Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive336

Where is Karajou?

His last post, including blocks, was on the 17th September, two weeks ago [1]. DO you think he has jumped ship?--Mercian (talk) 21:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Doubtful, he'll return when he gets bored and wants a power trip. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 21:26, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Where is Ed Poor?

No edits on CP for coming up on 2 years, so he's clearly thrown in the towel there, but no edits on WP since 1 June either. PsyGremlin^Praat! 05:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Speaking in tongues

Bit confused here, is it good or bad no one translated ? link^img. Also Ken what is the point at over sighting all your tiny edits, we can all see what you've done. Be a man, with Machismo (Ole Ole Ole) and don't oversight them. Ghost (talk) 06:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Andy and Ken are confusing the Jews for Jesus guy's Hebrew for speaking in tongues. There is no reference to speaking in tongues in the article. The fake Jewish prayers are probably what tripped up our religion mavens. Ken is burning revisions so he may be figuring out the blunder. But that video of Trump resisting the urge to get the bunch of loonies tossed is priceless. This primary season is the best ever. Whoover (talk) 07:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Also when did conservapedia start have scheduled maintenance ^img ? Ghost (talk) 08:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Cover for major history deletions, perhaps?-- Forerunner (talk) 12:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The kitty's back

With 40 edits^img today of which 18 have been oversighted and deleted. Oh please ken, don't ever change. Oldusgitus (talk) 18:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh Ken, why did you have to move it :( Ghost (talk) 11:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Some of it was to do with his religion and crime reduction and atheists and criminality. His answer was basically to ethnically cleanse atheists so crime would fall to around zero. Either that or he was over siting tiny little things like spelling mistakes and typos but that is the Streisand Effect for you.--Mercian (talk) 17:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Who's that, riding the kitty? Cardinal Fang (talk) 00:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

A long haired, creationist beauty. Ghost (talk) 11:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure type 2 diabetes is a disqualification. Whoover (talk) 05:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heR5qZSzb2c How fun that the flying kitty is a product of Godless Britain. (its actually 'Captain Pussington', from gooleing which I see the owner appears to be aware - though perhaps wouldn't be ok with modifications)

I didn't know that Yorkshire had its own search engine. (Goole) Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 10:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Where is TAR?

It has been seven months since TAR has last graced the pages of Conservapedia. User Conservative had announced that he would return in September. All of his spam farm remains in place to promote James Wesley Rawles and his wonderful books. Meanwhile, Messrs. Rawles and TAR have failed to make good on their promise of reciprocal promotion of CP. TAR had left the CP category structure in chaos, and nobody has step up to fix it. TAR has left numerous red links for articles that he had promised to write. Finally TAR left a lot of material promoting the notion that true conservatives should disengage from political life in the United States and immigrate to Idaho in order to focus upon the imminent collapse of the US. Implicit in the agreement to block all of TAR's critics was the promise that TAR would deliver the goods for CP; instead TAR has left CP a mess and has frozen out a number of productive editors in TAR's wake. A clean-up of the TAR residue is over due, and it is time that TAR's critics be allowed to return to CP. Hclodge (talk) 12:26, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

TBH who cares? AugustO has been quietly trying to tidy some stuff up as have one or two others but I've decided not to use my sock to bother. ken and andy have allowed this midden to be created. Let them either tidy it up themselves or wallow in it as they see fit. After all, theirs is the 'trustworthy encyclopedia'. Oldusgitus (talk) 15:28, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Take a look at TARs block log. No other spammer has been allowed to block for an indefinite duration so many other editors in such a short a period of time. TAR blocked anyone who called out his bad actions. Hclodge (talk) 05:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

User Conservative has gone back through TAR's blocks and adjusted the expiration of TAR's indefinite blocks to just 5.5 to 6 years.Img Hclodge (talk) 10:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

One of the popular features of CP that drew a lot of viewers (including me) was CP's coverage of Wikipedia. TAR shut that down, and now edits Wikipedia, although with less blatant spamming than he did at CP. At least he plays both sides of the CP-Wikipedia fence with equal spamosity. Perhaps User Conservative can get TAR to hop back over to the CP side. Hclodge (talk) 09:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

God Hates Harper

According to Andy, Harper lost because he didn't hate gays and women enough. Whoover (talk) 17:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Donate Button

When did the Donate Button popup? I've only just noticed it so I'm guessing it was added recently. Surely he should just hit up Ken for money Ghost (talk) 00:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Did Mommy Dearest cut Andy's allowance? Vulpius (talk) 01:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

We are sure to get some figures soon as conservatives are so generous when it comes to charity. Ken will be emptying his piggy bank no doubt. See [2].--Mercian (talk) 03:40, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Would be interesting to see what happens if we use a fiver from the Rationalwiki slush fund. Guessing Andy would accept it, but not mention it at all. Could we start seeing shoutouts on the main page in the manor of "eat it up liberals Ken from Buffalo NY has donated $8.0085" Ghost (talk) 09:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Expanding on that, I wonder how much money it would take for Andy to sell the CP domain name. I reckon if you offered him a grand or two he would take it, cut his loses and run.--Mercian (talk) 12:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Awright, buy his domain and make it into a redirect to RationalWiki, that'd be the ultimate triumph (capture the gates of thy enemies and shit like that)!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 13:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I did some digging apparently Phyllis isn't in the best of health at the moment (she is 90+ after all), guessing he's trying to find another funding source besides the Eagle Forum. Taking it over would be the final sign of victory, although then we'd have thousands of articles of Bestiality, Atheism, Obesity, and Homosexuality and .... on the servers. As well as a badly translated version of the bible. Ghost (talk) 13:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

What are you talking about?! Delete the content of the servers and make the whole goddamn domain into a redirect to RationalWiki!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 17:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps he should acknowledge whatever financial contribution CP received from James Wesley Rawles and friends so that everyone can understand the spam farm. Hclodge (talk) 14:37, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

All your base are belong to us:) Get well soon Phyllis,not a particularly nice old lady but she has fought her corner with vigor well into her old age so some respect is deserved I suppose.--Mercian (talk) 15:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

If Andy's relying on conservatives to fund him, the site will go belly up pretty soon. The Tea Party Community (their version of Facebook) has a donation target of $4,500 to cover expenses. Looking at this month's collection, they've raised $435, which is about par for the course. And this is a site boasting some 150,000 (although you can't delete your account, so the number of active users is probably way below that), not a backwater wiki populated to 5 angry, old white dudes. PsyGremlin^Praat! 14:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Many web hosting services charge about $4 per month for long term contracts. So conservapedia.com costs $65 per year for hosting and domain name registration combined. Hclodge (talk) 05:21, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

That would be mainly for small sites with comparatively few visitors. All that clickbotting pumped up CP's bandwidth usage. I remember TK whining in the superseekrit forum about how RW vandals were costing Andy money. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 10:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

That moment when a cause that progressive activists have been working on for years becomes Truly Conservative...

Prison reform. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

They are the ones who have been shrieking about "law and order" since Nixon. Never met a civil liberty they weren't willing to gut or a sentence that was too long -- until three seconds ago.---Mona- (talk) 19:21, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

What Andy wrote was remarkably sane. World... not... making sense....arghhhhh.....quick Andy, say something ridiculous....""Majesty" is monarchical term. There were no monarchies at the time of Christ, and the tendency by Anglophiles to see everything in terms of a silly monarchy should be resisted."^img Phew, alright I'm good. --Night Jaguar (talk) 06:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah, that "majesty" stuff is classic ignorance + intransigence from Andy; just like old times. I'm amused to see that the first definition of the word in the OED is "The greatness and glory of God" (though I suppose the OED is a liberal publication...) . Cantabrigian (talk) 12:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Andy isn't much on the Old Testament, I guess. "King" (melech) is a thing. King Saul, King David, etc., etc. are documented in I and II Kings. "King of Kings" is a name for God, and the NT merely extended its use to Jesus. His claim that it's a mistranslation due to the godless English loving monarchy before God is a typically Andy fantasy. Watch for the CBP to rename "Kings" to "Big Men." Whoover (talk) 21:05, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I wonder how long the wingnut welfare cheque paid to andy by the (few) organisations who retain his 'services' will continue to be cashed once Phyllis shuffles off this mortal coil? His entire life is fantasy, the fantasy of the totally irrelevant who think they actually have some influence. Oldusgitus (talk) 21:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, Andrew Schafly was born in 1961, so he will reach age 62 in April 2023. So, for the next eight years, he can get by tutoring home-schooled students and then go on Social Security. If he wants another serious job in the meantime, he should probably distance himself from CP, or else figure out a way to make it more main stream conservative. Hclodge (talk) 09:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Astrophysical Shatner Effect?

Ok, I've googled that and the original German, with and without quotes, and can't find anything. Does anyone know where I can find information on this? Ayzmo^Cheers 13:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

If there were a German original, it should read like "Astrophysikalischer Schatteneffekt" or "Astrophysikalischer Beschattungseffekt", though "Astrophysik" generally doesn't come into play with "Windkraftanlagen". --larron (talk) 13:41, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

My god, now this stupid motherfucker Andy also violates the German language...--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 14:16, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I figured it's an effect caused by or maybe somehow directly impacting Shatner's Bassoon. Tialaramex (talk) 14:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I refer my learned friend to the Proceedings of the Rogers Institute of Culture and Kinetics, vol. XXXIX no. 3. You may consider skipping the third section as it is altogether too sensational. London Grump (talk) 19:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I found this from Urban Dictionary: "The Shatner Effect: A cinematic term when in a movie or television program, an actor or actress removes their top, or appears without it for no apparent reason." So I guess Astrophysical Shatner Effect is that, just in space? :P --Night Jaguar (talk) 22:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Ed, please come out of retirement. There is an article you need to write. Vulpius (talk) 11:02, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry? Did I miss something? Has this to do with pubescent girls? Otherwise why would creepy uncle ed want to contribute? Oldusgitus (talk) 22:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

AugustO again

Nowe I really don't think he is a parodist but this latest spat between andy and augusto is shaping up into yet another classic. He seems to be able push all the right buttons, by being entirely reasonable and correct, to back andy into yet tighter corners of idiocy^img. Oldusgitus (talk) 06:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

The editorial staff is spread too thin over at CP. Instead of updating the website to reflect the election of Paul Ryan as Speaker of the House, they are translating the Bible, documenting the exponential growth of Conservative words, and discovering the relationship between atheism and autism. No time for 2015 "Fiscal cliff" coverage. If Western Civilization is rapidly coming to an end, forget about English history and crazy English kings and just pack up your Bible and other prized possessions and move from New Jersey to rural Idaho. Hclodge (talk) 10:42, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Idaho? I'm heading for General CokeEyes's compound - he's going to get a generator! London Grump (talk) 14:26, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

That autism thing is nasty even by their low standards.Sphincter (talk) 14:46, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Right. If it were true it would make Ken's articles on atheism no less than an attack on the disabled.--Mercian (talk) 17:01, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

AugustO is calling Andy out again. I really can't see how he has survived so long. Worm (talk) 09:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

He does seem to be losing patience doesn't he. As for his survival, I actually think ken has had some influence on that. If it were up to anger bear and andy then I suspect August would have gone long ago for 'incivility'. Oldusgitus (talk) 20:41, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

You think Ken has influence over Andy? I don't. Phiwum (talk) 16:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Once again, nobody at CP seems to notice or care about one of their own...

A thousand edits in 4 days. That is not healthy behaviour by any stretch of the imagination. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 03:31, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Eh, some people have a lot of free time. And most of it looks like cutting and pasting text and a bunch of minor edits. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 03:34, 1 November 42015 AQD (UTC)

And that in some way makes it better exactly how? 250 edits a day, even minor ones, means an edit on average every 14 minutes for the entire 4 day period. I guess ken's off his meds again and noone is taking care to try to get him back on them. Oldusgitus (talk) 10:16, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

That makes it sound like they stay up all day to make one minor edit every quarter of an hour (which would be rather ridiculous, and a very inefficient way of editing). Making a 100 minor edits in a few hours isn't a difficult thing to do; it just implies that you're spreading out the changes you make over a multitude of tiny edits instead of making big edits or that you're fixing a minor issue that occurs on a multitude of pages. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 10:33, 1 November 42015 AQD (UTC)

You're not a great follower of ken and cp based on those comments are you? This is history repeating itself all over again. People here are well aware of ken's identity and his underlying illnesses and this is just another time when his underlying issues are taking over. It will last for between a few days and a week or two and then ken will announce outside interests that will prevent him from editing and he will go quiet for a few days before gradually reverting back to his version of normal. Oldusgitus (talk) 10:51, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Talking about his "underlying illnesses" like that... it feels kind of an invasion of his privacy, almost borderline doxxing. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Nope, it's not. Have I told you who he is or where he lives yet? Have I said anything about what his underlying issues may be? And to be frank in my view AFAIC ken lost any moral defence against doxing anyway due to his actions to another poster on this site who's business he tried to destroy several years back. Oldusgitus (talk) 12:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit to add. How do you dox someone whos identity is so well known online that he even has his own internet law named specifically after him? Oldusgitus (talk) 12:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I find the way people keep track of the amount of edits he makes per day possibly more problematic... Kinda stalkerish, you know? And again, one or two hundred edits per day is non-remarkable if you have a lot of free time and you typically spend most of the latter editing a wiki. I'm not saying spending most of your free time editing a wiki is a particularly healthy occupation, but I'd be more prone to blame fluctuations in editing activity on fluctuations in available free time than meds being taken or not. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 11:12, 1 November 42015 AQD (UTC)

TBH bon I don't care what you think seems stalkerish. As I say you seem to be quite new to the going's on at cp and to ken in particular. What people here have tried to do to help ken in the past is evidently not on your radar is it. Oldusgitus (talk) 12:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Indeed the Conservapedia-related topics on RW are not something I've thoroughly familiarized myself with, but I disagree that this justifies the animosity that you're showing towards me that's seemed to have come out of nowhere. >.> 142.124.55.236 (talk) 02:28, 2 November 42015 AQD (UTC)

Is there some kind of bot that could be doing that? Or maybe it's a group account?---Mona- (talk) 03:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

We have it pretty locked down that Ken is one person who is not a bot. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 04:16, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Did anyone catch his? [3]User:Conservative/Gentlemen:_A_message--Mercian (talk) 23:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Ugh. Yeah, I saw it, and I wish I hadn't. It's for the better that he deleted it. Sadly self-revealing in a bad way that is best left forgotten. --Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 00:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The prophet Tim Tebow not welcome in his hometown

I missed that CP has an article entitled Biblical political foreknowledge^img. As an example, Andy has added Tim Tebow not being given a chance by the Jacksonville Jaquars, which the Bible predicts because it says prophets are not welcome by their hometown^img. His man crush has gone to the next level. --Night Jaguar (talk) 22:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Not so much Andy's blog anymore.

About 1/2 of all news posts are authored by Paul Eidelberg by proxy of TerryH. All his posts are similar, Israel is always right and the USA is only right when it supports Israel without question or criticism. I wonder if Mr Eidelberg knows he is the new staple of Conservapedia.--Mercian (talk) 01:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Liberal conservatives.

Now Ronnie Reagan^img and dear old maggie thatcher^img have become liberals, albeit it conservative ones. Oldusgitus (talk) 11:50, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

The funny part is that "liberal conservatives" are those whose political philosophy approaches the ordinary, non-political meaning of conservative most closely. WalkerWalkerWalker 11:54, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Thatcher legalised homosexuality in Scotland and Northern Ireland, reined in police racism (she didn't end it but she tried), was the first major world leader to warn about global warming, and set up TV stations catering to minorities, so in some ways she was liberal. Bicycle^wheel 12:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

You've just convinced me to vote for her. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 08:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

She also introduced clause 28, refused to express any sympathy to the victims of the new cross fire nor sanction an inquiry into the killings and that she introduced the deeply regressive community charge. The fact that as a trained scientist she accepted the science of global climate change should not cover up her deeply held despite towards the poor and disadvantaged in the UK. Oldusgitus (talk) 11:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Just looked at Conservapedia's main page and found this...

KOMF 23:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

So? As far as I know, that's true. Carpetsmoker (talk) 00:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

(EC) Post it at WIGO:CP or its talk page. We generally keep Conservapedia stuff out of the Saloon Bar since there's a designated place for discussing it. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

While ironic, I think that both of the statements are actually true (remarkably enough for CP). That being said, the numbers I've seen show that while gun homicides have gone down overall, the same is not true for mass shootings. That is to say there are more mass shootings than there were 20 years ago, but fewer total gun deaths. Furthermore, the suggestion that the fact that gun violence has gone down over the past 20 years implies that we should not implement gun control measures is patently absurd. Samstr (talk) 00:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

No WIGOs all of November?

Is it dead, finally? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 05:31, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Here's to hoping! 14:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Not dead, just boring as fuck London Grump (talk) 22:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

It also looks like someone (probably Ken, Hi Ken) has been on a downvoting campaign, as there seems to be a shit load more red than I seems to remember last time I looked. Ghost (talk) 04:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Ymmotrojam and Elections

It seems Ymmotrojam, who has recently returned after a 7 year absence, wants to introduce a Legislative, Judicial, and Executive branch at conservapedia, with the members of each of those groups decided by elections. I doubt there would be enough people there to even get enough people to fill the positions, unless of course the Ken collective takes every position. Ghost (talk) 04:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I feel like the ? in the title

is more important than ever, because really, what IS going on at conservapedia? --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 05:58, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Bugger all worth talking about. Spud (talk)

There was an MPR link, on a children's learning resource, of a man being burnt to death. In a now deleted article Ken argues Donald Trump in his Muslim's out view is justified because of Richard Dawkins and Conservapedia scored a great victory in stopping gambling in the NFL.[4]--Mercian (talk) 16:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

And now anger bear, the king of the lifted photo, slaps a peon down^img for nicking a wikipedia article. If you're going to get rid of all the copyright violation and blatant plagarism anger bear you've got a long way to go, starting with the entries listed here under the name Karajou. Oldusgitus (talk) 16:44, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Cognitive dissonance is the best kind of dissonance.

What's the party line again? While User:Conservative has posted innumerable claims about how America is an increasingly Christian nation, with atheism expected to die out any minute now, at the same time, CP's headline points out that Americans are not a religious people. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 06:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

But you forget, for years now the Keeper of the Generator has only been interested in one thing. CNAV. He couldn't care less about CP except as a place to linkwhore to cnav. But out of interest i notice that on CNAV that well-known, highly respected and widely published scientist Dwight Kehoe has spent months, yes MONTHS, researching agw and has proven it to be a leftist hoax. Oldusgitus (talk) 10:00, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Conservapedia versus Reality

Mr Schlafly: "Setback for the liberal media and socialists: Donald Trump is the second-most admired man in America."^img Reality: "Obama most admired man; Trump tied for 2nd." The man tied with Fart for 2nd is that well-known conservative </irony> Pope Francis. Obama won by a mile with more than three times as many votes as for either Fart or Francis. To complete Schlafly's shame, the most-admired woman is none other than Mrs H.R. Clinton. Cardinal Fang (talk) 14:35, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

The next entry is a bit of a one as well. Andy's headline, How Washington created some of the worst schools in America^img. Reality from the article, "It took 50 years for the federal government to admit officially that the education it had promised to provide Indian children was so bad it qualified as abuse". He can't have even read past the headline, again. Oldusgitus (talk) 16:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

And what that article is actually saying is that Obama is trying to make serious improvements to Board of Indian Education schools, for the first time in over 130 years. The obstacles are coming from the Republicans in Congress who control the budget. Another pro-Obama story badly misrepresented by CP. Cardinal Fang (talk) 00:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

What a difference a year makes

We celebrate the first anniversary of the release of James Wesley(comma) Rawles' influential book Tools for Survival: What You Need to Survive When You’re on Your Own. To assure a successful launch, Rawles and a few trusted aides based in Idaho launched a media blitz campaign that included user-contributed book reviews on Amazon and the conversion of Conservapedia into a spam farm.

Think back to December 2014. Conservapedia had a mission to serve as an online encyclopedia that offered a conservative tilt instead of the alleged liberal tilt of Wikipedia. In general, CP had a similar Manual of Style (although with enough differences to prevent a copy-and-paste of WP articles). It had a group of volunteers that produced interesting critiques of the bias in WP and kept us in touch with Tim Tebow's career. However, Survivalist Rawles (who had previously manipulated his book orders to gain one (and only one) week on the NYT Best Seller list) planted a sleeper SPA on Conservapedia. As the book launch approached the sleeper awoke, gained the confidence of User:Conservative, and started adding plugs for Rawles in related and unrelated CP articles. Ken was so eager to have the sleeper remain an active editor that he amended the Manual of Style to accommodate a variety of irrational edits. Long term users who tried to clean up the mess were banned indefinitely by the sleeper. Once Rawles' book was launched the sleeper went inactive without explanation and did not return. The only step Ken has taken to recover from his misplaced trust in Rawles' sleeper was to shorten the blocks from indefinite to five years duration.

So, in December 2014 an innocent reader could come to CP, skim a randomly selected article (other than those about atheism) and leave without noticing much difference from WP. Today, a randomly selected CP article leaves the casual reader with a "spam farm" impression. Thank you Mr. Rawles. Hclodge (talk) 03:36, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

"...skim a randomly selected article (other than those about atheism) and leave without noticing much difference from WP." Well, only if you overlook the complete absence of content in a CP article would you notice anything approaching similarity. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 09:58, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I did think about reverting some of the shite that tar added but then thought sod it I can't be bothered. Let it stand as, yet another, monument to cp admins stupidty. Oldusgitus (talk) 18:40, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Conservative of the Year 2015

Andy announced the Conservative of the Year 2015: Republican primary voters "for remaining strong in an overwhelming rejection of the liberal media, including the Fox News Channel, and in repudiating the Establishment"^img. Forgetting the howler that Fox News is part of the "liberal media", no one has actually voted in a primary yet. Well, still better than the Conservative of the Year 2010 where he forget to give the award and only seemed to notice 4 years later^img.

(Yes, Republican primary voters in opinion polls have so far backed the batshit candidates (Trump, Carson, Cruz, etc.), but they also did that in 2011/12 (Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, etc.) and the most establishment candidate evar won.) --Night Jaguar (talk) 11:20, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Pining for the Fjords

	Is Conservapedia dead yet? Our handy deadometer goes from green - growing rapidly! to red - deader than flares.

No WIGOs for two months. Is anything happening that anyone cares about? Bicycle^wheel 13:22, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

It's pushing up the daisies and has gone to join the choir invisibule. Cardinal Fang (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Not at all! Sure, Conservapedia has failed, but it's still damned entertaining, as your own (WIGO-worthy) observations above show. Phiwum (talk) 14:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Relevant discussion

RationalWiki:Saloon_bar#Conservapedia-space 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 20:46, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Which way will they jump?

Still no acknowledgement on CP about the nonsense in Oregon. Sooner or later, they will have to come off the fence. Which way will they jump? London Grump (talk) 17:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd forgotten that CP was still a thing. Ajkgordon (talk) 13:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

My guess is that they'll wait until it is resolved and then cry triumph for conservative values regardless of the outcome. Conservative patriots overthrow BLM oppressors! Conservative patriots protest peacefully, unlike BLM! Either one is right up their MO. Ayzmo^Cheers 14:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Funny how the pro law and order right wing are now the lawbreakers and anarchists. They support the laws that they like. They support the police when they gun down black kids with water pistols but when it is a right wing militia group they want the cops to get a damned good thrashing.--Mercian (talk) 22:59, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Britain will soon be crying out for Donald Trump to be the next US President.

Especially after the "Muslamic ray guns" start targeting their heathen atheistic women. In fact Britain will not just welcome him they need him.[5]. Fuck of Ken you petty no mark Neo Nazi.--Mercian (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Every now and then

Things like this^img pop up which remind why it is I still find fun at cp. Oldusgitus (talk) 14:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

MPs being slightly rude about TheDonald is apparently embarrassing English speakers some how. More embarrassing is the ignorance of the person who thinks it happened "on the floor of the UK Parliament". Sphincter (talk) 09:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I suspect if you asked most residents of the UK they would tend to say something quite similar. Very few people I know realise that parliament is the entire thing, lords and commons, few realise that the crown owns the palace of Westminster. So the idiot referred to the floor of the house of commons as the floor of the UK parliament but I suspect the majority of UK people would also make the same mistake. Oldusgitus (talk) 12:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I suspect most people do know that parliament includes both the lords and the commons, it just most people barely think about the lords, so parliament seems like acceptable short hand. I do suspect though, that they believe parliament to be the palace of westminster AMassiveGay (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

You must know a lot more politically aware people than I do, and I am quite politically savvy and active on the whole. The wonks I know would appreciate the difference but I promise you most of my friends would have no idea that parliament consists of both houses. Saying all that, however, Andy was still wrong, the debate took place in Westminster Hall, which is not actually part of the main chamber. I do love the archanities of the UK political system, even if I find them immensely frustrating and hide-bound. Oldusgitus (talk) 12:38, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

to be honest, its not really a subject that comes up with my friends, they are mostly immigrants of various descriptions. I just assume that if i, an ill educated twat know something, then must be common knowledge. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

"Archanities": Is that a portmanteau of archaic arcane inanities? I like it. MaillardFillmore (talk) 15:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Andy really can be a despicable person can't he.

Apparently the lead poisoning in Flin is purely a political issue because the governor is a rethuglican. And anyway, something as minor as lead poisoning is of far less long term importance than Teabow^img being to crap to get picked by a NFL team. Oldusgitus (talk) 08:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

TAR is Back

And nobody cares. Whoover (talk) 01:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Not so much nobody cares imo more that all he is doing is exactly what he did previously. Spam a lot of prepper and survivalist shite all over the 'trustworthy encyclopedia' whilst refusing to collaborate on anything. He's already up and running with over 100 pointless category additions yesterday alone. So the small amount of work AugustO and SamHb did in trying to clean up tar's putrid mess is rapidly being undone. Oldusgitus (talk) 11:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

This edit^img is interesting. A delete tag for an essay he himself wrote, calling it vandalism. Whoover (talk) 19:35, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

When a "conservative, family-friendly Wiki encyclopedia." has dozens of articles about non fundies burying their beef bayonets in animals, TAR's edits seem a little tepid and not at all controversial. His edits also show how terribly conservapedia is run and how of much a grip Andy really has on matters. A micro insight in what would become if someone of his ilk actually got into power.--Mercian (talk) 21:29, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Only tangentially related, I never realized until today that Rawles is a Freeman on the land. He apparently writes his name "James Wesley, Rawles," as noted on Wikipedia. However, I can't find any reliable sources stating as such. Anyone else? I'd love to add that to the Wikipedia article. Ayzmo^Cheers 22:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Do his books count? Whoover (talk) 00:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

He himself uses that as his username on wikipedia. Oldusgitus (talk) 07:10, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I meant sources about him being a FotL. I know that's how he writes his name, I'd just to love some FotL stuff on his wiki article. It would be interesting to see how people react. Ayzmo^Cheers 13:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The motivation for TAR's return is clear. He is promoting Rawles new book "Land of Promise" that was published in December 2015. He is also piddling around for a few days to make Conservative think that he is dedicated to building CP, one spam at a time. Hclodge (talk) 11:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

It does look as though that is all he was interested in. He's not even bothered un-reverting some of Sam and August's reversions of his crap he added last year. Oldusgitus (talk) 09:42, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

TAR's contributions do not make any effort to conform to CP style. He uses the second person and bullet lists rather than prose. Look at the first paragraph of "Selecting a radio":

"So you want a radio but do not know the first thing about it. That is fine, everyone started out with no knowledge about radios. The most important thing to do is to think about how you are going to use it."

Can you imagine if every CP article started out with a paragraph like that: "So you want to find out about aardvarks but do not know the first thing about it. That is fine, everyone started out with no knowledge about aardvarks." ^{— Unsigned, by: Hclodge / talk / contribs}

"Think about how you are going to use it..." Ummm, i guess I'll mostly listen to it. I guess. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 18:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

TAR Categories

Sunday action on the religious front. Let me say as a preliminary matter that there is nothing wrong with people worshiping in the religion of their choice, and that I do not judge people by their religion. History, however, is full of cases where people have been discriminated against on the basis of their religion, so I can understand how adding a person's religion to a biography (particularly without a reliable source) could be a wikicrime.

I also am not enough of an expert to understand what happens if you add the same category multiple times to a same article in MediaWiki. It appears that MediaWiki eliminates duplicates, but I don't know what the effect is upon SEO spiders. (I think that they never see the duplicates.) This is why I find TAR's categories activity puzzling: TAR adds three categories to Kohs long-standing biography: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Gregory_J._Kohs&diff=1122395&oldid=585261(Archive) TAR adds Jewish People, American Jews and adds Business People a second time. Kohs asks TAR on his talk page, why he was tagged as a Jew, and Karajou removes the question: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:TheAmericanRedoubt&diff=1195651&oldid=1195645 (Archive) Karajou block Kohs as a "Troll" and also blocks his IP address. (Archive) Andy then removes the Jewish tags from the Kohs biography but keeps the two Business People tags: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Gregory_J._Kohs&diff=1195654&oldid=1122395 (Archive Somebody then does a lot of oversighting of these TAR related changes. (Archive)^{— Unsigned, by: Hclodge / talk / contribs}

On both Wikipedia and Conservapedia, categories do not have to be sourced. So, when TAR adds a category like "pro-Second Amendment" or anti-Second Amendment to a biography article, he is not required to have a source for his judgment. How would TAR even know whether Kohs' religion? TAR is not interested in truth or accuracy; he just wants SEO links. Hclodge (talk) 17:51, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

TAR's essay on fourth generation warfare

TAR's latest essay^img may not have been written by TAR. It starts out with a byline, "by Alex Barron, December 10, 2015" yet the box at the top reads, "This essay is an original work by TheAmericanRedoubt. Please comment only on the talk page." It is a poorly argued theory that blames Obama for the events in the Middle East and links those events to a generalized attack upon the Christian way of life in the United States.

To lure more readers to this essay gem, TAR created the non-essay "Fourth Generation Warfare" article as just a redirect to his essay. He has now added links to both to a number of CP articles.

While respecting CP's tradition of allowing anyone to publish any views as a essay, doesn't this step beyond policy by 1) not attributing the original source, 2) redirecting from non-essay article titles and 3) adding to TAR's large pile of red-linked articles that he has promised to write?

Not sure on the relationship between TAR and 'Alex Barron' (which may well be a pseudonym of course). Original essay seems to be at The Charles Carroll Society and linked to a Twitter account in the name of Alexander Barron. Worm (talk) 16:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Worm. TAR contributed to Wikipedia under the name JeffersonFranklin, and someone is leaving comments on the Charles Carroll Society blog as JeffersonFranklin. Given the differences in writing ability, I don't think that TAR and "Alex Barron" are the same person. It is getting to the point that if TAR loads a fully formed article onto CP in one edit, I strongly suspect that he has lifted it without attribution from another site. Andy and User:Conservative have a lot of copyright clean up left from TAR's wake. Hclodge (talk) 13:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

TAR's book promotion methodology is now evident, from his efforts to promote the 2015 Rawles book and the Lind book. Step 1, write a user-contributed review on Amazon. Step 2, go to other websites which allow him to contribute (such as the comment section of The Charles Carroll Society or the Essay articles of CP) and leave links to the Amazon book reviews. Step 3, define the key phrase or concept of the book as the title concept of a blog post or essay. Even though these are these terms are not widely accepted outside the "novel" that TAR is promoting, TAR's concentrated use of social media is an effort to make the terms appear widely-accepted by search engines. Someone assuming good faith could be easily fooled by TAR promoting the 2014 Rawles book, but a quick repeat visit to promote the release of the 2015 Rawles and Lind books shows a pattern that cannot be ignored. Hclodge (talk) 13:33, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

And a new user comes in and removes TARs^img redirect and instead sends it to an already existing article. Oldusgitus (talk) 15:17, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

In preparation for the Super Bowl, Andy has also deleted a copyrighted image uploaded by TAR. Hclodge (talk) 19:52, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Super Bowl

CP continues its excellent coverage of the Super Bowl. User:Eg, who first came to CP in 2013 to remove some of Andy's criticism of Payton Manning and has confined himself to football topics ever since, added the victory to the Payton Manning article and to the Overrated Sports Stars article. Andy then added negative spin.^img In Manning's post-game interview, he mentioned God twice and said that he would have to pray before making any decision regarding retiring. Manning appears to be a modest and religious man and I do not understand why Andy has these negative feelings toward him. Hclodge (talk) 05:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I also enjoyed the "Overall, only a third of Americans watch the game. Donald Trump no longer watches football, but Jeb Bush plays fantasy football." line in MPR. Didn't Andy root for Jeb! in 2012? Vulpius (talk) 17:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Probably because he's modest, wealthy, liked, and remotely good at his job like Andy isn't. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Both grew up in the shadow of famous mothers, who held high expectations of them. Hclodge (talk) 17:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Because every war Andy Schlafly fights is a holy war. For him to ever give any ground, even when he is laughably wrong, is impossible. It'd be the loose thread on the liar's sweater he's knitted for himself. Semipenultimate (talk) 20:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Vehicles sink as frozen US 'car park' unexpectedly melts

Surely Andrew should be encouraged to comment on this evidence that Climate Change is a hoax https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYPR3GRkYb4 Sphincter (talk) 14:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Creepy uncle Ed

Returns to his user page after 2 1/2 years with a stunning edit^img. Someone hired this moron to teach children? Oldusgitus (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I rather like the way he compares Trump to Patrick Henry. On the grounds that Henry said he was willing to give offense, in order to make men free. Which is, after all, more or less the same as Trump calling Cruz a pussy. Phiwum (talk) 01:52, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

CP jumps on the "Scalia was murdered" bandwagon.

Shut up, Terry. You make Schlafly look bad. That takes some doing. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

The liberal claptrap would question whether 35 VIPs would plan a trip to West Texas without arranging for female companionship and what the relationship was between Justice Scalia and the trip host (a former Supreme Court litigant). Hclodge (talk) 12:30, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

TAR

Ken has started a mass removal of the shite added by TAR. Is the love affair over? Oldusgitus (talk) 07:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Ken has been working on the Ayurvedic medicine rather than the survivalism articles. Remember, that TAR has never been able to write his own prose text, so he started in 2014 being a wikignome adding categories (and screwing up the category structure by making set of categories subcategories of each other.) His theory was that Google counts the number of links on a page, so that if he added a lot of categories and "see also" links, he would boost CP's google page ranks. However, he ignored the fact that Google wants content and not just a bunch of links on a page (as a protection against link spam farms). So, under his care, CP's SEO has stepped backward instead of improved. In early 2015 AugustO, SamHB and Wschact challenged TAR on his destructive march across CP pages, leaving incoherence in this wake. TAR agreed that Ayurvedic medicine was not compatible with CP's mission, but did nothing to clean up his own mess. The TAR disappeared, and folks started to clean up. TAR came back and used the ban hammer and then quickly disappeared. In 2016, TAR came back and edited for a few days to promote a new book, disappeared, and came back on Feb 20 to see if anyone had been working in his wake. TAR has disappeared again since Feb. 20, and Ken as appropriately restarted the clean up effort.

If TAR could write well, I would have more understanding of his behavior. But he is incapable of every doing more than mass cut and paste from another source or creating his own bullet lists filled with red links. Hclodge (talk) 03:03, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Can TAR even pass a Turing test? We already know Ken is as coherent as Cleverbot. 205.237.78.11 (talk) 18:01, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

No, he would fail. In response to your first comment, he would block quote from his user-submitted review on amazon.com of James Wesley, Rawles latest book. In response to your second comment, he would spew out a bunch of "See Also" references about gun rights. In response to your third comment, he would offer Antisemitic block quotes about the Rothschild family. In response to your fourth comment, he would supply a big "See Also" list about big government and the police state. His program does not parse your input because there is no expectation that his responses have any logical connection to the input. Hclodge (talk) 06:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

More Proof that Obama is a Muslim, per Andy

Obama is skipping Nancy Reagan's funeral because he's a muslim^img and they don't go to funerals. While his religion is relevant, it is apparently not that sitting presidents traditionally don't attend the funerals of former first ladies. FDR didn't attend Lou Hoover's funeral. Reagan didn't attend Bess Truman's. Jimmy Carter didn't attend Mamie Eisenhower's. Clinton didn't attend Pat Nixon's or Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis's. Dubya missed Lady Bird Johnson's. Eleanor Roosevelt was the exception, and all living presidents, sitting and former attended.

It is traditional for the current first lady to attend, as Michelle is doing. Whoover (talk) 01:21, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

yes but saint ronnie was a saint. What more evidence do you need?AMassiveGay (talk) 01:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

All the Democrats you mentioned didn't attend because they were God-hating Communist Muslims. All the good God-fearing Republicans you mentioned didn't attend because they were funerals of evil Demonrats, who should have been stoned to death as commanded by the Lord. --Ymir (talk) 11:44, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

eh hem, Bill Clinton delivered the keynote eulogy at Jackie Kennedy's funeral. You don't really believe political opportunists like the Clinton's would bypass something like that,do you? nobs^{Lewinsky 2020} 04:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Hillary, not Bill, attended Jackie's funeral in New York. Bill spoke at her short ceremony at Arlington the next day. Whoover (talk) 20:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Wow, Rob was wrong. Which just seems to happen on days that end in Y. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:20, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Matthew Mistranslated: Observe the Weather

The pressure on Andy is intense to come up with something new and interesting to keep people reading CP and the Conservative Bible Project. After all, folks have been doing this for at least 1000 years with the benefit of devine inspiration.

Matthew reported that Jesus rebuked a coming storm, and the weather pattern broke up. (I have seen on-coming storms break up quickly, so I can believe this actually happened.) So, traditional Christianity believes that the storm broke up because of Jesus' verbal command. Now, the CBP says that what was really going on was that Jesus observed the storm and the fact of the observation caused it to break up. You know, like quantum mechanics! So, this is really an example of Biblical foreknowledge of quantum mechanics, until AugustO comes up with a strong argument that Andy has mis-translated the Greek Biblical text. Hclodge (talk) 10:12, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

do not the voices in kens head count as divine inspiration? AMassiveGay (talk) 10:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I've been following this latest spat between August and andy for a few days. Is any other poster over at cp able to basically openly call andy an idiot and get away with it. This^img and this^img are wonderful in how August humiliates andy and the badly disguised troll vargas milan trots out to try to 'defend' andy. Oldusgitus (talk) 15:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

The fundamental flaw in the whole Biblical Foreknowledge drama is that the technical vocabulary of the 21 Century is more highly developed than the vocabulary of ancient Aramaic, Greek or Hebrew. Assuming the laws of physics remain the same from the time of Genesis, this all becomes a matter of interpretation and understanding of specific words. Like the exponential growth in Conservative words over time, people can see anything they want in the data. I think that Andy really wants to see it in the data, in contrast with Jimmy Wales who doesn't care about the data and just wants to get rich off of Wikipedia. Hclodge (talk) 11:23, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Could someone please explain the logic to me? Jesus observed a large number of storms during his time on Earth but only rebuked one (or a few). Did every storm that Jesus observed on Earth break up quickly? Conversely, God is all-knowing and is presumably observing Conservapedia without rebuke. Will Conservapedia break up just because God is observing it? Hclodge (talk) 13:50, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

The best thing about this and some other of Andy's "insights" is how SamHB and, especially, AugustO get worked up rebutting them rationally. Poor AugustO thinks that a Greek grammar lesson will dissuade Andy once he gets a bug up his ass. Some of Andy's crazier beliefs, like that "atheistic" scientists all believe in perpetual motion, don't have the same entertainment value because they can't be rebutted with math or ancient Greek. Whoover (talk) 18:54, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Site Reliability

Have people been having CP access problems over the last two to three days? Is there a large, new range block or is the site constantly crashing? Hclodge (talk) 11:23, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

It's technical problems, you could probably hack their server and fix it for Andy, but I wouldn't bother tbh Ghost (talk) 03:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Red Telephone to Ken

Ken, your latest 'hit piece' on Richard Dawkins is full of spelling errors, you even manage to misspell his name multiple times! (I suspect you will use oversight to hide your errors but it's saved here.^img) Also it is completely pointless and makes no sense. Ghost (talk) 03:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Kenny, I assume you will be including this in all your new dribbling? Oldusgitus (talk) 14:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

i'm not sure why we continue to give him the oxygen he craves. Hes not said anything new for years. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:26, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Fidel still dead

Give it up, liberals AMassiveGay (talk) 00:06, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Man, what gets me is that Andy will never get his comeuppance. He'll go to the grave believing in this weird, doesn't-serve-anybody-what-so-ever conspiracy theory. Castro could snuggle up to Andy and give him a nice reach-around and Andy'd be all, "Hey thanks Not Castro." Shakedangle (talk) 21:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Question: Will Fidel Castro and Andy meet in the after-life? Let's submit this to an up or down vote. Hclodge (talk) 12:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

As it is likely we are all made up of atoms that include some from Pythagoreas it seems likely that two "souls" will eventually bump into each other occasionally in an infinite afterlife, Fidel won't have a clue who Andy is and Andy will be too wrapped up in trying to work out what went wrong. That would be an up vote if I thought life didn't end at death. Sphincter (talk) 05:14, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

If Fidel Castro really is dead, as Andy supposes, the carbon/ nitrogen/ water cycles means that over the years, an increasing proportion of the atoms in Andy's body will once have been part of Fidel's body. He'll be waving a red flag and singing the Internationale before we know it. Cardinal Fang (talk) 23:02, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

the Democrat(ic) Party does not really believe in democracy

[6] Andy is obviously being a hypocrite as the Republicans and planning a coup if Trump wins but is he also correct? I am learning fast about US politics and the Democrat's super-delegate system seems anything but democratic.--Mercian (talk) 22:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The names are just names, both parties only believe in democratic principles (that the majority should decide law, etc.) when it suits them. However, if the presidential nomination contests are any measure, the caucus systems used in many states are are anti-democratic as votes are not counted one-person-one-vote and ballots are not secret or private. Republicans have "unpledged" delegates which are essentially superdelegates by another name (though there are not as many of them), and use winner-take-all primaries (which the Democrats do not use) is also undemocratic. Ultimately parties are private organizations and are not compelled to have elections at all. But a truly democratic system would include a national popular vote. Hentropy (talk) 22:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

eehemm, lemme see...

(a) "Democrats don't have winner take all" - not true. (b) "unpledged delegates are like superdelegates" - untrue; again, delegates are elected, Superdelegates are not. As in the General Election, you are not voting for a candidate, you are voting for a slate of electors or delegates.

In primaries, some states write the rules by statute, others leave it to the parties. Whether a state has an open or closed primary, for example, or winner take all, or caucus or balloting, all are state functions. Rules vary widely. One caucus state that allows parties to write rules recently had Dems caucusing on a Saturday - with same day registration, and Repubs on Tuesday with 10 day advance registration; this meant registered Repubs could easily vote in both caucuses, a perfect illustration of how fucking stupid Dems can be in writing their own rules.

(c) "Ultimately parties are private organizations" - Absolutely correct. So basically primaries and caucuses are non-governmental, private, party affairs, usually conducted in public buildings at public expense. The General Election is wholey a governmental affair. nobs^{Lewinsky 2020} 05:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, Democrats by rule allocate all delegates from states proportionally, there are no winner-take-all states regardless of caucus, primary, open, or closed. Also in reality, Republicans have "unpledged" delegates that do not have to vote for any candidate at the convention, like superdelegates they tend to be party officials and insiders. I was wrong about one thing, however, which is that there's actually a higher percentage of Republican unpledged delegates (18% vs. 15% for Dem superdelegates). People talk about Democratic Superdelegates more because they have a catchier name and Dems tend to care more about how "democratic" something is for some strange reason. I think they also are asked to affiliate sooner, where no one cares about GOP unpledged delegates until the convention. Hentropy (talk) 06:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

You are citing Democratic rules from 2012 when Democrats ran an unchallenged incumbent, so "proportional allocation" was identical with "winner take all". Those are not the rules for 2016. And Democratic challengers did in fact appear on ballots in some states in 2012, Vermin Supreme, for example. His home state didn't have the courtesy to place his name in nomination let alone the party proportionally allocate him any delegates, as best I recall. Jimmy Carter for instance, in 1976 would never have won nomination or the presidency without first securing Wisconsin's winner-take-all primary in a 3-way split, 34% to 33% to 32%.

IOW, party and election rules vary year to year, are not governed by a the national Committee in Washington, nor set in concrete by Constitutional Amendment. They are entirely State functions, with wide variation among 50 states. nobs^{Lewinsky 2020} 07:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

You seem to be stating this issue with no evidence to back it up. Since you're insistent, I dug up the official rules for the Democratic party governing the 2016 Presidential primary process, the relevant rule being Rule 13 on page 19. While states DO reserve the ability to do it another way, they will be punished at the Convention for it. The DNC cannot technically force the states to do anything, but they do have total control over the Convention. As a result, no state in the Democratic contest has their pledged delegates allocated winner-take-all. Hentropy (talk) 07:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, you are correct. That's under this year's rules, formulated under DNC Chairwoman Wasserman who doubles as Congresswoman from the New York delegation serving in the federal legislature and shared the same New York donor base as Hillary Clinton when she represented the New York delegation in the federal legislature as well. So not anticipating any serious challenge, the rules were written this year that way. Now, two questions: in the 1990s the Clinton's took the unprecedented step of selling Superdelegate seats to big money donors. Is that rule back? Was it ever eleminated after they left in 2000?

Ballotopedia seems an excellent source on this.nobs^{Lewinsky 2020} 07:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Debbie Wasserman Schultz is a House Rep from Florida, not from New York. She did grow up there, but has not lived there since before the Clintons were major political figures. Superdelegates are elected officials, including every Dem member of Congress, a candidate cannot in any way "sell" or give away a superdelegate positions, and I have no idea where you heard that story. Hentropy (talk) 08:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I stand corrected on Schultz. Superdelegates are privileged positions, not elected positions. And it appears Obama had the same old allegations of corruption the Clinton's institutionalized in the 90s.nobs^{Lewinsky 2020} 08:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

They are elected to Congress or a governorship. It is understood that they will be a superdelegate when they are elected to those positions. That is part and parcel of the position. It is not as though they grant certain congressmembers to the position, but all of them. That makes it an elected position. There are, of course, other superdelegates who are chosen in other ways. For example, I looked up the superdelegates in Florida, my home state, to see who they were. Stephen Bittel appears to be a real estate magnate in Miami and a member of the DNC. All of the other non-Congress members are DNC members. How they're chosen, I'm not sure, but I'd assume an election? Ayzmo^Cheers 16:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I fail to see how any system where some people/states get to vote before others is in anyway democratic. How democratic is it if your candidate drops before you tet to even vote? How democratic is it if a victor is chosen before you get to vote? How does the success/failures of the candidates effect the vote? From my ignorant UKer view, the pomp of the primaries is a farce. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Primaries are party elections governed by party rules. If a party is undemocratic, so be it.

Your second question leads to a debate on a national primary; but being that even the General Election and allocation of Electors are entirely governed by State laws, democratically speaking, the people of the respective States seem happy with the current system. In short, it would require 38 States giving up power by Constitutional Amendment and, like the Electoral College, I doubt those 38 States would give up that power they now have. nobs^{Lewinsky 2020} 17:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

In the past, a candidate frequently went to Washington and served many years, running unopposed and acquiring a national profile. Over time, he became known for bipartisanship and deal making. Grassroots party operatives sometimes felt neglected and betrayed, and had the power to strip him/her of his office (look at the Joe Lieberman or Eric Cantor case, for example). Superdelegates status guaranteed an officeholder a seat at the Convention. If a Republican party office holder, Governor, Senator, Congress or Mayor, wants the privilege and prestige of voting in at the Party's National Convention for nominee, he must spend the time attending all these State district and party conventions and caucuses, hobnobbing with the delegates and winning friends to get their vote. It is not an honorary position in the GOP, each delegate must earn their vote from their party constituents. nobs^{Lewinsky 2020} 16:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Go away you commie furrnier! Remember, we're the ones who invented freedom! --Ymir (talk) 18:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Donations

I might just be really out of touch with events on CP, but when did Andy add a donation button? Is his trust fund running low all of a sudden? --TheEgyptian^¿Dígame? 10:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

IIRC it was added about a year ago. It has certainly been there for over 6 months. Oldusgitus (talk) 11:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm so out of touch :( TheEgyptian^¿Dígame? 14:53, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Back again to start World War III or is it World War V?

After a month-long absence, TAR dropped by and discovered that the remaining CP editors thought that his work has generally been a piece of ****. One of his first moves was: "(Block log); 16:08 . . TheAmericanRedoubt (Talk | contribs) blocked JDano (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 hour (account creation disabled) ‎(Removing content from pages)" Then there was: this^img and this^img TAR has been a single-purpose link-spammer, who generally crops up when James Wesley Rawles has a new book to promote, with an occassional drop by to see if his handiwork is left in tact. Any time you find more than one or two sentences of prose from TAR, it turns out that he has copy/pasted it from an online source. He generally cuts and pastes See alsos, categories, and external links en masse with little customization for particular articles. What a disaster for CP. Grab the pop corn. Hclodge (talk) 20:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

He's just^img flounced^img (img) for some reason. Oldusgitus (talk) 10:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

If Ken were to leave an explanation here it would be "Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me." TAR came back and blocked a user for one hour. He then went through the user's contributions and reverted every edit. He then noticed that those reversions produced red links for categories that Ken had deleted. He then extended the block for one week and later for an indefinite time. TAR then noticed that a second user was editing his categories and started a mass revert. He finally realized that a number of categories had been deleted during his wiki-break and started to modify some of his reinstatement of references to deleted categories. He even knew enough to revert his revert of an essay talk page comment by a user. Hours later he engaged with Ken, who had been editing the entire time. Ken then userfied the "Vote With Your Feet" article and told TAR to redo it in the Conservapedia standards. TAR weighed his options, blanked the userfied article. Meanwhile, Ken unblocked the first user, who left a message calling for "mutual respect and Christian forgiveness". TAR's only option was to drama quit and escalate the conflict from Ken to Andy. With a few short breaks, TAR edited for six hours. Do you think that he is asking for his contribution list to be rev del'ed because he doesn't want a purge of his work or because he realizes that the user name reflects poorly on his client? Hclodge (talk) 11:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Ken blocked TAR for five years and said that he would have to agree to help clean up if he wanted back in as a CP editor. Hclodge (talk) 02:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

The definition of "clueless."^img Whoover (talk) 15:51, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

On February 28, 2015, I noted here that TAR claimed that Rawles' Survivalblog recommended CP over Wikipedia but there were no links to back up that claim. Essentially, that Ken and Andy made a bad deal if they allowed TAR to turn CP into a link farm for Rawles without any reciprocal links. TAR then took a wiki-break from editing CP having left literally thousands of references back to Rawles and his "American Redoubt" friends. He returned briefly at the end of 2015 and early 2016 to promote another book launch. Ken reported on June 1, 2015 that TAR would return in September 2015. On October 28, 2015, Ken gave TAR until March 24, 2016 to come back and clean things up. During March some newer editors did some clean up under Ken and Andy's guidance. By an odd coincidence, on March 28, 2016, James Wesley Rawles posted this editorial favoring CP over Wikipedia. (img)We will now see if the theory of a reciprocal deal is true, depending on how Andy responds to the pending request to take away TAR's blocking privileges. Hclodge (talk) 12:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The above post was written before I had a chance to investigate the Rawles editorial and did not notice:

(1) Rawles editorial is advocating that his readers spend more time editing Wikipedia to make it less biased over spending their time editing CP.

(2) Rawles is recommending alternatives to Wikipedia "such as Conservapedia" but is not saying that CP is the go-to place for his followers to use as an information source.

(3) Rawles provides links to several articles at the bottom of his editorial for further reading. There are two CP articles listed: Example of Bias in Wikipedia and Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Paid Editing. If you look at the edit history of those two pages, you see that they were written by Wschact, the editor that TAR banned from CP. Hclodge (talk) 10:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

The long drama is over, "12:57, 5 April 2016 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) changed group membership for User:TheAmericanRedoubt from Block, SkipCaptcha, Upload, edit and rollback to SkipCaptcha" Hclodge (talk) 13:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

CP has survived the latest invasion from the American Redoubt, but have there been invasions in the past and will he/they come back in the future? The boys from the American Redoubt have invaded Wikipedia in repeated waves, and the editor formerly know as TAR, edited Wikipedia under the user name "Jefferson Franklin". His contributions there did not last long. Before there was TAR, there was a CP editor named "Fongman" who also promoted migration to the American Redoubt and the blogs and books of James Wesley Rawles and Joel Skousen on CP pages like Survivalist Retreat. Fongman on his user page admits to being Wikipedia editor Trasel^img (img). Trasel last edited Wikipedia on March 1, 2010 and was blocked on August 31, 2013 for misusing multiple accounts. Trasel edited CP from April 24, 2008 to July 2, 2012. There is obviously a concerted effort by the followers of James Welsey Rawles to spam the wikiworld, and it will not stop with the departure of TAR. Hclodge (talk) 11:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

It has been about a month since TAR's last return, and CP still has TAR footprint stains all over it. Hclodge (talk) 22:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Range blocking

Are they at this again? I've not been able to get to cp since yesterday afternoon. Oldusgitus (talk) 10:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Same here. Whoover (talk) 14:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Same here. Guess I'll check my vpns if any of them work. Shakedangle (talk) 17:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

What Does this Mean?

The good news is the ip blocking seems to have been removed. The bad news is that I can now get into Conservapedia. Can anyone help parse Setback for liberals, as their own GOP favorite supports Trump: "Giuliani will vote for Trump in NY primary."? Liberals would want Giuliani to vote for Cruz? Maybe Hillary? Bernie? I know Andy's mind works differently than mine, but why does he think Giuliani is a "favorite" of mine, or that I would give a rat's ass who he votes for? I really can't get my head around this quote. Whoover (talk) 00:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I guess what he's sayin' is, since Guilliani was elected mayor of NY, he must've done so with liberals support making him thier favorite, and it's a setback for them that Guilliani is not supporting the real liberal and homey Sanders, or the make pretend liberal-moderate Hillary.

Full translations can be made available for a fee. nobs^{Lewinsky 2020} 00:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't buy that, even trying to filter through Andy's mind. I can see Giuliani being tagged a RINO because New York, but not even in Andyworld do liberals expect Giuliani to support a Democrat for president. Andy's disconnect from reality is significant, but it's not so complete that he imagines Giuliani endorsing a Republican would shock anyone. And Andy's post makes even less sense from the perspective of liberal Republicans. Assuming he's equating New York Republican with Liberal Republican aka Establishment Republican, this almost is parsable as "Giuliani screws the Establishment." But that means Andy is asserting that Trump is the True Conservative in this race. There's no way out of this rabbit hole. Whoover (talk) 18:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure he thinks liberals expect him to vote for a GOP candidate (Giuliani didn't endorse Trump, just said he'd vote for him), but would want him to vote for someone more "moderate." Mind you, I have no idea what Giuliani is "their own GOP favorite." I have no idea where that even comes from. Ayzmo^Cheers 19:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not always entirely sure that he thinks. Oldusgitus (talk) 15:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Looks to me CP is in the tank for Trump (am I right? haven't been following too closely). If so, Andy's building a coalition with RINOs and liberals.nobs^{Dump Trump} 19:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Andy certainly is. I'm not sure anyone else is, though. It's like saying CP believes Jesus wrote Hebrews. Whoover (talk) 04:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

In the end, the Trump candidacy only serves to make the point that RINOs (like Trump) aren't the limp-wristed faggots the rest of the GOP thinks they are. nobs^{Dump Trump} 17:02, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Schlafly v. Schlafly over Trump. Whoover (talk) 18:54, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Rachel Maddow did a good piece about this.[7]. What I know of Andy and his ideology he should be a Cruz supporter. I don't know how close he is to his mum but I would guess he supports Trump becasue she does.--Mercian (talk) 09:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Is he supporting her though? According to her own words, "“I’ve got three sons that are helping me", and she does have four sons... John's already involved, which leaves a 33% chance Andy isn't backing mummy. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 23:45, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

WOW. Oddly, Trump would get banned at CP for a 90/10 violation cause all he does is talk talk talk and never contributes productively. nobs^{Dump Trump} 02:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

The reason why the Eagle Forum has lasted this long has been that it is driven by an engine that converts Mrs. Schlafly's reputation as a hard-line conservative into a stream of donations. Some are big ticket donations, but others are smaller. The Trump endorsement endangers a few of the large donations, so the actions of the six directors are not motivated purely from a Trump vs. Cruz as better President perspective. Such a public fight is permanently throwing sand into the engine, and may affect the long term health of CP as well. Hclodge (talk) 13:11, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

All true. My guess Phyliss's romance with Trump has nothing to do with social conservativism and goes back to Kissinger On The Coach (Bernie Sander's favorite book) and Trump's revival of America First. nobs^{Dump Trump} 00:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

In other postings the Skeksis has said the three sons are two lawyers and a doctor, seemingly meaning Andy's in her corner. Yet there's nothing about this on the 'highly influential' Conservapedia... seems like Andy's publicly hedging his bets to secure his wingnut welfare. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 07:02, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. Andy threw the Evagelical movement overboard with the Conservapedia Bible Project, and he's totally whitewashed Trump's Pro-Life and RINO stances. It's all the old foreign policy isolationist and anti-free trade that "trump's" traditional family values and tax cutting priorities. nobs^{Dump Trump} 21:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Ken is So Proud

Conservapedia breaks 100,000 on Alexa!^img Since Ken is so enamored of Alexa, he must know the ratings of lamestream nytimes.com, that other wiki, ratwiki and xhamster. At least he's learned that smaller is better. That's progress. Whoover (talk) 22:56, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Two hours later Andy bitchslaps him with a "trim". Though Ken's link gives us some useful info, the 'educational resource' doesn't even have enough visits from school children to give Alexa data on CP visits from schools. Also, women are underrepresented at CP... Olé! Olé! Olé! -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 07:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

As every UK IP seems to be permanently blocked from reading CP this number can only go down. Andy also trimmed his article of the year, "Atheism and some such crap" which is unfair of Andy as the article was clearly of the highest standard and approved by the community as a whole. One thing Ken, satire and humour can take many guises but the one thing it must be to qualify is to be funny.--Mercian (talk) 14:27, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm in the UK, I can read it fine. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 14:30, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Me too, damnit! Pippa (talk) 15:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Conservapedia broke Alexa's 100,000 9 years ago and always hovered around 50,000. Note to Ken: I hate to sound like Donald Trump, but CP fell off the charts when you broke up the conservative coalition 3 years ago and got me fired. Since the day I left, CP's descent on Alexa has been a straight line down. Accept my terms for returning, or wallow in the sub-basement of the internet where no one goes eternally. nobs^{Dump Trump} 21:22e, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Sometimes, I forget that Rob is just as delusional as the rest of the CP crowd, but he often comes back to remind me. Rob, CP deserves you, no doubt. Phiwum (talk) 03:07, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

well, with Andy distracted with personal problems, and Ken taking a break, I'm seriously considering going back. They need somebody to maintain the Main Page over the conventions, etc.; it would be a real challenge to try and uplift CP's Alexa rankings again, which I'd like to try. I wouldn't be a heavy handed Admin, heck (to use CP jargon), RW trolls & sockpuppets have effectively taken over CP's content. Everywhere I click on, say, Obame related articles and other Democrat stuff, it's obvious its been revised by RW editors. So, if a consensus could be reached to avoid another round of fighting in the CP-RW wars, and as Donald Trump said, controversy keeps attention focused, it could be fun and challenging.

So, I'd like to see some sense of community and tolerance developed in CP, with the caveat articles are to reflect a CPOV, not a RWTROLLPOV. This of course, would take some negotiating. nobs^{Mr. Trump, tear down this wall...} 19:40, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Best of luck with that. Your problem, of course, is that googling "superdelegates" is never going to find CP. Google "liberal bestiality" and you're in like Flynn. Whoover (talk) 23:52, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

BTW, which sockpuppets? The vandals are obvious, but I doubt any regulars here have the interest to engage in deep (non-obvious) parody. The content of CP is real. Who could come up with anything better than Andy's insistence that train wrecks are part of the homosexual agenda? What would be the point of parody? Whoover (talk) 23:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Y'know, that one was so bizarre, it was worth googling around. Sooo, the guy wasn't smoking a joint, wasn't alone with a member of the opposite sex, so just what the hell was he doing? By inference, he must've been playing w/himself while 8 people got killed. But that in and of itself wouldn't make him gay, would it? nobs^{Mr. Trump, tear down this wall...} 01:12, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Rob, you have no chance over there. Personally I doubt there are many RW'ers still there. My sock is but don't post parody, I simply can't beat the crap that contributors like vargas milan produce. While you were away, over here as it happens, andy and ken let the children in and gave them image upload rights and sysop rights, now the vandals are do deeply entrenched and the idiocy created by them so widespread you will never be able to clean it up. Oldusgitus (talk) 05:49, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Tebow

Has Andy said anything about this yet? The Florida GOP Wants Tim Tebow to Run for Congress Pippa (talk) 02:16, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Also no mention of Fake Fidel's speech on Tuesday. The trolls are not doing their job well.^{— Unsigned, by: [[User::67.183.159.151|:67.183.159.151]] / [[User talk::67.183.159.151|talk]] / contribs}

Oh I don't know. Whoever is running Northwest is playing as long and deep cover game to troll SamHB and DAvidB4 over there. Oldusgitus (talk) 06:25, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Mystery:Why does this page still exist

Should we even still have this? Or should we archive it like "Fourth Reich"'Legion^{what do you want from me} 07:34, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Surely you mean Mystery: Why does this page still exist? 2.120.188.144 (talk) 21:21, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

This all for you my BoN friend'Legion^{what do you want from me} 23:32, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

This was the very reason for the creation of rationalwiki, and still provides the only forum where CP can be exposed to rational comment. If you feel there is some inconsistency between CP criticism and the other stuff here, just cast off the other stuff and keep this stuff. Hclodge (talk) 21:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Ken says he's taking some time off; maybe he's become disillusioned by Andy's support of a pro-life RINO, as well. nobs^{Dump Trump looks like the sleezebag got it} 02:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Rob, ken seems to be having a bit of a man crush on you just now. Quite a few of his posts seem to be shout-out's to you. Oldusgitus (talk) 12:51, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'm supposed to write Andy about getting my job back; I been more busy working on Primary election, and he seems to be distracted with other things, too. Maybe about convention time (or after the symbolic Trump-Ryan summit this week), we'll have something to talk about. nobs^{Mr. Trump, tear down this wall...} 01:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Rather than having this debate every now and then, why don't we establish conditions under which this page should cease to exist? If X% of the criteria are met then we delete the page. I'm not sure what those criteria would be, but I imagine CP shutting down would be one, Con no longer posting, no CPWIGO posts in 6+(?) months, etc. Ayzmo^Cheers 13:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

This should definitely be maintained as log as they are absolutely hilarious, which they still are. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 13:27, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh come on...I mean this quite sincerely, that if this page is shelved, I won't really have a reason to visit here any more. It's our raison d'être. DogP (talk) 04:18, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Hey, I wanna rehab its ratings. As Trump, the social media genius says, controversy focuses peoples attention. nobs^{Mr. Trump, tear down this wall...} 04:52, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Andy in court

Andy's in court tomorrow over the Eagle Forum's (un)civil war. Do they let cameras into Illinois courts as they have in the past for Andy's cases? It'd be amusing to see if if he tries to enter any 'heartfelt' letters into evidence again. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 00:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Anyone clear on how this went? Tracking legal cases is far from may area of expertise, but from what I could find it looks like there's a court date scheduled for next Monday, so maybe it got delayed? Worm (talk) 08:23, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Tea Party Crusaders Malware attack

I made an account on CP to warn people about visiting this site, on clicking on a link on this site Malwarebytes reported attacks from the following.

istatic.echoshop.com

daz.bravietest.com

tradeaddexchange.com

This warning was oversited by Ken who obviously does not give a shit about infecting peoples computers. I would suggest caution when visiting Tea Party Crusaders.--Mercian (talk) 21:49, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Tea Party Crusaders? who's that, a website? nobs^{Trump/Sanders 2016} 22:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Trump/Sanders 2016? That would be interesting. Polar opposites whose policies, and supporters, do overlap somewhat.--Mercian (talk) 22:24, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

It is a machine that repurposes 'articles' from Breitbart and co. in order to get ad revenue. I am not in the least bit surprised that it facilitates malware. I do like the way the articles highlight the self-devouring nature of the Tea Party, though. Semipenultimate (talk) 00:55, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

The sad part is, I'm sure Trump would go for it, Sanders would probably be interested, but no fucking way would the convention ever approve it. Back in the early days of the Republic, right up to the Lincoln/Johnson ticket in 1860, this sort of thing happened all the time. nobs^{Trump/Sanders 2016} 04:53, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

RobS is hilariously butthurt

Response posted here for fear it will oversited on another wiki:

1. I am 60 years old. Given normal life expectancy I have approx. 6570 days remaining (Ps. 90:12), less weekends + holidays = 4500 days. Minus sleep time = 3000 days. I have routinely worked 10, 12 , & 16 hour days my enter adult life, meaning I have approximately 36,000 productive, working hours remaining in this mortal flesh (Is. 48:17). My time is extremely valuable, at least to me (Pr. 14:23). My time is worth $60 per hour. I already have at least 40 hours into the Hillary Rodham Clinton article (cost to me in real dollars, that I could have used productively elsewhere, $2400 before taxes & inflation). I was prepared to devote all day Saturday, more than 12 hours to begin adding more content, using carefully researched materials which cost me quite a bit in valuable time.
2. My time, which is the same as my life, was discarded without discussion.
3. I am not a Democrat. I am not liberal. I am not someone who regards my life frivolously or the lives of others. I try to be respectful of other’s lives, opinions, feelings, and most importantly, time, which is the same as being respectful of their life.
4. None of these substantive issues can be discussed in Conservapedia because of the 90/10 rule, which is what I was de-sysoped and banned for. The 90/10 rule discourages cooperative, collaborative writing and content.
5. Virtually all wikis afford editors and Admins the courtesy of discussion before reverting and/or deletions.
6. I hesitate posting here because, once again, my valuable time will be ignored. I hesitate posting on Andy’s talk page for the same reason. I hesitate emailing you or Andy for the same reason. Historically, the best chance of my efforts being read and acted upon are at the WIGO page on another wiki.
7. Get me my sysop powers back and access to the Main Page and we will then have something to discuss. RobS ^{Pat Nixon for President} 13:41, 21 May 2016 (EDT)

So why are you posting this here?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 22:29, 21 May 2016 (UTC) 22:29, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

That's easy. Conservapedia watches us, so messages can be passed along without them being able to be reversed and the page burned to hide the message. Unlike over at that bastion of internet journalism, the Trusworthy Encyclopedia. --Maxus (talk) 22:20, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Not to be redundant, but posting here is the only way to insure Conservapedia's two active users (Andy & Ken, and I'm starting to think they are the same person) will (A) read it, and (B) act upon it. Posting directly on a CP talk page or email always gets ignored. nobs^{Trump/Sanders 2016} 22:25, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Ken is trolling you Rob and attempting to bully you, that is what he does and how he gets his kicks. All his atheism and bestiality cut and paste articles are designed to troll but no one takes any notice of them anymore. After banning any and all and the lack of attention RW was giving to him he rallied for your return and now he is trying to make you his stooge, don't stand for it mate.--Mercian (talk) 00:05, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

You're right. Here I at least get extended the courtesy of an AfD for all my hard work and committment. I'm going back to Wikipedia where I can feel abused and unappreciated in style. nobs^{Trump/Sanders 2016} 01:38, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Ken: Fuck you, too. You deserve 8 years of Hillary Clinton, you sniveling little bitch. nobs^{Trump/Sanders 2016} 03:31, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I found your comment to be funnier than it should have been.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:39, 22 May 2016 (UTC) 03:39, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

What a pile of self-indulgent bollocks. Most people grow out of this kind of public drama by the time they're 16, let alone 60. London Grump (talk) 14:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Plus, all he needs to do for Andy to light his fire is to stoke him first. That seems easier than whinging. Maybe more painful, though. Whoover (talk) 22:54, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

As far as memory serves Rob has been moaning about not being a sysop on Conservapedia after going toe to toe with Ken for about 4 years or more now. What a fucking loser. Give it up. Aceⁱ⁹ 23:27, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Loser indeed. At least he doesn't live in a third world country.^{— Unsigned, by: Conscience / talk / contribs}

Nobody knows the personal suffering and petty indignities a member of the vast right wing conspiracy must endure. nobs^{#NeverHillary} 00:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Give the man a break.--Mercian (talk) 00:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

True - we are talking about the guy who lost a battle of wits with Ken. Aceⁱ⁹ 03:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

So you calculated how much extremely valuable time you have left in this world and decided that you want to spend it by editing Conservapedia of all things? Vulpius (talk) 03:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank God we are saved by grace and not by works. nobs^{#NeverHillary} 05:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Carte blanche Just when it's darkest, the hand of God intervenes and makes Ken see reason. That should be enough to humble any atheist - only the power of Him upon the throne could work that miracle to make Ken see reason. nobs^{#NeverHillary} 06:15, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Is this real life or is this fantasy? Ayzmo^Cheers 13:25, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Lucy to Charlie Brown: C'mon and kick the football. (Better than putting your wood in Andy's oven.) Whoover (talk) 21:31, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Shits 'n' Giggles - Ken and his "predictions"...

For shits and giggles (it's a slow work day) I have been reading some CP archives. I have really been enjoying Ken's outlandish predictions about how the Question Evolution Campaign! is going to crush atheism and how Project 200 and his army of volunteers will make 2011 a very bad year for atheism and evolution. Ahhh Ken, never give up. Aceⁱ⁹ 04:01, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I wonder if he ever got to dance with the long-haired cute creationist.--Mercian (talk) 06:25, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Did anyone by any chance cap kennys reply? It was up for about 4 minutes or so before the kenny boy burnt and oversighted it. Oldusgitus (talk) 17:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm amazed they're still there. I thought he would have burned the evidence of the predictions long ago. Ayzmo^Cheers 18:00, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

"User:Conservative/Message to Ace < User:Conservative

Dear Ace,

2011 was the worst year in the history of atheism (See: Essay: Why every day is the worst day in the history of atheism. Why every year is the worst year in the history of atheism).

Have you noticed that NZ has an immigration boom? And where are those immigrants coming from? The top five source countries for permanent migrants in 2015 were China, India, the Philippines, Samoa, and South Africa.[1] Have you read the article: Growth of Christianity in China? Are Indians and Filipinos religious or irreligious?

By the way, if memory serves, you live in New Zealand. Last time I checked, your national atheism is still "God Defend New Zealand". Of course, this proves once again that New Zealand atheists lack machismo! Given the fact that NZ Bible believing Christians have far more machismo than NZ atheists, NZ atheists will never be able to change your national anthem.

Consider: 17,000 United Nations troops were not as effective as barely 100 Executive Outcomes troops.[2]

Consider this NZ news also: "Evangelicals have grown from approximately 13,800 followers in 2006 to 15,400 in 2013."[3]

Chistendom's elite forces have a beach hold in NZ and they are expanding! See: Growth of evangelical Christianity"--Mercian (talk) 19:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)--Mercian (talk) 19:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

In the real world 2011-2016 have been terrible years for United States mental health care.--Mercian (talk) 19:22, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Wow....After all these years Ken still has the same shtick. Painful gibberish. Aceⁱ⁹ 20:57, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Where Ken says Evangelicals have grown from approximately 13,800 followers in 2006 to 15,400 in 2013 the article says Christians no longer a majority in New Zealand Oh dear Ken. But, you know, if you want to count having the word God in the National Anthem as a victory by all means do so. I'll even give you one for free - Parliament begins with a prayer. Aceⁱ⁹ 21:12, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

And of course the UK national anthem starts with an imprecation to goat. But the UK now has almost 50% of our population identifying as no religion. How's your question evolution campaign going? Any chance that booklet will be published in the UK soon? Look's like we need it. Oldusgitus (talk) 13:29, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Ken got a point; the Muslim's will overrun NZ long before atheists will, and Muslims will exterminate the remaining atheists. nobs^{Bernie bimbos r trailer trash} 13:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Quite right Rob, here in this 3rd World Banana Republic of NZ we have whole suburbs of devoted Muslims who practice Sharia law. Aceⁱ⁹ 21:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

No need to wait for Muslims to overrun atheists, Ace. Your third world health care will take care of the atheist problem to clear the way for macho biblical creationism. And long haired creationist wife sweethearts, not cold fish atheist women. Olé olé olé! Conscience (talk) 05:39, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

By Conservapedia's definition, anyone who doesn't believe in the Christian God is an atheist. So that means most of those Indians at least are going to be atheists.131.107.174.154 (talk) 20:33, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Liberals Upset that Gorilla Wasn't Allowed to Kill Four-Year Old Child

Conservatives with guns save the day! Andy just forgot to include the link to Libruls Today, wherein it is made clear that this unjustifiable act of apeicide must be avenged, and Bernie's the man to do it. Whoover (talk) 13:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

" Human life comes first for conservatives.". What utter bullshit. This is the man who praised Zimmerman over his "murder" of Travoyn Martin, who supports gun nuts when a mad man slaughters over a dozen 5 years olds, supports a man for president who openly advocates killing families and associates of terrorists and did support Cruz's carpet bombing before he dropped out of the race. Human life comes first for conservatives? Fuck off. ^{— Unsigned, by: Mercian / talk / contribs} 16:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

White, cishet, Christian human life. Vulpius (talk) 02:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

FYI, Zimmerman didn't murder Trayvon; now you're definitely treading into BLP territory. nobs^{Bernie bimbos r trailer trash} 13:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

In a legal sense, no, he is not guilty of murder. Then again, we frequently accuse OJ Simpson and Lizzy Bordon of murder even though both were acquitted. Ayzmo^Cheers 14:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Hence the speechmarks. Look at what you have wormed yourself back into Rob, Ken trolls everyone a huge Godwin which he unilaterally declares "Article of the Month". You must be very proud.--Mercian (talk) 16:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)--Mercian (talk) 16:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

PS. If Trayvon had stalked and provoked Zimmerman with the sole intention of getting him to attack him so he could shoot him dead would he have got away with it? Answer truthfully now.--Mercian (talk) 16:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

him whom? Trayvon or Zimmerman? nobs^{Bernie bimbos r trailer trash} 00:49, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Getting Zimmer to attack Tray so Tray could shoot Zimmer, I assume. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 01:36, 4 June 42016 AQD (UTC)

No, I think it makes more sense to say "getting Travyvon to attack Zimmerman so Zimmerman could shoot Trayvon" than "getting Zimmerman to attack Trayvon so Zimmerman could shoot Trayvon". Anyway, this must be what we pay lawyers for to do. nobs^{Bernie bimbos r trailer trash} 02:23, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Are you pretending not to understand, Rob? London Grump (talk) 15:25, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Does Godwin's Law apply to this great feminist?

[[8]]

No, that's an anti-Godwin. nobs^{Bernie bimbos r trailer trash} 02:25, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Ehrenstein!?!? George Liquor, American (talk) 03:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Muhammad Ali

Re Andy praising him on MPR: is this the first time Conservapedia has had something nice to say about a Muslim? --Southpaw (talk) 20:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I've no idea, since there's no link. Bicycle^wheel 09:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm calling it, User: Conservative is a parodist.

He has written some mad articles in the past but now we these.

Essay: Atheism, food science and bland food[9]

Essay: Atheism and the horsemeat scandals[10]

The only other explanation is that the man is insane.--Mercian (talk) 23:25, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

He's a twat. That's my explanation. Spud (talk) 13:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC).

Moved from Saloon bar

Several hours ago, I finally decided to return to CP. There were several reasons for this, the most significant one being my diabolical and fiendish plan. I created a new account on CP. This was done on my computer, which is new and has never edited CP in any way. A few hours later, I sat down to begin making a few edits. When I tried to edit a talk page, I found that Karajou had blocked me for an infinite duration, apparently for "spamming out links to external sites". I of course had not done that, for I had made absolutely no edits to anything. It is impossible to contact them, since emailing does not work and talk page editing is blocked. So this is the story of my return to Conservapedia. It was fun while it lasted. TeslaK20 (talk) 18:10, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Your computer was new? What about your IP adress and other CheckUser data - you know, the stuff that makes an actual difference? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I meant the whole setup - router, modem, home, ISP, etc. TeslaK20 (talk) 18:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

why even bother? AMassiveGay (talk) 20:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The new equipment? I got it for wholly unrelated reasons, I assure you. Trus me. TeslaK20 (talk) 01:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I have learnt two remarkable things from this thread. 1. CP still exists. 2. Some people still care bout it. --Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 07:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

You see, I came here far too late. I have despised conservapedia for a long time, but I only learned about RW recently. I'm nostalgic for the lost days I never knew, for times I could have had, for a spirit long gone, but whose presence haunts this place. TeslaK20 (talk) 11:58, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I recall the scene from Harry Potter at the end of the 7th book/8th film, when the flayed soul of Voldemort is writhing and mewling piteously in a corner of Charing Cross Station. Reading Conservapedia these days feels like the extended director's cut version of that scene - just some sad, mutilated thing that can't ever find peace, or hope; that once inspired rage but now only pity. Semipenultimate (talk) 15:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Port St. Lucie?

I notice that CP calls the Orlando attack the Port St. Lucie attack. It's consistent. The MPR article and a Main Page Talk thread still misidentify the city. The two cities are 125 miles apart. Is this something subtle that I'm missing, like "Democrat Party," or are they just the usual ignorami? Whoover (talk) 21:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The killer came from Port St. Lucie.--Mercian (talk) 21:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I know that. But that doesn't explain this or this. Whoover (talk) 20:06, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

The first one is simple to explain. It was added by jpatt and he's a f'in moron who most likely struggles to tie his shoelaces each morning and probably drinks his coffee without sugar as he's not worked out how to stir it yet. I do notice however that kenny has been reading here again and has corrected japtts idiocy. Oldusgitus (talk) 09:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Conservapedia proven wrong ...

Overrated sports star LeBron James beats outspoken christian Stephen Curry in the NBA final. Will they ignore it, twist it or side-step it with another insight? Ruddager (talk) 03:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Question Evolution

Yayy, kens back to Question Evolution. His campaign has evidently been so successful that after a break of a year he quietly begins to scrub^img mention of it. Oldusgitus (talk) 05:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

heh, I recently read some CP archives while having some downtime. I was reading peak Question Evolution! Archives when Ken was running that blog of his and proclaiming the imminent release of the QE! booklet (which was frequently delayed due to people having colds and not sleeping well). As always with Ken, nothing fucking happens. Aceⁱ⁹ 06:14, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

PeterKA can justify helping ISIS

[11] If it means defeating Iran.--Mercian (talk) 07:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Another example of poor editing

For information on the election this November, Conservapedia actually has two pages- the United States presidential election, 2016, and the 2016 presidential election!

Best part? They contain exclusive material, and both have been regularly edited. Kodak (talk) 17:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

The second one has to be retitled 2016 Primaries and the first will eventually encompass the General Election. But it is typical of the left hand not knowing what the left thumb and forefinger are doing. nobs^{Bern baby bern} 19:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

But it is typical of the left hand not knowing what the left thumb and forefinger are doing clusterfuck which is Conservapedia. FIFY, Rob. Aceⁱ⁹ 21:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

See, now you did it. They need a robot to fix this whole Category:United_States_Presidential_Elections to bring it into line with proper Naming Conventions for every election going back to 1789 (what, 58 different presidental election pages have to be renamed now). Thanks for all your help. nobs^{Bern baby bern} 00:43, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Hey, Rob, I'm loving your spirited defence on Main Page Talk. Bold and capital letters is always a great way to win an argument! London Grump (talk) 22:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Reminiscent of TK, kinda. nobs^{Bern baby bern} 23:50, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Update: the pages have now been merged, as both links redirect to the same page now. Kodak (talk) 21:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Yah but it doesn't fit with Naming Conventions Prof. Jensen so painstakingly put together. nobs^{Bern baby bern} 21:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

And under the bus he goes

Not even nominated yet and cp is already calling Trump's entire campaign a scam^img

I haven't been able to access CP for two hours. What is it? Trump's Orlando speech in support of the gay agenda? nobs^{Bern baby bern} 19:50, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

My ip is blocked for two-weeks at a time. I can access for a few days and then I get blacklisted again. It's not a mediawiki block because Apache won't accept a connection. Their super-paranoid protection mode is in full force. For the record, I've never attempted to vandalize the site or create more than one user id. Whoover (talk) 21:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

No, it's about how 40% of his campaign funding is being paid to his companies, his children or more shockingly directly to him. Oldusgitus (talk) 19:57, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

That's right. I forgot, he's taking a salary from his campaign. The one time I went to his campaign website looking for a public domain img to upload to CP, I was striken by the fact it had be purchased, like his hats, etc, a sure way to draw down web traffic. You expect the beggin' for cash donations, but I haven't been back to the site since. It's I'm suer others have reacted the same way. nobs^{Bern baby bern} 20:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

And now the great independent starts begging. Ever felt you've been well and truly conned America? Oldusgitus (talk) 18:52, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Brexit + stocks are down = Another Globalist Setback

Andy: Brexit! YEAH! Fuck yeah!!

Andy: Global markets are DOWN! Yeah! Eat it, Globalists!

User: Andy... Brexit caused this. Globalists didn't want Brexit.

Andy: You know what? You're right. But I'm also right because <fart noise>.

Shakedangle (talk) 14:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

The Assfly schadenfreude is at a maximum, as always? :3 Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Andy's "rebuttal" is just a Palinesque word salad. I can't glean any meaning from it. Anyone take a gander? Shakedangle (talk) 14:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Well yah. Trump is anti-globalist; Brexit win is anti-globalist. So the globalists took their money and went home, causing global markets to drop. Now after the globalists clean out all the small investors they can buy back their stock at bargain basement prices. nobs^{Bern baby bern} 19:18, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

How can an anti-globalist run an international business group and condemn globalism while making a speech at a new international golf course? -MasterofLogic (talk) 19:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Interational? Does Canada count as international? nobs^{Bern baby bern} 20:01, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Is this an inside joke I don't get? -MasterofLogic (talk) 20:04, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

You're talking about Trump I presume; from the links above I got the impression Andy's running scared Trump may loose and when the votes were counted, the anti-globalists who voted for BREXIT won. Seems like Andy's peddling some global anti-global movement sweeping the globe. nobs^{Bern baby bern} 21:25, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Let me assure you Rob those who voted for brexit almost to a person didn't do so from anti-globalist motives. In fact the only people I know who did that are members of the Communist Party of Great Britain who are hardline stalinist. Some voted because they genuinely believed the lies repeatedly told by anti-eu people, like the curved banana myth. Some voted out because they have a little Britain mindset, kind of like your stereo-typical 'texan' mindset I guess you may be able to describe it. Some voted out because they thought the UK government would 'gain control over migration'. And a lot of them voted out because they are racists. It's no coincidence there has been a more than 50% rise in incidents of racial harassment since last Friday. Now I know nuanced thought is a struggle for Andy but I thought even he wouldn't align himself with the communist party. I was wrong of course, andy doesn't do complex thoughts does he. Oldusgitus (talk) 14:19, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

That's helpful. The Julian Assange interview I thought was prety good, too. Would it be safe to say the whole BREXIT vote, then, was primarily a reaction to the refugee crisis? nobs^{Bern baby bern} 19:36, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

That would be slightly simplistic to be honest. The refugee crisis, without question, had and has an effect on EU and UK politics and a SODDING large one. Now I hesitate to use these terms but I will. Possibly equally important for the 'working class' in the UK was the perceived influx of EU nationals who were accused of 'taking British peoples jobs' although the two issues, that of refugees and EU migrants, were often conflated. That was, and is, an incredibly simplistic approach - the EU migrants are the ones who pick out fruit and veg from the fields and keep the NHS functioning - but it is one that many people took. Now of course these are only my views, a pro-exiter will no doubt have a different view. But that is mine and I think we've interacted enough for you to know I'm not a knee-jerker but someone who thinks things through. And I'm now trusting you, these are my views only. