19:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
But it said men wouldnt live that long. Women never matter--Mikal | lakiM 23:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The passage in the bible placing the 120 year cap on human lifespan (Genesis 6:3) appears as somewhat of a non sequitur, and its exact meaning has been debated for centuries. Especially considering the fact the a whole host of bible characters lived past 120 even after God made this decree. In fact, lifespans in the bible didn't settle down to normal mortal levels until the time of Moses. But of course Andy, being the biblical scholar that he is, knows exactly what it means. --Inquisitor (talk) 23:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I can see it again![edit]

I hadn't been able to see Conservapedia at all since the beginning of June. Now I can. It's probably a glitch and I'll never be able to see it again. Spud (talk) 17:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I can also see it after a period of being server blocked. It's probably just Andy continually playing around with the settings and not really owing what he's doing. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic?Moderator 19:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Me too! I never though I'd be able to foul my browser like this again. Woo hoo! ħumanUser talk:Human 02:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
I love it! "and an additional suspects". On the main page. Nice work. ħumanUser talk:Human 08:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, aren't you all so special. While you're out gallivanting around, enjoying the taste of freedom, don't forget you leave your downtrodden brethren in the dungeon. Come visit and let us know what's happening in the Eden that is CP. Phiwum (talk) 12:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Sorry. If I bother to post a link I'll make my own screenshot, ok? ħumanUser talk:Human 02:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Ed Poor, racist.[edit]

Thanks for that, Ed. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 13:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Gold star for timeliness, though. He's a well-read guy! Unfortunately, his moonie rag also suggests that Aaron Alexis purchased a shotgun in Virginia lawfully and then started picking up others' weapons after he looted their corpses. Sounds like an abject failure of an armed society.
What do you think, Jpatt? You going to admit that there were armed people on base, that you lie by implying that Clinton completely disarmed the military (what the fuck is personal protection in the service anyway? You don't arm soldiers on the assumption that their comrades are going to attack them, asshole), and that the system failed to stop a likely schizophrenic guy from purchasing a shotgun? Why was he permitted to work for a military contractor after poor military service and a "record of misconduct" in his new job? Sounds like a bunch of libertarians waving their hands pretending that a do-it-yourself society could prevent this if only there were more armed people to kill a man like this more quickly. That's the natural consequence of bitching endlessly about American society needing more weapons, which I find absolutely deplorable. This was preventable. A "conservative" military failed to do so. It doesn't help your flimsy case that there were apparently people on site with fucking machine guns, and that's assuming that it's OK to simply kill people rather than pay attention to their mental health and ensure their well-being. Everyone needs a little help from time to time. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 14:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
The real reason for the shooting is Alexis, who had a gun legally and had been convicted of gun crime before, rejected Christianity. I quote Andy, no citations or links are given ."The lamestream media downplay how the mass murderer who killed 12 on Monday had "apparently" rejected Christianity. A high percentage of young mass murderers have been people who oppose or leave Christianity.". It has taken many hours for this to be posted. I guess Andy searched for video game connections but found none, hence the delay. Nutty, you have been thinking too much on this, the reason is always(from Andy's POV) atheism, video games, Islam, gays or other liberal traits--Mercian (talk) 16:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
I heard on NPR this morning that the shooter had converted to Buddhism, so if that is the case, Andy is at least in the ballpark in saying that he "rejected Christianity." PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 16:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Jack Kornfeld is an atheist buddhist jew. Who the hell knows exactly what weirdos like that are rejecting. Just saying. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 16:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────And andy quickly trims and rewordsimg a bit. Oldusgitus (talk) 17:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Alexis was a major gamer. Just wait. I'm amazed Andy has taken so long. Whoover (talk) 19:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear...[edit]

In replying to the dead (almost 2 years after the original post) Ken seems to have found out about AA's banana antics.img Not to mention his ongoing fascination with bestiality. Expect dozens of "Atheists and bananas" articles soon. --PsyGremlinTal! 11:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Almost 2 years? that's nothing. How about nearly 5. [17]. You have been told to leave those sheep alone Kenneth.--Mercian (talk) 15:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
PS, on the subject of bestiality/pornography and the fact that CP is anything but an encyclopedia,the pot that is Karajou firmly calls the kettle black[18]--Mercian (talk) 15:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
I also like how he pointed out that Wikipedia administrators are more interested in fighting with other editors than in building the project. Every word of that post, and the Fox News story it linked to, was deliciously ironic! Spud (talk) 03:49, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Anger bear.[edit]

