Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive326

This is an archive page, last updated 16 January 2014. 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>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>

, (new)(back)

Andy Wants to Know

Why didn't Obama stay in the dorms as most law students do?^img I can't imagine what Andy is getting at. To deal dope? Have gay orgies? According to his landlord it was cheaper, even though he had to commute farther. Maybe Andy knows this too and is hinting that you don't belong at Harvard Law School if you can't even afford the dorm. Whoover (talk) 23:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I thought perhaps that Andy, scion of the renowned Phyllis, who has had everything handed to him on a well connected plate, was making some kind of statement about Obama being elitist and not wanting to associate with those salt of the earth Harvard types. AMassiveGay (talk) 01:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

As a law student who has never lived in dorms, preferring to rent out a student house with my friends, I can testify we have engaged in unspeakable depravities against all laws of god and man including but not limited to repeated and unapologetic seeking congress with Goats and other farmyard animals, incessant and vigorous buggery when we should have been going to church or reading the conservative bible project, worshipping of Allah, Nyarlathotep, and Liberal Jesus, not despising the poor and needy, treating women as if they were actually people, and wiping our bottoms with transcripts of Andy's court appearances. Clearly Obama has engaged in similar depravities and is legally required to thus be removed from office and executed for high treason. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 01:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Very few graduate students stayed in campus housing at my undergrad university (there weren't many options) and there simply was no housing available at all at my law school. Does Harvard have a policy that law students must stay in university housing first year? If not, Andy's making shit up again. Even if so, who cares. Another petty jab from a jealous failure. 03:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh I get it. The word I missed was "cheaper." Lol. Harvard housing isn't cheaper than living off campus. What a nut. He'll say anything to take a shot at Obama. 05:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Dorm life blows. You get to wake up every morning to the sound of some guy hocking his guts out in the bathroom, and in general you have very little privacy, which means you have to see stuff you don't want to see and you have trouble hiding stuff you don't want others to see. I can see why anyone would want to avoid it; and if you have the money to do so, why not. There's no reason to go through a bunch of unnecessary BS just to be a man of the people. Some of the genuine proletarians, such as Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin, who rose to power, didn't do much to help the proletariat, so I see no reason to say that it's beneficial for a leader to come from the same background as "plain folks". Glideslope (talk) 05:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

He added that. He first added "single" when somebody linked this showing only 33% lived in dorms, so that he could claim that number didn't apply. Then he added "cheaper" in reaction to Obama's landlord saying the rented apartment was cheaper. I can imagine Andy taking an aptitude test in high school, with the result being "anything but lawyer." Whoover (talk) 05:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Obama did or said something to Andy at Harvard. Wish I knew what it was. Kicking his ass in a debate? Making fun of his goofy voice? Occasionaluse (talk) 14:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

maybe Obama told Andy that he had less chance of being president than a black man. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:35, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

The mere act of attending the same class would be an insult to Andy's ego as it would mean that an uppity liberal black guy was considered an equal to the scion of american conservatism, and his vastly evident success and acclaim would drive andy to nigh homicidal fury even before he became president. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 16:51, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

At one time Psygremlin was in contact with a journalist who was researching those Harvard days of Andy and Barack. We know that they were in the same class from the photo but as far as I know Andy has never mentioned it. Don't you think most people would name-drop something like that? So I certainly expect that something got Andy's goat about Obama during those days. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 21:55, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I bet Obama made fun of Andy's weird laugh. Who wouldn't? Spud (talk) 14:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if Andy looks and Obama and thinks 'it should be me in the white house'?AMassiveGay (talk) 14:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I reckon that of course he does. He stood for the senate or congress didn't he. He, and his mother, would have seen that as his first step towards the white house. Then to see the uppity negro who beat him to be HLR pres beat him to the white house must have REALLY hurt. Oldusgitus (talk) 15:45, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

(ec) I honestly think than Andy ran for HLR Pres and was one of the 17 or 18 candidates Obama beat. The thing is, given his mother, Andy would have been touting himself as the conservative candidates, but I remember reading at the time that conservatives threw their weight behind somebody called Rosenberg, or Goldstein, can't remember the name. And we all know how well Andy deals with defeat. But his whole anti-Obama thing is personal, he's gone way beyond the usual right-wing nuttery. --PsyGremlin^Praat! 14:59, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The Youth

'My impression is' 'the youth...' (collective noun) indicates a communist point of view. 171.33.222.26 (talk) 15:28, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Red Telephone to Ken

Ken, Ken, Ken! Andy has now allowed adding comments to links to articles on MPL.^img Now is your chance to add a short little intro to each of your marvelous articles, increasing the readership and thus finally crushing Darwanism forever.^{— Unsigned, by: 110.32.30.203 / talk / contribs}

Red ... Ken ... where did the newts go? 171.33.222.26 (talk) 13:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know why, but the conservative words thing just makes me really sad for Andy. You might be able to target the ignorant with bald faced claims about earthquakes, global warming, video game violence and vaccines, but this is ridiculous. I guess what's even more sad is the fact that I've added at least a dozen words. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Andy's been cutnpasting his posts into edit comments for years. It's not a particularly helpful way to use MediaWiki, but MPR isn't collaborative; it's propaganda and lies. Ho hum. 18:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Red Ken:) I have my suspicions this guy is actually a socialist--Mercian (talk) 22:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Oi Kenny Baby. don't think Andy would be too happy about THIS.^img How is the book going BTW, finished it yet? Or have you been fapping off the naked ladies instead ? I thought such things where forbidden by the Bible.^{— Unsigned, by: 110.32.30.203 / talk / contribs} PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 03:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Where does it forbid that? The closest I can find is the prohibition on worshiping graven images. --65.101.119.25 (talk) 22:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. —Matthew 5:28. Fapping off Jared Leto is permissible. Whoover (talk) 01:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

"But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother. 10 What he did was wicked in the Lord’s sight; so the Lord put him to death also." Genesis 38:9-10 Nate Keaton (talk) 01:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Onan's crime was financial, not sexual. He ignored his responsibility under Levirate marriage to get his dead brother's wife pregnant because he (Onan) would lose his inheritance. It was his father, Judah, who ordered the impregnation. A resulting son would have been considered the older brother's, and scored the estate. Onan pulled out, which is not the same at all as fapping unto the Lord. Onanism is a bad rap, which should not be propagated at a site dedicated to the truth. Whoover (talk) 03:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Probably the only instance where pulling out actually worked. There's another tell that the Bible is fiction. --Kels (talk) 23:58, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

BTW, Onan's brother was called Er, which is perhaps my favourite Old Testament name, though Abishag would be a close second. Cantabrigian (talk) 09:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

These sorts of things really do put it all into context, don't they? Ajkgordon (talk) 12:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I can't believe I actually learned something reading this page. Thanks Whoover. 05:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Genesis 38 is one of those great "how can people take this stuff seriously" moments. After Er and Onan were killed by the Lord, the father, Judah, decided Er's wife, Tamar, was at fault. Rather than sacrifice his remaining son to the curse, he told Tamar, "no sex for you." So she waits until Judah's wife dies, dresses up as a prostitute and sells her services to Judah. The resulting progeny is the ancestor of David and Jesus. What the fuck? No wonder the rabbis and priests make the chapter about masturbation. What's the real message? For the "you can't make this shit up" file, Tamar's bastard son who starts the begets to David and Jesus is named Perez. Whoover (talk) 03:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

{reset) Didn't Jimmy Carter admit to Matthew 5:28 (Surely merely thinking about it is better than actually doing it? And what is the problem religion in general tends to have with 'the nether regions and what can be done with them by consenting adults'?) 171.33.222.26 (talk) 18:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics and Andy

Due to liberal policies, "1,148,000 Fewer Americans Have Jobs Today Than 7 Yrs Ago." Which liberal policies were those during Bush's second term? How about "2,233,000 More Americans Have Jobs Today Than on the Last Day of the Bush Administration"? Looking at the chart at BLS, it sure looks like the reversal of some policy in January 2009 took a bit to kick in but ultimately did the trick. Why doesn't Andy expect people to follow up on his claims? He really seems to think that if he says it, it's true. Whoover (talk) 02:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

It's the same for practically any wingnut cause. They're targeting the ignorant/paranoid and it actually works. It doesn't matter how untrue, if you say something bad about Obama (the last one was closing the embassy to the Vatican), at least 25% of Americans are going to believe it, simply because they want to. Most of these people never get facts from outside of their little bubble. WND says Obama is closing our Vatican embassy. FactCheck says this is completely untrue, but FactCheck is run by liberals and I don't believe a word they say; Obama is trying to close the embassy to the Vatican. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Mandela

Random Editor: Hey Andy, how about some love for this amazing hero who just died?^img Andrew Layton Schlafly: Sure thing! How's about I piss all over the country he worked to free?^img What a prick. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 02:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

that's an odd site he has chosen to link to as a cite. AMassiveGay (talk) 02:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

The death wiki? I think Schlafly was adding on to something that JoMar had posted. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 02:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Wow... more than ever, Andy has just proven himself to be a misanthropic cunt. The malignant bubo is incapable of saying anything positive about anything, let alone one of the greatest humans to ever walk this planet. I hope he gets what's coming to him one day. --PsyGremlin^Praat! 04:21, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Andy didn't indicate the connection (if any) between Mandela and the South African problems he mentioned, or what point (if any) Andy was trying to make. The news article he cited is from 2004 and doesn't mention Mandela. It's as though he was just throwing random information up there. Glideslope (talk) 04:31, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I see it as not-so-subtle racism. He obviously hates "liberals," but doesn't know enough about black folks or Safrican history to comment on any particular policy or achievement, so all he can do is libel the guy by insinuating that he's responsible for some bad stuff that happens everywhere that he wasn't in a position to fix anyway. 05:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Andy's in between a rock and a hard place on Mandela. The man was the closest thing the world could agree upon as a living saint, and only an unrepentant racist would seriously try to play something like the "he was a terrorist" card or otherwise besmirch his reputation. Problem is, Ronald Reagan and the Republican Party were way on the wrong side of history as far as apartheid went. If Reagan's infallibility is to be protected at all costs, then Andy has no choice but to throw Mandela under the bus. Easiest way to do that is to associate the grand old man with the fact that the country, like so many of the countries who endured colonial/white-minority settler rule, has some serious social/political/economic issues. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 05:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Nelson Mandela dies and all he can say how South Africa is riddled with crime and poverty[1] where America is a haven of no crime, no poverty and wonderful healthcare. He then supports his views on the talk page[2], to make it worse Hurblet prints another "Obama is a Nazi" story.[3]. Excuse my anger but these people are total cunts.--Mercian (talk) 07:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Take a look up slightly Mercian. And Psy, although we all knew this was coming my sympathies to you and your country. You have lost a great and inspirational man and a wonderful leader. He showed us all, including schlafly, what true humility and forgiveness means. In some ways I almost wish I was visting the family so I could go and pay my respects in person. Oldusgitus (talk) 07:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I never saw the above entry, sorry about that, I am not South African but Nelson was loved in the UK and throughout the world. A decade ago I dated a Zulu girl, and although Mandela was not Zulu she grew up under apartheid and he was a hero to her, despite the ANC and Zulu people not always seeing eye to eye. RIP Nelson Mandela, the mantle of "Great Man" is often over used, not in this case.--Mercian (talk) 07:51, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

My family moved to SA (from the UK) in 1981 and I basically didn't really speak to or see them for the next 5 years or so. They still live there which is what I meant by the visit comment. Oldusgitus (talk) 07:57, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks guys, very sad day for us all, but amazing to see virtually the whole nation (I'm sure there are some fucktards here, just like I'm seeing "commie terrorist" posts over on Teabagger Facebook) united in mourning a great human being. If anything, the way he managed to unite a country should stand as a shining example for the world. My (white) neighbour was in tears when I told her the news this morning. We've all been bracing for it since he was last in hospital, but even so... PsyGremlin^{말하십시오} 08:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I can think of a few people who I met on my trip to SA who will not be mourning the passing of Mandela. Unfortunately there are still people who veiw the modern South Africa as a lesser nation than it was under (and before) Aparteid. Sad but true :( Worm (talk) 14:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

There are still people who think that the wrong side won the US-American civil war, and that's way less recent than the end of apartheid. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 15:14, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Update

Andrew Layton Schlafly actually said this: Everything was fine in South Africa, until they got rid of apartheid to satisfy foreign liberals^img. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 15:46, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

That right there is Schlafly gold. I can't wait to see how Iduan reacts. God, I wish they could keep more good faith editors around to engage Andy. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Ends justify means, even where they perpetuate the kind of "separate but equal" racism that fundies now rail against in their attempt to reframe the history of the civil rights movement. It's a dead lie when they can justify biblical slavery. Apartheid was of a kind with what they already embrace, even if they attempt to reframe the "christian" approach to American slavery. I hope these people finally manage to alienate moderate republicans sometime soon. 16:26, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Wow. Just wow. I'm tempted to sock up and give that racist piece of shit a piece of my mind, but Koward would block and vaporize it instantly. South Africa was struggling desperately before apartheid ended, backed by a totally fake economy (hell, we had 2 exchange rates - one for us, one for the rest of the world). Things only looked good, because the government was spending 90% of its money on 4% of the populations, so of course the white areas had good roads, hospitals, schools etc. The country is struggling because suddenly it has to bring 80% of the population up to a decent standard of living, having been neglected for 40 years. It's not perfect and there are problems, but anything is better than the previous regime.

Then again, Andy can't say apartheid was bad, because it was propped up by St Ronnie and his merry men. PsyGremlin^Tal! 16:29, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Andrew Schlafly. Supporter of Apartheid. Let any who try to claim he is not a racist shitstain remember this. As for his contempt for Mandela the reason is obvious. Mandela represented all that Andy despises in that he was an uppidy black socialist "rabble rouser" who openly consorted with communists and other filtyhy liberals and yet ousted the conservative white men who ruled his country with utmost popular support both in SA and globally and was reveared for decades as a living legend and moral authority, thus usurping another of Andy's personal wank fantasies just like a certain other black liberal. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 16:46, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I have, in the past, argued that Schlafly was not so much a racist bigot as he was one of these "race-blind" conservative types who was unable to see the fundamentally racist structure of the society he lives in. I take that back. Even when confronted with an explicitly, overtly, make-no-bones-about-it racist society, he is apparently unable to understand the suffering of people who do not share his skin color. He certainly comes off as a nothing more than a common bigot, one who thinks that particular types of people need to learn to keep in their place, in that thread. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 17:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

That screen capture should be posted on as many websites as possibly, especially ones that people who consider sending their children to him for schooling read. A racist hate filled xenophobic bigot should not be allowed to teach children. He will probably wake up tomorrow and realise he has gone to far, too late arsehole. Ken, it's time to show your machismo and pull him up on it--Mercian (talk) 17:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I am not convinced he is an out and out racist. I think he is such an extreme contrarian that he is against whatever it is he thinks liberals are for regardless of what that might be and his own arrogance makes it impossible to see how it makes him look. The perils of his own strictly black and white world view AMassiveGay (talk) 18:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

How do you distinguish between an out-and-out racist and someone who offers that apartheid was a perfectly fine system that was destroyed by meddling foreign liberals? He's missing the shaved head and some tattoos? It doesn't really matter what intellectual path got him to his conclusion. Contrarian or not, you can't talk about how the trains ran on time under apartheid and not be racist. Whoover (talk) 18:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Sure you can. You can be an insensitive ideological cognitively-dissonant pillock. I thought we'd already established that about him. Ajkgordon (talk) 19:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I get what your saying but at this point I have to conclude he is both an insensitive ideological cognitively-dissonant pillock and a flat out racist. Openly spitting on the overthrow of apartheid (and declaring it liberal and thus pure evil) coupled with other statements (such as his supporting the BNP) not to mention the obsessive propagation of blatantly racist conspiracy theories about Obama all add up to a decidedly shitty closet racist. He may not know hes racist, or just tells himself hes not racist, but he sure as all hell is racist. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 19:18, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I still wonder if the support of the BNP wasn't more ignorance than sympathy, but it's pretty hard to make that claim for apartheid. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 19:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘That piece of smeg on the face of humanity here in the UK, tebbit, has been doubling down on his previous hatred of Madiba. He tries to justify it in terms of anti-communism but in reality tebbit is a racist. Andy, I am really not sure about. I think he is simply so rabidly anti 'liberal' that he will oppose anything that those he regards as liberal support. tebbit despised Mandela, he lies about it now but he supported the racist regime and opposed sanctions and made a LOT of money from his investments there - he was and is evil. Andy is just a moron imo. Oldusgitus (talk) 19:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

And the peanut gallery has hit a little too close to home^img. By innuendo do you mean "calling you out for your racist bullshit?" PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 00:12, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

You know I just realised after flicking through Apartheid's other social policies that Apartheid truly was the system Andy dreams he could live in with ruthlessly enforced conservatism in gender, sexuality, "public decency", and all run by wise white men like himself. Given his statements on the issue could he really be that much of a shitstain that he sees/saw the suffering and degradation of all non whites as a perfectly acceptable price for such a system? or is this just a petty attempt to spite "dam librulz" again...christ the bullshit andy spews stacks so fast I cant even begin to comprehend just how fucked up a human he is. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 02:38, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

There was lots Andy would like about South Africa during apartheid - no abortion, banning teh geyz, no support for the poor, decentralized government (farming those pesky darkies off to their Bantustans), no illegal immigration (terrorists excluded), death penalty, nuclear weapons, banning porn, banning gambling, political progress really depending on church affiliation, and not least of all, an entire political philosophy based around a covenant with God. Oh, and classroom prayer. How could I forget that? PsyGremlin^Hable! 03:23, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

How fuck can he say that apartheid was racist "by definition without realizing it makes him seem, "by definition", like a total fuckstick ? I mean, I know he's always only tolerated minorities if they were True Conservatives, but excusing apartheid, even if Saint Ronnie did it, seems beyond the lilly-white pale even for Assfly. This is definitely something that needs to make the rounds on the internet. It's not even about CP at this point. This is about making sure his blatant racism follow him around. Let's give him a "Google problem". Hiphopopotamus (talk) 05:51, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

So, Brendan showed that St. Reagan was not infallible. This is of course "negative innuendo". Question is, did Andy snigger when he wrote "this is an encyclopedia, a place for educational edits to substantive entries^img", thinking of Ed-I'm-a-stub-Poor and Ken? --larron (talk) 06:02, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The other thing of course, is that by saying apartheid was bad, Andy would be admitting that policies implemented by Calvanistic conservatives were bad, and that's going to happen never. Unless he can find a way to call the Nats left wing liberals. PsyGremlin^Sprich! 07:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Right Wing Watch has a timely reminder of just what mama Schlafly thought of Mandela. Since you Andy is so far up his mother's arse that you can reliably assume their opinions are the same, I think it's pretty definitive he isn't a fan. As for why, I don't think you have to look much further than because he's a colossal fucking racist. Dragging the corpse of St. Reagan in to the picture seems superfluous. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 09:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

"Is this a "If I lived there then - I'd be great! But if I lived there now it'd suck" type of deal?" I think I love^img Iduan. Because that's exactly Andy's thinking. When the government was focused on 4% of the population, they had it very easy, living in first world conditions, in an ultra-conservative society. As for everybody else, however... PsyGremlin^Snakk! 16:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

IDuan is about to be blocked (read his last comment).--Danielfolsom (talk) 21:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Capping more of Andy and Iduan's debate^img. Iduan wins. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 03:59, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Heh. The 90/10 rule makes a comeback after a long absence. Funny how that tends to crop up whenever Andy is called out on his bullshit. I suppose Iduan should count himself lucky Popeye is AWOL atm. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 06:05, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Poor Andy. He makes a wiki specifically to argue and espouse 'conservative' views, and when he actually has a chance to do so he just ends up running away. I can't imagine how emasculating that must be. Ego (talk) 22:54, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Andy: Lincoln was better than Mandela because ...^img he didn't use violence to end slavery. That would be wrong. He did it to save to Union. Anybody know what that means? Whoover (talk) 00:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

That's actually not wrong. The Civil War was not fought was not to end slavery, but to preserve/restore the Union. Slavery was at the heart the issue that led to the South seceding, and abolition was one of the results of the war, but Lincoln did not go to war to end slavery in the South. When Lincoln was elected, he was going to prohibit slavery in the new territories, which forced the South to secede as, demographically, they would eventually lose their ability to prevent anti-slavery laws from being passed at the federal level. Lincoln's position on slavery and race was complex and evolved, until he finally settled on emancipation. Lincoln did not even enact abolition in border states that had slaves but stayed in the Union (Kentucky, Delaware, Maryland, Missouri, places where slavery was often on the way out, but still existed....) until after the war. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 00:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

so what's the point he making? That violence to preserve the union is justified but not justified to end apartheid?AMassiveGay (talk) 00:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what that man thinks. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 00:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

of course Andy could enlighten himself by looking at CP's own page on Mandela and look at the qoute from gingrich (is he considered a rino): Mandela resorted to violence against a government that was ruthless and violent in its suppression of free speech. As Americans we celebrate the farmers at Lexington and Concord who used force to oppose British tyranny. We praise George Washington for spending eight years in the field fighting the British Army’s dictatorial assault on our freedom. Patrick Henry said, “Give me liberty or give me death.” Thomas Jefferson wrote and the Continental Congress adopted that “all men are created equal, and they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Doesn’t this apply to Nelson Mandela and his people? AMassiveGay (talk) 00:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Ken has his say, kissing Andy's arse

[4][5] The irony is that his excellent education allows him to change a correct spelling to an incorrect one.

You do know that your screen-grab includes two open browser tabs marked as video and titled "BDSM Slave" right? Aceⁱ⁹ 21:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Should have checked that--Mercian (talk) 21:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

....were you fantasising about Andy as your BDSM slave Mercian? Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 22:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Everyone needs a hobby/everything's good between consenting adults/Rob has done worse/you should call me sometime. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 22:18, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh I aint judging.....thats the Lords job. On that front your ass is grass. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 22:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Classic. Occasionaluse (talk) 23:18, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I really don't mean to pile on, but I find the two tabs the most interesting aspect. I am in awe of the multi-tasking skill that implies. Whoover (talk) 01:05, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Who cares about tabs. LINKS, man, it's LINKS we require! Erm... purely for medicinal purposes, of course. PsyGremlin^Parla! 03:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Trotting this behavior out in public may not be becoming of an atheist, but it's perfectly representative of biblical christianity. After all, Genesis 3:14-19 is little more than a BDSM fantasy writ large for all of humanity. At least in Mercian's world women don't get the short end of the stick and every single person who will ever be born won't get violently co-opted into playing and then sentenced to an eternity of torture, all without a safe word. You go, Mercian. Have fun doing whatever you want with your noodle and dangly bits. God loves you. 14:10, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I have just discussed the issue with God, and he is most verily pissed at Mercian's perversions and in fact does NOT love him anymore. Many smitings are in line for his ass in this life and the next. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 17:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Just like NephilimFree and his quickly-expunged, escort-service bookmarks. - Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 16:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Naa. Mercian isn't a stridently nasty, self-righteous, hypocritical, and ill-informed cretin. NephilimFree embodies biblical values, mostly hypocrisy. 18:39, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Well obviously I don't mean that the two individuals are the same, just the unfortunate posting of screencaps with embarrassing details. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 21:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Of course you're right. I was taking a chance to riff on Nephilimfree's gross character. But Mercian is totally a depraved mutant. 21:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

We who we are contributing to this page are showing an interest in Conservapedia - Mercian's other interests seem to be quite healthy in comparison: So, have fun: reading Andy's stuff should be good enough for any masochist... :-) --larron (talk) 22:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

We all suffer from a form of intellectual masochism. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:38, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I Love Terry's Friends

From the latest hate piece by Bradlee Dean on CNAV (wherein we are taught how Obama is like Mao and Hitler) we have this question: "What would you say if I told you that over 700,000 of the up-and-coming generation graduating from public schools in America each year cannot even read there own high school diplomas?" I know it's petty, but I love stuff like that. Whoover (talk) 06:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Maybe he's so concerned about illiteracy because it's a problem that affects him personally. More seriously, if three quarters of a million people who graduate from high school functionally illiterate every year, wouldn't that be, I don't know, a huge fucking scandal? I can only presume he's exaggerating. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 11:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

They were going to write to their Congressmen to complain, but... well... Which reminded me of this.PsyGremlin^Praat! 12:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I would say that is a pretty big damn problem, but I would want a citation on that, some evidence for the validity of that claim.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

A few seconds on google gave me this: Percent of high school graduates who can’t read 19 % http://www.statisticbrain.com/number-of-american-adults-who-cant-read/

Doesn't surprise me a bit. Many of my students at the college level (I'd guess about 10-15%) are essentially high functioning illiterates. They can read single words and short sentences and, of course, don't have a problem texting, but they can't read a paragraph and grasp what it's trying to say. I'd say about 90% have never read a book that wasn't also a movie. The level of incompetence is just as bad in math, where asking people to preform simple operations like dividing or multiplying by two is often too much. These illiterate students often get through the class by working with someone who is able to read. All this a four year university, was pretty shocking when I first started. --Marlow (talk) 20:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, some kids make it through high school without learning how to read. What are they suggesting? Because the more education someone gets, the more likely they are to be independent/liberal. The GOP is the party of the elderly and the uneducated, nowadays. I guess it comes down to the rightwing meme of uneducated blacks voting democrat. It's like they got fooled into voting in their own interests, while teabagging whites got fooled into voting against their own interests. I have a rightwing cousin with a GED on welfare. You know why? According to her, it's somehow Obama's fault. Then again, she wants to exhume my grandfather because she thinks he's not dead. Fortunately, she sold her car to buy a gun because some guy on the internet is coming to steal her kid. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

It's rather sweet that when Fergus points out Mr Dean's error Terry, either through stupidity or deliberately, misunderstands and instead rails against the schooling system. The one which evidently didn't teach Mr dean to spell correctly. Oldusgitus (talk) 07:30, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I do believe that Chucky has not noticed the typo. I guess that reading comprehension is something else that the education system is failing at. Of course, what we don't know is whether Terry and Bradlee were home-schooled or public-schooled. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 10:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I suppose they are suggesting there is real issue in the school system, Dean didn't specify. However 19% of high school graduates being functionally illiterate is nothing short of a national scandal, no matter if a lousy human beings also happened to bring it up or not. To me, reading that number says we are not even doing enough to assure kids are learning the essentials. I have no idea if Dean viewed it as "uneducated blacks voting Democrat" or as a problem that affects public school students across most social-economical classes. I have seen what Marlow has seen, which suggests it is a broad issue and not one simply regulated to "the inner city" or what have you. Dismantling the public school system isn't the answer, but that doesn't mean the system isn't in dire need of some reform.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 11:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree, I just don't understand where their train of thought is going. Step 1: Outrage. Check. Step 2: ...? Terry's post-apocalyptic educational daycare (pay toll ahead)? Occasionaluse (talk) 15:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

(reset) There would have to be a breakdown of the figure quoted - visual and other impairment; those who are practical rather than readers etc (request for proper analysis of the statistics, whether or not interpreted by Disraeli). 171.33.222.26 (talk) 15:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

For me the significant issue is that the US illiteracy rate is pretty comparable with other similar developed countries. Measuring literacy is nigh on impossible because the term is so ill defined which is why the CIA have the US literacy rate at 99% and the US Schools dept at around 81%. Neither is "getting it wrong", they're just using different measures.

So, the headline is like one I remember from the Daily Fail which complained that half of Britain's school kids were below average reading ability and one quarter significantly so. Yeah, right, normal distribution.

Should we be concerned about the levels of illiteracy of school leavers - yes. Is it a major issue that is about to bring about the downfall of Western civilisation and/or demonstrate that US schools are failing - no.

Of far more concern, and you won't find this on Terry's blog, is the US scientific illiteracy brought about by religion distorting the teaching of basic scientific concepts. Innocent Bystander (talk) 17:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

For me, the significant issue gets obscured when we look at national literacy rates. I've seen breakdowns by state/region, race, and income level that point to a real problem that is less obvious when white middle-class suburban kids are bringing up the average. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 17:12, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The nominations are coming in...

... for Andy's list of right-wing fucktards 2013's conservative of the year.^img

It also gives us another strange glimpse at how what passes for his mind works. He has a "Tentative Rank" but, for example, has Rick Perry third, with #2 & #1 open. So Andy knows there's two better conservatives than Rick Perry, he just doesn't know who they are yet... PsyGremlin^Hable! 09:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Out of interest how does he supposedly rank them? is there a criteria or just naked whim on andy's part? Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 10:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Brannigan's Andy's Law Ruddager (talk) 11:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Putin? Really? Does Andy even know a goddamn thing about Putin beyond him being anti-gay? Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 11:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Given Andy's appearances on Voice of Russia I would think he's quite au fait with Vlad. Although they don't seem to be wholeheartedly endorsing his cousin's views. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 12:04, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Granted I've not cared for CONServapedia or Andy in years, but given Putin's policies (especially on international matters), you'd think Andy would be more suspicious of Putin. Then again, it is Andy. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 12:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Just further proof that andy's fundamentalist bigotry far, far outweighs any vestige of patriotism. If America refuses to submit to his dogma he will align with any scumbag who "does" (in andy's impaired mind) no matter how anti american they may be. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 13:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Makes me think of the pope's recent homily, "it is a serious illness, this of ideological Christians" and speaking of Christians who are “arrogant...proud...sure of themselves...not humble...[seeking their] own advancement." Although I guess we should hold out on judgment until Andy retranslates it? Occasionaluse (talk) 14:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Andy has had a serious hard-on not only for Putin, but for Mother Russia for a few years now. The gay thing is part of it, but I think he also sees Russia's anti-US stances as anti-Obama stances, which is all that matters to him. Russia giving asylum to "Obama's nemesis" Edward Snowden was pretty huge in that regard. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 13:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

When I looked at that list I saw the fact that Andy was unable to fill all ten slots ass a consequence of him continuing to further and further narrowly defining what a "true" conservative is. His definition is now so strict, he struggles to find ten people of note that could possibly qualify. If Terry actually gave a damn about Conservapedia beyond a free spot to advertise his own shlock, he could nominate some of his own site's regular contributors, and Bradlee Dean.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 14:18, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

he's probably left some spots clear so there is room for someone to nominate him. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I wonder what his opinions on the Putin backed Eurasian Union are.Brenden (talk) 17:18, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

This is the best he can come up with? What a bunch of losers. I guess BMcP is right, when your ideological criteria for "conservative" is so narrow you're left with an increasingly short list. With the exception of Putin and arguably Perry, the list consists entirely of obstructionists whose main claim to fame is impotently saying NO to Obama. Andy's man crush on Putin is great, someone should tell him that Stalin had much more conservative laws when it came to the gays. Oh yeah, and where's Tebow? --Marlow (talk) 17:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The Honourable Stalin, defender of the faith traditional values, righteous in the eyes of God, leader of the most righteous Bolshevik party has developed great advancements for the Western Judeo-christian world. His greatest acheivement, defeating the Liberal, Atheist Godless, Homosexual Nazi Germany showed us how conservative Comrade Stalin was. It is with great regret that we announce that Comrade Stalin has gone and joined Comrade SmiteAllDemHomosexuals in Heaven, this day, in the year of our lord, 1953. 142.22.16.52 (talk) 18:53, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

If all else fails there's always his mom. Генгис^pillaging 20:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Ha! Tebow is on the outs with Andy no doubt, as he failed to secure a job in the NFL and is instead unemployed. Andy cannot have anyone who suffered a personal setback despite his Christian religiosity, that would possibly suggest God isn't on their side, or something. No, there is no room for failure when it comes to those the Great Il Duce Andy wishes to bestow his great blessing.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 21:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Tebow is basically an evangelist now. The only problem is that he doesn't evangelize Andy's brand of hate. Andy can't support such non-denominational, "liberal" christianity. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Fucking stupid tweets: JPratt edition

This is a thing JPratt actually said. It's bizarre just how wildly out of touch with reality the conservapedia set have become over the last five odd years. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:40, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Much like Corsi, Jpratt is such a little bitter ball of Obama hatred that he no choice but to move from conspiracy theory to conspiracy theory, the longer Obama remains in office. Jpratt is lagging a bit behind though - Corsi's already on to "Obama tried to nuke us all!" and I honestly have no idea how he's going to top that one. --PsyGremlin^Snakk! 15:40, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Got links for that nuke thing? PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 16:16, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Can't be bothered to dig out links, but the gist is that naval yard shootings a little while back were to eliminate whistle blowers who stopped Obama's devious plan to nuke one or more US cities so that George Soros could make money betting against US currency and/or Obama could be re-elected for a third term. As fucking nuts conspiracy theories go, it's the fucking nuttiest. I don't remember if they have any "proof", even such things that pass as proof for internet nutbags. But it's Obama, so I'm sure he's up to no good. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:32, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad - it wasn't Corsi, it was Erik Rush. I got my right-wing fucktards mixed up. from the horse's ass. --PsyGremlin^Sermā! 18:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

You know its times like this that make me think we should have an "Obama Derrangement Syndrome" article on this website. Maybe im missing something but I swear Clinton was never so literally demonized by fundie fucktards. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 18:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if you've noticed but Clinton wasn't black. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 20:18, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

There's a technological change that makes that a hard comparison. When Clinton was in charge, it was not the case that every hate-fueled idiot like JPatt had ready access to the entire world. You would have had to go looking, to go read grubby photocopied pamphlets being passed out by dodgy-looking guys in front of the local university campus, to find the kind of thing that just gets beamed into your house now. If we'd had Twitter, blogs, wikis, cheap laptops and wireless in every house in 1996, I think the landscape would have been similar. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 19:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Was Bush derangement syndrome ever a thing, either for reals or in right-wing talking points? In a forum long ago and far away, the main mod accused me of seeing everything in the light of my hate for W. The context was the patent blatant overt lying about reasons for going on a costly expedition to kick us some Iraqi butt, and I thought I was being quite reasonable about it. That forum, a saloon bar lookalike on a site with a classical music focus, became a ghost town some time during Obama's first term. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 19:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I think Kanye kinda proved it exists. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

EC Among lefty circles, yes. Hell, remember Michael Moore? His hate-on re: Bush was mild compared to some of the stuff I used to see. How many signs with GWB with a Hitler mustache did I encounter at 2003 peace rallies? A bunch? Or that list comparing the scholarly definition of fascism with the Bush administration? And, again, social media and tech changes quickly. I only had home internet access after 2004, halfway through the Bush era, and social media wasn't yet the huge pipeline it is until the closer to the end of his days. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 19:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it definitely was a real thing. There were rumors circulating in 2004, and especially 2008, which believed Bush would cause some sort of national emergency as an excuse to suspend elections in order to stay in office past his term.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 21:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

To be fair, hardly anyone thought that Shrub had the imagination or spine to do something like that. Rove and/or Cheney, on the other hand, that was a different matter. --Kels (talk) 22:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

BDS was a thing. Still, it's not comparable to the right's obsession with Obama. To get even close, there would have had to have been an entire segment of the Left faking George W. Bush's Nazi Party membership card and trying to convince people it was real. Godspeed (talk) 00:54, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Wait wait wait - he has 9,000 followers?! And one of them is the Heritage Foundation?!?!?!--Danielfolsom (talk) 19:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

It's remarkably easy to accumulate twitter followers if a) You participate in popular hashtags, and b) You don't block the resulting spammers who follow you. Plus a lot of managed twitter accounts of celebrities and organisations just follow everyone who follows them. It's designed to make you feel included or some shit. You could probably have the heritage foundation follow you on twitter too, but you can bet they don't have anyone reading their twitter stream with all that hateful crap in it. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

My favorite follower of his so has this on their page: "Traditional Roman Catholic Blogger. Politically Carlist." There are actually people out there who are still Carlists?!?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 21:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I got some fundie apologetics outfits to follow me when I tweeted about Phyilis Schlafly and whoever that asshole was who talked about legitimate rape as purveyors of rape apologetics. It didn't take then long to drop me. 23:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Heh, Carlists are Johnnies-come-lately. There are people who are still Jacobites. Godspeed (talk) 00:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Since when is the Heritage Foundation some sort of gold standard that you would be surprised it's following JPratt? It's not an actual think-tank (in the sense of an organization like the Brookings Institution or the Urban Institute; it's a political pressure group mascarading as a research institution. That they created a technically separate (but for practical purposes intertwined) conservative lobbying arm so they wouldn't put their 501(c)(3) status at risk should tell you all you need to know about them. Truly independent research organizations don't have lobbying arms and certainly not for one ideology. Godspeed (talk) 00:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Dear f'n goat

Ive given this^img a new section because it kind of displays just how much andy despises BO. He's now accusing him of using notes to disguise the fact he was actually using an invisible teleprompter. The guy is slipping further and further into totally tin foil wearing insanity. Oldusgitus (talk) 19:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

If I had to guess, Andy will now walk away and Jpatt/Karajou will save the day by waving hands/threatening everyone else in the tread, respectively. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I gotta say it. I've campaigned to get rid of CP space, argued that Andy and CP were no longer entertaining, wished this page would just go away, but this week has been like old times. Mandela's death, like all tragedies, brings out the best in Andrew Schlafly. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 20:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Nobody's mentioned the main gist of Andy's MPR piece: the fake signer at Mandela's memorial was somehow a liberal scandal. The teleprompter was just thrown in as a made-up embellishment. I'm just not sure if it was US liberals or South African liberals who stepped in it. It probably doesn't matter. Whoover (talk) 22:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, why is reading from a teleprompter a sign of whatever it's a sign of but reading from notes is so honorable that Obama would fake reading from notes to hide that he's reading from a teleprompter? It would seem that either you let God operate your lips or you use some crutch with words on it. What difference does the medium of the crutch make? Whoover (talk) 22:32, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes I wonder whether andy was driven so insane by his (one sided) collage nemesis's ascencion to the White House (and thus the usurpation of Andy's dearest dream of absolute power) that his mind literally broke and he is physically incapable of doing anything but vomitting forth anti-obama buzzwords and conspiracies at every opportunity no matter how cognatively dissonant and insane they may be. Then I look back at how he was before Obama became high imam and arch librul witch doctor of the former US and realised his obsessive hatred of all things different and ever changing "conservative whims" always were this insane and petty long before the ebon usurper came back into andy's mind. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 01:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Cue the Twilight Zone music. Andy has finally stood up for Ken's obesity nuttiness. But his twist^img is that you only see it comparing atheists to rich Christians because poor Christians are, of course, obese and atheists are all rich. Apparently they became atheists at their expensive private schools. Whoover (talk) 17:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, Andy has reason to be grateful to Kendoll. His blithering just completely derailed the Mandela sign language thread. He does a great stealth rearguard for Andy's madness because the only possible response to the things he says is "What the shit are you talking about, Kendoll?" --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 01:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Andy just admitted that there is a selection bias in terms of educational attainment when comparing atheists and believers. Seriously, does nobody else want to jump on this?--Umichcynic (talk) 05:10, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

What's the point? You know what the answer is going to be. Liberals control education so of course liberals are better educated. They're still idiots though. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 05:46, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I like re-runs, what can I say?--Umichcynic (talk) 06:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Andy believes the education system is so chock full of liberal bias that it brainwashes people to be liberal atheists. My favorite was when he explained away his insights that people are becoming less intelligent since the fall of man, but society is becoming more conservative since the fall of Babel. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:52, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Predictable as always, Kendoll

In case you're wondering what Ken deleted from the main page, it was him getting called out on his lies again. I think he really does think his lies go away when he burns the evidence. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 10:54, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Newtown - Andy Comes Right Out And Says It

The reason we had the Newtown massacre? Video games did it^img. I know Andy last year was always toying with the theory that video games may be responsible, and the liberals in the media were ignoring this, but this is the first time I have seen him come right out and state them as the cause. It is the one year anniversary of Sandy Hook, so Andy couldn't let the opportunity to push his pet theories go to waste.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 14:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

"They'd just sooner slip on a banana peal or run face-first into a rail fence to cure a toothache."

I think Karajou means us. Anyone know what this means? Or how to parse it? Should "to cure" be "than cure"? Or is it supposed to be said with an Otisburg accent? "Slip on a banana peal" does sound like part of one of those New Yorker Magazine cartoon captions that nobody gets. Whoover (talk) 21:46, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Whoever started that petition he linked to needs to be slapped with a fish. One, because popular appeal is no way to deal with that kind of issue, 2. because there isn't much to support a claim that Schlafly is racially indoctrinating his students, and 3. because there are legit reasons why he should be barred from making a living as an educator, from giving boys and girls separate tests to the obvious mediocrity of his lessons and exams. Trying to peg him for his online comments about Mandela and the BNP detract from actual educational concerns. Schlafly has said some racist stuff. Schlafly from all appearances appears to be a sub-par teacher. Those are very different issues. Moreover, I'll bet whoever posted that has no skin in the game, and otherwise does nothing in terms of actively working for quality education. Taking your internet grudge into real life with something like that is lame. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 21:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

How does Karajou manage to write a blog about nothing more than comments on CP that annoyed him, but that no one else ever saw? Also, why is that blog called "Comments on our republic"? Would that be the republic of Conservapedia? Even Ken manages more of a variety in his diseased ravings. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I woke up in a cheery mood and, contrary to my usual head scratching efforts to understand what goes on in the mind of a lunatic, it occurs to me to be thankful that the more people like Karajou carry on, the more they discredit their fringe cause. That brings a smile to my face. 23:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Wait. What is Otisburg? The Google machine suggests it has something to do with comic books. Anyone? 23:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Remember the Superman movie with Christopher Reeve? Remember Lex Luthor? He had an idiot assistant named Otis. LL's diabolical plan was to nuke the St. Andreas fault, sending California into the ocean and then all the real estate he'd bought up in the desert would become priceless. Otis wanted to build a town called "Otisburg" as part of the plan. I'm guessing Sailor Moon over there uses the name to refer to a village inhabited entirely by idiots, ie, RW. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 23:34, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Here. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 23:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Why did he name a place he made up after another made-up place mentioned a single time in a 20+ year old movie that wasn't very good? He can't be that weird, can he? 00:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Well as long as we're talking obscure movie references... is it just me, or does Karajou remind anybody else of what it would be like if Biff Tannen decided to take up blogging? --Inquisitor (talk) 00:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

He probably believes it's laugh out loud funny. See here for the wonderfully ponderous birth of the Otisburg riff. Robledo (talk) 00:38, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the petition is pretty lame. But I'm also taken with the right taking offense at the liberal media "censoring" the "evidence" that the latest nutjob-with-a-gun was a socialist. The passage that was removed is a classmate calling him a socialist. What's the likelihood that his peers, noted for teasing him about his supposedly liberal political beliefs, might conflate "socialist" and "not Republican," the way that many on CP do? Maybe a real newspaper decided that that's not real good evidence as they were taught in journalism school. Whoover (talk) 00:42, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Am I crazy or is it supposed to be spelled peel? Are we too hip to comment on something so obvious?--"Shut up, Brx." 02:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Not too hip, but too subtle maybe? New Yorker cartoon caption? I figured most of us would spot that without having it rubbed in their faces. But that citation (the section title) is a wondrously layered bag of insanity. Whoover (talk) 02:11, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Just to put this out there, in case anyone reads what I wrote here a couple of days ago regarding making people aware of Andy's racism, that lame petition was NOT me. Nor was any of the trolling of CP. I was maybe a little bit drink, and fired up at the time of my comment. I just think it should be added to his RW page and become a thing that WE associate with him here. Carry on. Hiphopopotamus (talk) 02:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Karajou's "Otisburg" posts are so powerfully lame. Aceⁱ⁹ 03:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I love when he posts those. I feel the same way reading his posts as I do watching "The Room". So incredibly bad and stupid that I can't help but be entertained. Hiphopopotamus (talk) 04:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Having Karajou call us silly names is like being insulted by a tearful village idiot. All you can do is smile back and say “there, there". Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 08:19, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

A whole new approach to being offended

Up until now, the CNAV tea party crazies have manufactured scandals to be offended at out of bits and pieces of real news and trumped up, internet-style evidence. But Bradlee Dean is an offence-taking entrepreneur. He's taking it to a whole new level, he's now just making up shit and then being offended by his own creations. It's genius. No references or sources required. Just assert that public schools are training kids to be muslims and go on jihads, and then declare yourself to be outraged. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:43, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I had a good laugh at that. 50 years ago in social studies we learned the Five Pillars of Islam, so I thought he was being pretty tame. Then I got to "staging jihad." We never had to make suicide vests. Whoover (talk) 01:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I remember in High School having to know the five pillars of Islam for an exam in one of my World History classes. I never though once that "yah, I want to be a Muslim now" just because I learn something about the religion in an academic setting.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:44, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I saw that, Ken.

His latest FYI included another one of his little link-clicking trails that eventually ends here: https://sites.google.com/site/dudiuyydd/ (image)

Of course it's since been deleted but it contained the message: "It will be published in 2014. We will expect a retraction of course for your many spurious claims that it will not be. Why do you keep repeatedly embarrassing yourselves?"--JimBags (talk) 09:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

These easter egg hunts of Ken's are just another sign of how deranged he is. He thinks he's being mysterious, and leading us on, but all he's doing is acting like no sane person in the history of ever. Also, I'm willing to bet a 100 internets and a homemade goat pilaf that about this time next year we'll get "Due to my spending a large amount of time with a well-known Christian online website, which has more hits in regard to web traffic than Richard Dawkins, which I thought would keep me busy for the next three years, as well as an ongoing problem with my teeth, which has kept me awake at night, the booklet will be printed in 2015. Then you obese atheists will be laughing on the other side of your faces. "Random Sun Tzu quote." --PsyGremlin^{말하십시오} 09:43, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Huh? Nobody said it wouldn't be published in 2014. We simply said it wouldn't be published at all. You're the one who kept pushing your 2013 deadlines back. Since you failed to publish in 2013 like you taunted us you would, it's a reasonable inductive leap to say that you're a liar and that this booklet is like so any other Ken joints: a fiction. It wont be published in 2014 either. Take Fergus up on his offer to have it written at a professional level in a week. It looks like your Canadian authoress skipped town, assuming she existed. 18:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Presumably by way of reciprocity, we can expect that if Ken's textbook isn't published in 2014 he'll admit that his booklet, his textbook, and project 200+ were all desperate lies designed to make himself look important. Who am I kidding? Ken will never admit to any of his manifold lies. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

"While the liberal media conceal the leftist views of the latest Colorado shooter, the British press reveal that the gunman was for gun control and against the Republican Party."

By citing the Denver Post and Los Angeles Times. Exclusively. Whoover (talk) 04:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

"Health Care: Let 'em Die, Climate Change: Let 'em Die, Women's Rights: Let 'em Die"; oh yes, all good, leftist viewpoints. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 09:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

In what way was he left-wing then? Osaka Sun (talk) 09:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

He shot someone with the defensive weapon of gun. Ergo he HAS to have been a communist left wing liberal facist. No other explanation can be true nor acceptable in cp land. Oldusgitus (talk) 09:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Yikes, that's a quote that needs some context. "The paper reported that Pierson had once posted an image on Facebook with the slogan: 'The Republican Party: Health Care: Let 'em Die, Climate Change: Let 'em Die, Gun Violence: Let 'em Die, Women's Rights: Let 'em Die, More War: Let 'em Die. Is this really the side you want to be on?'" He's clearly ascribing those views to the Republican party, not claiming them as his own. --Willfully Wrong (talk) 13:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The nutjob was clearly all over the place. He was pissed at the teacher for ruining his chances for a career in the Air Force. But arguing about the political leanings of a nutjob is an exercise in futility that I'm happy to leave to Andy and company. The fun bit is Andy turning to the Daily Mail for the truth that the lamestream media is censoring, when the article is a bunch of citations from lamestream media pieces. Whoover (talk) 17:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

In a parallel universe, Liberal Andy is blaming the conservative teacher for conservative bullying. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Let Them Buy Stock

Ken really doesn't understand this Marxism vs. Capitalism thing^img. By asserting that "proletariat" means "middle class," the whole problem goes away. I look forward to his Cliff Notes. Whoover (talk) 17:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I see that 2014 is going to be the worst year in the history of Darwinism. Is it just me or does that sound vaguely familiar?--Fergus Mason ^{If in the first act you have hung a pistol on the wall, then in the following one it should be fired. Otherwise don't put it there. - Anton Chekov} 14:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

That's a tall order since 2013 was The Year of The Glorious Forfeiture. I still feel that the Community That Posts Crap as User:Conservative writes North Korean press releases by day. The stylistic similarities are uncanny. Whoover (talk) 01:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Put on your dancing shoes....

...'cuz somebody died.^img PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 22:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Andy is the poster boy for failing to live up to ones potential. Aceⁱ⁹ 23:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Andy is an engineer that doesn't understand science. He's a lawyer who can't put together a persuasive or coherent argument. Finally he's an educator with pathetic reading comprehension skills. So I'd argue that he has indeed reached, if not somewhat exceeded, his potential. If Andy had been born to regular lower middle-class parents, he'd be just be another maladjusted weirdo on the internet. --Inquisitor (talk) 00:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Failed to achieve his full potential? He was nominated seven more times for an Academy Award after Lawrence of Arabia, then there are the Golden Globes he did win...--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 05:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Countdown to "Mystery: Why don't liberals live up to their potential?" in 3... 2... --PsyGremlin^Parla! 05:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

To be fair POT did fail to live up to his potential and even he admited it. Almost all the interviews with his peers here in the UK in the past few days have been saying how brilliant he was and how he pissed much of that brilliance up the wall for an extended period of time. He acheived massively more than Andy and his ilk will ever achieve but had he stayed sober during the key years it is likely he would have achieved much more. As one of his fellow actors said (with slight paraphrasing) 'nothing wrong with a drink but it should normally be AFTER the performance has finished, not before the start.' Oldusgitus (talk) 07:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

"He achieved massively more than Andy and his ilk will ever achieve but had he stayed sober during the key years it is likely he would have achieved much more." This sentence right here is what allows me not to get upset every time Andy and company put on their dancing shoes and do the Macarena on the grave of every person of note who passes away and is to the left of them (i.e. virtually everyone). No matter how much they mock and piss on the graves of the deceased, they can never wipe away the fact that practically all these people will have accomplished more and be more fondly remembered than the entire crew of Conservapedia, by an order of magnitude.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I cannot say whether or not Peter o'Toole squandered his talent, but I doubt anyone can top a debut like Lawrence of Arabia. Anything following that is bound to be an anticlimax. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I seriously suspect andy's myopia and narcisism has progressed to the point where the ONLY measure of success he can imagine is how closely he thinks someone kowtows to his own far right dogma and how often they manage to come out looking good to him in his ever changing "conservative insights". Thus its entirely true that by andy's standard o'toole was a worthless failure, as any truely successful person would believe what andy believes, talked like andy talks, and hated what andy hated. To think otherwise would be to discount himself from the ranks of the great historical elite he so believes he is a part of. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 12:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Given that in Andy's mind PoT was a one-hit-wonder, wouldn't that make him the best of the public? PsyGremlin^Praat! 17:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I know Andy believes himself to be one of the great historical elites and monumental thinkers of our time, but do you believe anyone else on Conservapedia believes that about him? Or do they just all placate Andy and play along in order to maintain their own positions of (petty) power, and instead really think he doesn't amount of much of anything?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

IIRC Terry Flingbottom used to hold Andy in some kind of awe. There were comments around his visit to Colbert and possibly the CBP that gave the indication that he thought Andy was teh awesome. Given that he now just uses Andy's blog to linkwhore his own blog, and the fact that's he's declared himself generalissimo of his street as soon as he buys a generator, that opinion may have waned somewhat. PsyGremlin^{말하십시오} 14:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I concur. I doubt anger bear, Jpratt or Uncle creepy think much of him other than him being "the boss" who must be protected, and Ken seems to have open contempt for him half the time. Its possible trebushitter does still hold him in high regard given his continued gracing andy with his presence there (which given his ego is likely a great compliment in his own eyes). Honestly though its more likely even hurlbut thinks of andy as just another prop for his own greatness. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 14:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

At some point it was clear that Terry thought very, very highly of Andy and took great pride in his belief that they were friends. I think Andy did (or didn't) do something that proved to Terry that Andy didn't give a shit about him, because I haven't seen Terry grovel for months, but I don't think Andy has had any work.

On that note, I'd hire Andy as my lawyer in a heartbeat. Telling the judge 'liberal this and bias that' over my speeding tickets. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I dare anyone…

…to read this article (Warning: Daily Mail), and not imagine our favourite man-child angrily scribbling out huge parts of the screen with his green crayon.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 15:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The daily mail is british and thus liberal and utterly pathetic and worthless to true conservative ubermench. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 17:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

the trends that it highlights will inevitablely be reversed in the bad year for darwinists 2014. Also I thought I was generation X. Now I discover I am an echo boomer, whatever that is. My life is a lie. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh fuck me; One quarter of Americans believe in witches. I hope this survey was deeply flawed. Tielec01 (talk) 03:42, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

That statistic doesn't surprise me if one also accepts the fact that belief in Satan and Hell is about 60%. Witchcraft is only a small step away. Генгис^marauding 14:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Wish folk would link to the original so that I don't have to circumvent my Daily Mail blocker. Ken'll be moving to China any day now - that's where god's getting more popular, isn't it? (What's an "Echo Boomer"?) Scream!! (talk) 14:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

echo boomer - someone born in the eighties early nineties. According to that survey, someone in 77 and later. Quite why they are called echo boomers is a mystery to me. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:23, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

personally, if you are going for the earlier 1977 birth date, then star wars generation would a more meaningful term. Or maybe post Elvis generation. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Because they are the echo of the baby boomer generation. Kind of in the name really. Oh, and the link to the DM was deliberate, they are the only British paper I know who will happily post a "story" that's appeared on "WND" without seeming to do basic research on the "story" itself. So a bit of a kick in the nuts for Kenchild when even they are pissing all over his fevered, sticky dreams.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 17:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

CP and Star Trek

There's been some discussion about the politics of Star Trek. Does anyone with a CP account want to link this essay to see if Conservapedia can support an actual discussion about communism?? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 12:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

if you enjoy poking idiots with sticks I am sure you can manage this yourself. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, boy; two people who joined the site less than 72 hours ago are having a conversation that nobody cares about or has even noticed. Stop the presses. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 14:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Gods that was painful. Think I’d rather go through the Communist Manifesto itself. At least then I could say I read something socially and politically relevant. Anyway, as a longtime fan of the franchise that has had many, many (many) a geeky conversation on it, the accusations the Federation’s “communist” leanings never really made sense to me. Yes, the Federation is presented as having no (official) currency and a (sometimes Mary Sueish) sense of community. But I always attributed that to the use advanced technology rather than ideological demagoguery. Replicators, transporters, and warp drives (as well as an obviously plentiful and easily obtained power source for them) would no doubt remove many of the underlying societal stresses like resource scarcity and overcrowding. With food, resources, and medical supplies plentiful, transportation cheap and instantaneous, and the ability to relocate readily available, it would make a level of sense (and perhaps gives us a measure of hope) that humanity as a whole might dedicate itself to the more lofty goals of exploration and discovery rather than tribalistic warfare and conspicuous consumption. They could just as easily (and perhaps believably) regress to outright hedonism, but that’s the topic of another discussion. As it stands though saying Trek is “communist” is like saying Star Wars promotes belief in psychic powers; yeah, I can see how one can make that conclusion, but there is more to the story than that. End of the day just remember the mantra: “it’s just a show. I should really just relax.” - Tygrehart

^^Yes, it's two new users using a talk page to have an actual discussion about something in the article, in a place where sysops haven't noticed for a while. You know, a small glimmer of actual functioning wiki activity. In particular, PeterKa's nuanced statement that has the Federation being sort of capitalistic and "definitely not Marxism" is at odds with the Main Page characterization of the Obama administration. I'm interested in seeing if modern CP can sustain a discussion like that, and to that end have pointed it out here so that the CP editors who read this page would be made aware of it.

^Michael Wong can indeed be longwinded, but that sort of overthinking can be fun. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 02:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

"You know, a small glimmer of actual functioning wiki activity." - given that the default position on CP is that any new user who signs up and immediately gets involved in long discussions is probably a troll, there isn't much point in getting excited over it. At some point, one of them will tread on one of Andy's or Kara's crazy toes and be gone. I'm wondering if our BoN isn't on of them. PsyGremlin^Khuluma! 03:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Star Trek officers/personnel were still paid, but the acquisition of wealth was not a driving force in the lives of most federation citizens. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Hasn't Andy in the past made statements to the effect that he's a big fan of TOS? I'd doubt he'd ever say anything bad about the show. --Revolverman (talk) 15:28, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

McCoy gives Jim some antique eyeglasses. Those don't come out of the "you're doing a great job here's some shit" vending machine. They wear civies and bring liquor and personal property on board. They've got money. 19:31, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Trolling at its finest.

Yes, please CP. Please make a racist, homophobic reality TV star^img your conservative of the year. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Thought that position was being held for A Schlafly Esq. Scream!! (talk) 14:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm still hoping for Putin; I thought this bit of justification from Andy was a gem. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 14:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Putin doesn't suppress free speech. Which is exactly why Pussy Riot went to the gulag for 10 years. Also Jeeves, doesn't "racist, homophobic" apply to about 10 of them on that list. It seems to be the qualifying criteria these days. --PsyGremlin^Parlez! 15:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of CP's views on the homosexual agenda, the Duck Dynasty guy's comments weren't exactly 'family-friendly' (something about the relative merits of a vagina & a man's anus). Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I get the homophobic part, but what makes him a racist?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

"Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues." PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 17:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

To me that comes off as just personal ignorance and blindness to the reality around him as he was growing up rather than actual racism towards African Americans as a people; as I do take his comments there with a grain of salt. I will admit I am not upset by Robertson. He is an old southern redneck fella set in his ways, and a Christian conservative. To be honest, I expected him to believe as he does, so when he comes right out and says it, I shrug, because I wouldn't have expected different. I am more surprised that folks are shocked that people like him believe the things he does.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I can't imagine that anyone is actually shocked. It's more like the start you get when the mousetrap snaps. Even though everything unfolded as you foresaw, you never know the actual moment when you'll hit paydirt. --Inquisitor (talk) 18:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Uhm, complete ignorance about racism and thinking that blacks were happier in the US before the Jim Crow laws were repelled doesn't make somebody not racist. It makes one the worst kind of racist: one who thinks everything was A-OK in the olden days. If you don't see his defense of the Jim Crow laws as deeply racist, that says a lot about you, really. That impression is only made worse by your disgusting "He's a southerner, so it's not that bad" stance. Dendlai (talk) 18:45, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

You misunderstand, his comments are not mitigated by him being a Southerner. I just don't see him as deliberately racist, as in he sees African Americans as somehow lesser. My view is that his view that "well the good old days weren't that bad" stems from an old person who is just blindly nostalgic about "a simpler time" but to the degree that he is complete obvious (and perhaps intentionally) to the plight of Blacks around him rather than any sort of belief that Blacks are undeserving of Civil Rights. There is no doubt of his ignorance. As for his anti-gay views, I thought those would have been obvious beforehand given his fundamentalism.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:59, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

"I just don't see him as deliberately racist, as in he sees African Americans as somehow lesser" His stereotyping of them as entitlement, welfare recipients who were better off living under Jim Crow makes me think he does. He'll probably never admit it to anyone, including himself, but his true beliefs do come across in that interview. --Night Jaguar (talk) 03:07, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

You see the same thing with that "slavery in the Bible was a good thing which enabled people to get themselves out of debt" canard. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 12:03, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Personally my opinion is that anyone who looks back at the pre-civil rights era south as being "good for the blacks" goes past mere willful blindness and ignorance to flat out racism given how utterly blatant the persecution and disenfranchisement of blacks was in this era, and how public the insanely violent attempts to crack down on attempts to give them basic civil rights was by the south was. Its like saying that Saudi Arabia is "good for women" or that Iran is "good for gays". Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 12:46, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Doubt This Will Be In Andy's Sports News

So-called overrated sports star Peyton Manning broke the all time record for most touchdowns in a single season with 51; his team is also 13-3 on the year and have won their division (and a first round bye in the playoffs); but you know, only if they had Tim Tebow.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 21:14, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of which, where is Tebow? I'm guessing that now that he's been dropped like a hot potato, Andy has no further use for this greatest conservative sports star. How long until the list gets "trimmed?" --PsyGremlin^Parla! 04:52, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Andy brings up some great points. Why doesn't Manning singlehandedly win superbowls? Why doesn't Brady win all of his superbowls singlehandedly? Checkmate. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Tebow is still currently without a team. A European team associated with the NFL did offer him a four month contract but he never accepted. There are two possibilities where Tebow can go from here: Hold out and hope another NFL team will hire him during the offseason to help fill their roster (likely as a second or third string quarterback), or become a sports broadcaster for college football. The latter is more likely and does offer Tebow a much longer term, much more secure job that would have television exposure (especially if a major network or ESPN hires him).--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I was a little surprised he didn't run a little farther with the for-profit evangelism. He'll probably make a decent commentator, if only because he can actually speak well. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

He can speak well but he's exceptionally boring and he's a self-righteous prude. His color commentator would have to be along the lines of Fred Sanford for the show to be the least bit engaging. 00:28, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

War on Christmas

Given the complete lack of Christmas cheer, and lack of goodwill to all men, not to mention not a single mention of Baby Jebers, I can only assume that CP has been taken over liberals who are engaging in the War on Christmas. Somebody tell Sarah Palin!! --PsyGremlin^Prata! 15:27, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Nope, they are just praising laws that bring the death penalty to gays, at the same time quoting someone who says how hateful the intolerant homosexuals are.--Mercian (talk) 16:44, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Wait until tomorrow, then they will wish a Merry Christmas and openly seethe with jealousy as they state that those dirty atheists can't possibly be having fun but in reality, deep down, they know we so are.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 22:44, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I can't help but suspect that Andy's idea of fun at Christmas is to spend it praying, and reading the Bible. Генгис^marauding 09:30, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Russia

http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Russia_Today&action=historysubmit&diff=1072131&oldid=1065749 Now Russia is Conservative.--178.119.145.228 (talk) 16:25, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Santa Schlafly comes to town, and boy, have we been good this year!

So he gave us presents to enjoy!

Let's start slowly, with the little presents. Nononono, the big box will be opened last!

As we look back at the good times, let us reflect on the most logical book ever written - the Bible. And since the Bible is also the truest book ever written, let's simplify things and redefine logic to mean truth.^img There are Nazis on the Moon, thus Andy is a colossal idiot. See, it's logic, it's true, so it must be true because it's logic! And because "logos" means "logic", that means that in the beginning, there was logic.^img It all makes sense now!

And while we're messing with iconic phrases, let's make it clear that "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end" is "new age symbolism".^img And before you interrupt: The Bible is the most logical book ever written - or at least it will be, once it is cleansed of all this new age liberal claptrap. *Colbert nod*

"Oh, but what's in the big box, Uncle Sid?" you ask? Oh ho ho...

Well, did you ever wonder how Darwin got away with his whole "evolution" thing denying the existence of Adam? It's because "Son of Adam" was mistranslated as "Son of Man".^img Without this one mistake, the entire theory of evolution would have been a non-starter. But noooo, because one idiot fell asleep at the wheel, we have these darn Adam-deniers running around, believing that dogs changed into cats to adapt to climate change global warming!

*sigh* If only liberals realized that the logic of Christianity is believing in the Best of the Public,^img exemplified in Jesus Christ being the Son of Man... er... I mean... Son of Adam... no, wait... hold on... I thought that was a mistrans-... OH LOOK, THERE GOES SANTA SCHLAFLY IN HIS SLEIGH, PULLED BY HIS TRUSTY REINDEER ENFORCERS KARA AND TERRY (KEN COULDN'T COME, HE'S BUSY CRUSHING EVOLUTION)! *runs* --Sid (talk) 09:58, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Sid, you filled my Christmas basket with lovely fruity trees, thank you so much! ħuman 08:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Given that Andy doesn't even get the world's oldest pun (Adam (אדם) literally means "man") - it's no wonder that his little translation project fell foul of any other linguistic hiccups. Just another sign of what happens when you pull stuff out of your arse to suit your agenda, instead of, you kn0ow, researching a bit. Then again, Andy does buy into TK's bullshit about "don't read a book, write a book." PsyGremlin^Praat! 10:12, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Wow... It is good to know that Andy believes centuries of Christian theologians were all incorrect with their explanations until he came along and brought enlightenment; I wonder if he actually sees himself as a prophet of Christianity, or of the Bible? Equal to those mentioned? I love that he sees "ἐγὼ τὸ Α καὶ τὸ Ω" (I am the alpha and the omega) as some sort of New Age wording. Not only is the phrase in the newer translations of the Bible, but the original 1611 King James and in the old Latin Vulgate, in fact, the phrase is used three times before the verse Andy dismissed in the book of Revelation. Andy is so insane when it comes to the Bible, both fundamentalists and atheists can stand together, be appalled, facepalm, and just shake our heads.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:17, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

It's part of the whole Shlafly family women-don't-count crap left over from the ERA battle. "Son of man" could include women, which Andy finds offensive, so "Son of Adam" makes it clear that Christianity is a patriarchy (at least to Andy). It's the same bug up his ass that had him personally thank Markman for changing all the "Children of Israel" to "Sons of Israel," even when it referred specifically to women. Even after Markman was exposed as a parodist, those changes live on. Whoover (talk) 17:22, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

How does Assfly Feel about his mother?

moved from Saloon Bar

Despite taking a insufferable copy of her writing style and her beliefs, how does Assfly feel about Mom of the Year?--The Madman (talk) 17:29, 25 December 2013 (UTC)The Madman

He worships her and craves her approval.--"Shut up, Brx." 17:36, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

My mother? Let me tell you about my mother...(fails test)--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 18:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

A very Schlafly Christmas....

I guess Andy went to church on Christmas, because he had a Biblical Insight(TM)^img. Can anyone figure out how the hell he came to that conclusion, because no matter how I squint at that parable I can't even imagine how he got from there to negative numbers. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 09:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

So some of the seeds producing nothing, and others producing "a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown" is proof of negative numbers dominating multiplication with a positive number... the eggnog must have been strong in Andy's house this very night. --PsyGremlin^Parla! 10:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

It always blows my mind how Andy, self-proclaimed devoted reader of the Bible and theologian, can misinterpret the parables so completely, and in utterly baffling ways.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 23:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Wait, so Andy's entire line of reasoning is that something negative/bad can produce a negative/bad result/outcome? There's grasping for straws, and then there's this.

The worst part is that this is so convoluted and far-out that it won't even be any good as a random deadpan joke (unlike the goldmine that is Conservapedia:Andrew Schlafly's greatest insights - did you know that "And Jesus invented humor" can seriously derail a conversation?). --Sid (talk) 00:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

It always amuses me how people who read the Bible literally are quite happy about treating the parables as allegory. Генгис^marauding 08:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Balls

Looking through the Best of Conservapedia, there's several highly rated entries that just have the word "Balls" next to them. (203 votes, 196, 194, etc) Is this some weird script replacing some inane happening that earned a lot of votes, or what? --PsyGremlin^Sprich! 10:08, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Because outspoken Christian Kevin Durant and his mostly defensive weapon of gun disproves global warming, that's why, liberal! Deny this and lose all credibility!

Okay, more seriously, I've noticed the same thing, but never bothered to ask. So, I'm going to put on my software engineer hat. Here's the vote count I see for the first five items that say "Balls": 203, 196, 194, 186, 184. Do you see the same results, or different ones? MDB _{(the MD used to be for Maryland, but now means Magically Delicious}^{the B is still for Bear)} 11:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Nope. The same. Also 177, 171, 160, 158, 152 (x2), 148, 146, 136... --PsyGremlin^Hable! 12:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Same here. Okay, we can reasonably say it's not random (or that the random number generator is broken, but lets go with the simplest explanation.) I'm assuming that's some kind of "feature" in the software, as opposed to a bug. Hhhmmm.... perhaps it's entries that were deleted? MDB _{(the MD used to be for Maryland, but now means Magically Delicious}^{the B is still for Bear)} 12:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's probably it - the ones TK or Ken oversighted before capturebot could get to them, or pre capturebot days. Have an internet for your troubles. PsyGremlin^Parla! 12:43, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't the 203 vote a shout-out to DeanS when his wife died? Генгис^evolving 08:18, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

CP search is down

Oh, snap!^img

Here's how you fix it, Andy http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4357270/php-is-marked-as-crashed-and-should-be-repaired A Real Libertarian (talk) 04:25, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

... 04:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

So, how do you spend xmas.

As an atheist I spend it doing things I enjoy and surfing the internet. Andy, being the good xian he is, spends it making 'improvements' to CP. Way to worship Andy. Oldusgitus (talk) 16:39, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Chillin' mostly, trying to shake this damned illness I've had for the past week and a half. It's down to just cough and headache now. --Kels (talk) 18:01, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Staying drunk, eating tons of pie, buying stuff on sale, practicing French, doing laundry, updating the Hacktinosh to Mavericks, and like 95% of christians, not praising jesus. 18:17, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Christmas party last Saturday night, time with friends Sunday, watching too many renditions of A Christmas Carol, visiting the family and distributing gifts to them, exchange ones with friends, drink too much Egg Nog, watch Midnight Mass on TV (I love traditionalism and ceremony in regards to Christmas), play Minecraft and to Andy's horror, GTA Online.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:24, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

So it's mass murder for you on Boxing Day, is it? --Kels (talk) 18:31, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

With my diamond sword. I plan to combine my favorites in my video game fueled raging.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 22:19, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Went to bed at about 10 PM the 24th. Woke up at about 1 AM and went on a Married... With Children binge. Bed again before light, and somehow slept until 10 PM. When does the fucking stupid santa hat go away? ħuman 08:17, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Sometime in mid-2019, according to the latest schedule. --Kels (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Living somewhere where Christians are a minority and December 25 is not a national holiday, I had to work. I got home just before 11pm, which due to the time difference was just in time to hear the Queen's Speech as it went out on BBC 5 Live via the marvel of the internet. Spud (talk) 12:46, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Presents, cider and Mario Party on the Wii over this way. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 10:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Dogma Fight: Andy vs. Terry

Getcha tickets, folks^img. In the red corner, we have Andrew "Weapon of Gun" Schlafly wielding the deadly Bible. In the blue corner, we have Terry "Contempt of the Administration" Hurlbut wielding The Fountainhead. Who will win? Taking all bets. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:57, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Nah, no contest. Terry needs CP too much to challenge Andy, if only to linkwhore his blog these days. He'll probably grumble in private, but I'm betting he doesn't even edit the article. I do like the "Rand's selfish philosophy can pull young men away from the Bible" bit. We'll have to remind him about that next time he's waxing lyrical about Rand Paul. --PsyGremlin^Tala! 15:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

So Andy demands Chuckass stop being selfish by standing up for his convictions, and Chuckass does so in exchange for approval and the money from clicks on his blog?

Doesn't that make Andy, Ellsworth Toohey? And Terry, Peter Keating? A Real Libertarian (talk) 00:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Andy's stupidity make me feel all maudlin...

Oh dear, I think Andy's gone off half-cocked again. Apparently the secularized version of Mary Magdalene is "maudlin."^img Now the only instance I know of this is Magdalene College, Cambridge, which ironically is the original pronunciation of Magdalene, dating back to 1542.

30 Seconds on Google would have sorted that one out. Ah well, let's sit back and watch the fun. --PsyGremlin^Fale! 14:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

"...may be as much down to a reduction concern about breeching the Third Commandment" as may concern of proofreading. Nobody tell him about bedlam and Bethlehem, now. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:43, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Eh. None of this compares to his main page claim^img that "pro-aborts" suffered a staggering defeat because China is loosening the one-child policy. Phiwum (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

It's insane but consistent. His fantasy is that pro-choice is really about aborting as many fetuses as possible. "Many pro-aborts even seek to increase the number of abortions performed in the United States, and worldwide." Whoover (talk) 22:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Gosh God Man, I feel so Magdalene today. --Yossarian^{Speak, Memory} 23:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

"Pro-aborts have caused abortion rates to be higher in the United States than in comparable European nations".

Huh, wasn't expecting Andy to be so honest.

Why did he criticize the Republicans for preventing average people having the financial security to keep an accidental pregnancy or stopping effective sex education that would prevent it in the first place?

Does anybody know? A Real Libertarian (talk) 23:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The latest stats I have seen is 19 per 100 live births for United States and Canada as whole, 43 per 100 for "conservative" Eastern Europe as a whole, and 12 per 100 live births in hedonistic, atheist Western Europe as a whole.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 03:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I think you're out by a factor of 10 there. More like per 1000 live births rather than 100. Генгис^mutating 08:38, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Nope, per 100. A more precise number for the US is 227 per 1000, or 22.7 per 100, at least back in 2009 I believe you are thinking per 1,000 women rater than as a ratio to live births.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 09:55, 31 December 2013 (UTC).

Sorry, my mistake. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 10:38, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Well thank heavens the abortion rate is lower in the south! Those nasty "pro aborts" better stay out so the good Christians of the bible belt can continue doing us all proud by leading the nation in murders, teen pregnancy, STDs, divorce, etc. 21:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of lost causes....

What happened to the QE booklet?^img Aceⁱ⁹ 03:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Not to mention the QE man-on-the-street interviews, QE forums, Project 200+, the QE textbook for middle school students, the series of QE videos, etc., etc., etc. I'm not sure Ken is in a very good position to talk about failed predictions. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 08:58, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

No, Ken is in exactly the right position to talk about failed predictions and failed projects. He's the world expert on them as he's had so many failures. He is the world authority on failure. Just not from the standpoint he likes to think. Oldusgitus (talk) 10:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Sad old Ken. Spending New Year's Eve on his own and crying out for some attention from us. What a loser. Генгис^{Gum disease} 10:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Terry's hall o' fame has a trophy...

I challenge you to tell me this thing doesn't look more than a little phallic. Fittingly they've chosen to award their colossal dick to a colossal dick, Ray Comfort. It's kind of sad when the height of creationist achievement this year was a man who produced a choir-preaching internet video for money. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 08:56, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

And at 21 inches they really want to be the biggest dicks of all. My only disappointment is that the knob-end is bright blue, purple would have been perfect. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 10:46, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Because a purple knob probably hurts a lots more than a blue knob? It's always knobs knobs knobs with you and Anonymous user. Weirdos. 17:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey! If it wasn't for Jesus inventing comedy, we wouldn't have purple knob jokes. --PsyGremlin^講話 17:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

...it looks like a giant match. And they only made one, so Ray Comfort has to give it back next year? That's sort of a bummer. --Sid (talk) 11:24, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

A lot of sports trophies are like that - the winner has it for a year, then it passes on. And this trophy is more like one of those than, say, a Nobel Prize, an Olympic medal, or an Oscar. ħuman 00:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I doubt that he even gets to see it, let alone display it on his sideboard. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 16:28, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Err... Hurlbut and his pals are nobodies. Comfort may be a buffoon, but he's a well-known buffoon. I sincerely doubt he even knows who these guys are.

This is the equivalent of South Park's Jimmy Valmer giving awards to Ben Stiller and Barack Obama in the school cafeteria. Except instead of Tyler Perry showing up to rattle off incomprehensible nonsense that only someone else can translate, if at all, Terry speaks for Walt Brown, even gatekeeping his empty and pointless "debate challenges". [Like] 17:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know. Comfort is so vain he buys awards for his films. Getting one for free might be right up his alley. Maybe someone who has signed up for the evil empire could check his facebook page to see if he's acknowledged it? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I checked his Facebook page and saw no mention of the award, despite there being quite a few posts today (and over the last few days). - GrantC (talk) 18:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, if these people were trying to appear pathetic they couldn't have done a better job than this. As if the Freudian nature of the trophy wasn't subtle enough, they have a ruler out measuring the thing (classy, by the way). Also, this is great: "He will display his award for one year and then pass it along to next years’ winner." I love it. It's immediately assumed the winner will be male and they're too cheap to spring for a new award every year. --Night Jaguar (talk) 19:18, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Things creationists say that make you go 'gaaaaaaaahhhhhhhh!' no. 768, from their Creationsts believe... page: "Irreducible complexity is also another fact which disproves evolution. For example, the eye could not evolve in stages but had to be designed fully formed or it simply would not work. Besides, how would an animal know it even needed to evolve the sense of sight and how would it even know what to use it for?" Cantabrigian (talk) 20:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

"Gaaaaaaaahhhhhhhh!" sums it up, yes. The weird thing is that creationists also tend to be conservatives, so they should embrace the power of an open, unregulated market such as natural selection. ;)

Instead, they portray evolution as if an animal actually reasons, "Hm, it seems that the ability to see would come in handy in this situation, so I shall mutate something I will call eye into my body by force of sheer will! HNNNNGGGGGGGGGGG!" Just... what... I don't think I've read comic books this absurd... --Sid (talk) 20:42, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

It constantly amazes me that creationists are such vehement supporters of Social Darwinism. Sophie^Wilder 21:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

^^Reminds me of this comic. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 23:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

This was perfect, thank you so much for sharing! XD --Sid (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Made the mistake of visiting Terry's blog. Forgot just how paranoid and racist it can be. On how Obama got in power, despite his stupidity^img:

“”The world may never know for sure, but all the evidence points to a very, very powerful organization being behind this. It could be that much talked about and feared New World Order or it could be a group of organized communists seeking to destroy their only obstacle to world domination, the United States. If an organization were to undertake the dismantling of a country, it’s laws and it’s culture and do it from within as opposed to a declaration of war, the plan would need to be a stealthy one. One that could proceed under the camouflage of a guilt ridden civilization. Only a modern black male, using the misery of his brethren ravished of slavery and injustice, could orate a policy while implementing the exact opposite of it. [....] Back now to the question of Obama’s popularity being in the dumpster and whether or not America will be better off as a result. Surely, if he were a Republican or even a white male or female in the Socialist Democratic Party the threat of his policies would have been, long ago, severely diminished as the people realized they could not believe or trust him.

--Night Jaguar (talk) 02:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

What I enjoy most is that he thinks him and his generator are all that stands between Ban Ki Moon and world domination, or at least the unseen evil eminence that is the power behind Moon's throne. How does he imagine that the US is actually blocking this sooper seekrit conspiracy that can apparently conquer the rest of the world in the blink of an eye? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Me too. I also enjoy the beautiful disconnect between the US being the only barrier to world communism, Obama being installed by a powerful secret organization that has infiltrated the US to the highest levels whose sole purpose is to impose world communism, and Obama not being very smart. Hurlbut is a comedy genius. 18:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Be fair, compared to Roseann and Dwight Keyhoe, Terry is an ACTUAL genius. Admitedly first among equals in this case isn't much of an achievement but it does give him something to be proud of. That and his NWO defeating generator. Oldusgitus (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

That trophy reminds me of something that Krikkit Robots would show up and steal. --Inquisitor (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Definitely a knob-end. Totally appropriate for something named after Duane Gish. Cardinal Fang (talk) 21:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Any idea what he is going on about?

He's just going to delete it, so I'll put this here. 02:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

[6]--Mercian (talk) 01:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

He's comparing something to the fall of Babylon. [7] 02:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like he's about ready to let his beard grow out, slap on a sandwich-board, and take to the streets. --Inquisitor (talk) 03:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

He's getting remarkably close to Time Cube territory. All that's missing is more colour and different font sizes. Vulpius (talk) 04:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll give him the patience of saints. They've getting strung along for a couple thousand years now without any prophecies coming true, but they might someday! --Kels (talk) 05:09, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

In some respects Ken is right, despite what we might wish for, religion is not going to go away for a long time because humans are innately gullible and long for a comfort blanket. However, his dogmatic brand of religion is definitely on the back foot with creationism taking a particular hit. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 09:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Shame. Have we been ignoring Ken again? Hey Ken, do you really think that posting obscure shout-outs on random webpages, claiming victory for things you haven't done, is the sign of a sane person? --PsyGremlin^Fale! 09:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Now, now; this is all he has, everything else in his crusade against evolution, atheism, and teh gheys hasn't panned out, not to mention his grand anti-Socialism, anti-Abortion, and anti-Dawkins articles Ken was convinced would go forward like a bullet train. This is all he has left! --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

News for the hearing impaired.

Fidel Castro is still dead!!!^img (Reference for those people younger than 50....) PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 23:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Daily Mail agrees with Andy. Oh wait, no it doesn't. The man is better than any parodist. ^{— Unsigned, by: 131.107.147.33 / talk / contribs}

So Mr. Schlafly believes that the media is not being fooled, but is a actually complicit in the deception over Castro's death. What could the motivation be, and who could have the power to keep them all in-line? (even WND). This could only be the same shadowy organization as is running Obama. Lets hope Terry investigates.^{— Unsigned, by: 71.231.120.148 / talk / contribs}

He's said before, he thinks that the media is perpetuating the hoax of Castro's life because they initially misreported his survival, and are now too embarrassed to own up to it. Because news organizations never admit to mistakes.--"Shut up, Brx." 04:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Says the man who never admits he has made a mistake or might ever be wrong about something. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 08:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I think this just further evidences the theory that andy honestly thinks he's literally a divinely inspired prophet who is physically unable to ever be wrong, especially whenever he has his "conservative insights". And thats not even going into the fact he is simultaneously a bible literalist and someone who believes he alone is qualified to rewrite the bible to properly reflect "gods word" or his grandiose proclamations on how conservapedia is the most powerful right wing force in history which will convert all america to real true conservatism. This entire debacle is, like every other andyshambles, a direct result of his truly brobdingnagian ego Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 11:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Once more, I find that I have credited Andy with having more sense than he actually does. I had imagined that he'd brought up his loony theory again because somebody had challenged him on it or there had at least been some passing reference to Castro. But, no! He's quite happy to bring it up by himself in a completely unrelated thread. He really seems to enjoy being a complete twat. Spud (talk) 13:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

andy's desire to believe the most fucking stupid things out of bitter spite for "liberals" is less pronounced than that of peltrectum. Far more attractive to him is to continue to gloat in abject smugness at how deluded and stupid all those "mere mortals" who do refuse to believe his divinations are at any time and with any excuse.

I guess you can call andy a "glass half full" fundie fuckwit because he believes he and his dogma have already "won" (its just a tiny minority of degenerates who have yet to realise it) while terry is a "glass half empty" fundie fuckwit for believing he is one of the elect few "real tru conservatives" who must valiantly resist the evil muslamic socialist negro empire with their divine blogs and sanctified generators till God comes and sends all 7 billion of his personal enemies to hell. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 16:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I always felt that is what really drives fundies; not the idea of their own personal salvation, but the masturbatory desire to see all their enemies, real and imagined, and all the so-called degenerates, suffer eternal pain and punishment for the crime of not being just like them.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Judge, thank you for coining "Andyshambles," thereby coining a neologism that combines my fascination with the workings of Schlafly's mind with my man-crush on Malcolm Tucker. Well done. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 13:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

No problem, I think any usage of Tucker wisdom in the eternal mockery of fundie antics is justified :) Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 16:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Nobody sees fit to comment on the thrust of the thread that contains Andy's Castro-is-dead aside? It's about how North Korea is a liberal's paradise and how the MSM are covering for their hero, Kim Jong-Un, and his brutality. What reason could the New York Times possibly have for not reporting the discredited rumor that Kim had Uncle Jang eaten by a pack of dogs other than liberal deceit? Have we gotten so inured to the "reality" where Kim Jong-Un is a liberal that we don't even notice? It must be brain damage from all the video gaming. Whoover (talk) 00:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

No liberal would ever feed a fellow human to a pack of dogs. It would have to be cats. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 10:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

120 just seems like a ridiculously large number; I mean, try getting 120 crazy dogs to form a queue

They might have been extremely small dogs?--Fergus Mason ^{If in the first act you have hung a pistol on the wall, then in the following one it should be fired. Otherwise don't put it there. - Anton Chekov} 02:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone else remember the time Andy accused liberal ESPN of spreading the propaganda that Kim Jong Il shot like a 20 on the golf course? Found it Occasionaluse (talk) 16:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Twenty family members or just general political opponents? Генгис^mutating 20:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Dammit, Daily Beast!

Why are you helping Ken out? MDB _{(the MD used to be for Maryland, but now means Magically Delicious}^{the B is still for Bear)} 14:05, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

That's a pretty bad headline, as it really isn't what the article is about. This whole "bad year for evolution" concept seems to come exclusively from this survey. While it does show a 6 point increase in belief in strict creationism since 2010, if you look at the numbers going back to 1982, you see they remain more or less consistent: between 43% and 47% (certainly within the margin of error) every year - except 2010. That one survey seems to be the anomaly, and the 6 point increase a regression to the mean. Belief in evolution guided by god has remained pretty consistent as well. The only one to show any real trajectory is belief in unguided evolution, which has shown a steady increase over the past decade. Looking at the numbers that way, it doesn't look quite so bad. DickTurpis (talk) 15:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry? You expect Ken to have actually read, understood and then accurately represented what the article and underlying data said? REALLY? This is kenny we're talking about. Oldusgitus (talk) 16:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I recommend that everyone READ the article. In full. Just do it. Ignore the headline. It's unfortunate that the author chose an attention-getting headline that just happens to fit right in with Ken's worldview, but that's not what the article was about. A better title would be:

2013 was a good year in general for science teachers, including science teachers in Evangelical Christian colleges, a good year for getting students, even students in Evangelical Christian colleges, to see that science and Christianity can coexist, and even a good year (if you think that's good, which the author, as a teacher at one of those colleges, doesn't) for getting those students, and other young people, to leave religion. It was a bad year for evil outside Creationist groups to interfere in the natural progress of science education, including well-meaning teachers such as myself. And, because of that interference, it was a somewhat good year for getting young people to leave Christianity.

SamHB (talk) 17:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, basically the gist of the thing is that wingnut Christianity in the US is becoming smaller and more insular as time goes on, and anyone with any sense is deserting the sinking ship. This doesn't strike me as a very Ken-friendly message. I did enjoy that "pro-evolution" bit though. I guess any publication that isn't explicitly wingnut is now on the side of the demons. Kind of goes towards making Giberson's point, eh? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Frankly, the whole issue is a red herring anyway. The whole thing is one massive argumentum ad populum. Evolution will only have a bad year when it is disproved. Reasonable measure of success: still true? yup. Win. Worm (talk) 15:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Spot the difference http://i0.wp.com/www.conservativenewsandviews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Why_investigate_creation2.jpg vs http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-design.aspx

Cake and eating it

This is genius. Andy's article now has black holes not existing as a counterexample to relativity and simultaneously strange signals from black holes also being a counterexample^img. I suppose consistency would be too much to ask. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

So black holes are no longer Liberal pseudoscience?--Mercian (talk) 01:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

No doubt it's too much to expect that Andy has a subscription to New Scientist so that he can read the whole of the article he cites rather than just quote-mining the headline. Cantabrigian (talk) 10:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Funnily enough I am considering a subscription to New Scientist for the New Year. Is it worth the subscription price?-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 11:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes - without a doubt. It's probably the best way of keeping up with the full range of current science. Cardinal Fang (talk) 11:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know. It's really been going down hill of late. Lost most of its pages and now has much more sensationalist reader bait, even the puzzles are crapper than they used to be. I suppose if people don't subscribe it isn't going to get any better, but I think it might be a lost cause already. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 11:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

That's the problem with pulling stuff out of your arse - you have to remember all the other things you've pulled out of your arse, in order to make sure you keep the story coherent. In this case, Andy could have just read the list, whilst grabbing hold of the latest arse nugget, but even that proved to be too much for him. PsyGremlin^Sprich! 12:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the "logic" is: article headline says "there's more to space-time than Einstein believed", therefore everything Einstein thought is wrong, therefore relativity is disproved. It involves the same sort of (deliberate) ignorance as thinking that The Origin of Species is the last word on evolution. Cantabrigian (talk) 13:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't forget, cake itself disproves relativity (seriously^img). --Night Jaguar (talk) 19:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

New Scientist might not be a source Andy would approve of anyway. Cantabrigian (talk) 18:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)