WTF is he on about nowimg? What is his mmm-mmm-mmm stuff about when he refers to his POTUS? Hey, anger bear. I know you are desperate for us to notice you, after all noone else reads your hate blog except us, but please PLEASE try to make some sense in the drivel you scribble. Oldusgitus (talk) 10:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The mmm stuff just baffled me. The Invisible ManI spoke to Him 11:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
It frankly reads like the stereotyped "black man" from All in the Family or the Jeffersons. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 11:56, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
He links to a video of it the first time he does it, something about kids singing or something. I couldn't be bothered watching it. Did make me think of The Crash Test Dummies though. X Stickman (talk) 14:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Those image macros are just terrible--"Shut up, Brx." 13:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't know the history of republican comment but it seems it is only used to to have a go at Otisburg, and he posts there because he is too much of a coward to post anywhere where descent is tolerated. And Karajou, who are these Al Qalda you cowardly custurd? I meant custard. I suppose we can all make spelling mistakes. He quotes "And some of these dimwits say I'm the one wanting the war?" Come off it Karajou, If there were a republican in office you would be screaming for it, he is not anti war but anti Obama. Hypocrite--Mercian (talk) 14:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
I know this is silly but DISSENT. Skitt's and all that. Oldusgitus (talk) 19:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
To be fair, Koward is very good at descent. As in descent into madness, etc. --Kels (talk) 22:19, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Meanwhile over on CNAV Terry is (jokingly?) suggesting that liberals be turned into conservatives by mugging them. Remember men, our Storm Detachment offers benefits!--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 20:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Syria in the news at CNAV[edit]

What the heck's going on????? CNAV has published an article about the civil war in Syria which, so far as I can tell, is accurate, balanced and reasonable. Of course, the writer slags off Obama (this is CNAV, after all) but this isn't exactly Obama's (or America's) finest hour. Cardinal Fang (talk) 22:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Syria must be hard for them torn between the thought of killing Muslims and supporting Obama. Bevo74 (talk) 06:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
I like how Terry is now affecting "Rumors have reached me..." and similar formulations, as if he's at the nerve centre or a network of operatives, rather than a sad little man who sits at home and reads WND a lot. It really highlights how far from a real journalist he is. --Kels (talk) 20:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, that one gave me a chuckle too. Yeah, Terry sits at his desk in some Mideastern dummy office, the light from the blinds casting lines across his face. Dust motes glimmer in the glare. An ceiling fan wobbles lazily, but can't dispel the heat or the smell of fear. A sweaty fat man sits across from Terry, his fez gripped in trembling hands, his creamy linen suit soiled and rumpled. Terry cooly absorbs this latest bit of intelligence. Yes, that was the last piece of the puzzle. It all fits together. The Agency will need to hear of this at once. Feigning disinterest, he reaches into his desk drawer; tosses the man a few greasy bills. "There's more where that came from if you can tell me where the Sheik will be staying at the conference next week." The fat man scrabbles for the money and backs out of the office, aware of Terry's reputation as a ruthless hunter of men who cross him. Terry rocks back in his chair and tosses a date to the capuchin monkey monkey in the corner. Yes, the Agency... but first, to the Internet!--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 23:40, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Rumours are pretty much the most nebulous things that one might report on. Now, if he'd said unconfirmed reports or sources in the intelligence/diplomatic community then that might have carried some import, but rumours are on the level of Hollywood tittle-tattle. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.Moderator 07:32, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
MA - That's the most amusing mental image anyone has given me in a long time - have a cookie :) --Llegar a las estrellas¿Dígame? 10:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Commenting on CNAV[edit]

I think he's just incompetent, although he does displace enough knowledge of CSS to break his own page.

On a related note. Is the captcha screipt on CNAV deliberately broken, is Terry just a technological dumb-shit, or goat? --Llegar a las estrellas¿Dígame? 10:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not broken, it's effectively invisible. His style sheet removes all styling from the input box and doesn't put any back, so it's there but you can't see it. I posted about this at some point (time flies when it's the same old shit) and uploaded a picture that shows where the box is :-) if you want to have a look at my uploads. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 13:40, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Gizoogle translation of Main Page[edit]

Enjoy. The Invisible ManI spoke to Him 11:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Two can play at that game. "Yo, anger bear. Shiiit, dis aint no joke." Cardinal Fang (talk) 23:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Oh, this is fun. "Such budz can be propagated by grafting, &c., and sometimes by seed. Y'all KNOW dat shit, muthafucka!" Sorry, Charles. Cardinal Fang (talk) 23:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
And sorry, unknown Hebrew poet of the 6th century BC. "Dogg called tha light “day,” n' tha darknizz his schmoooove ass called “night.”" Bedtime now... Cardinal Fang (talk) 23:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
I almost prefer their version of my website! [19] ħumanUser talk:Human 04:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)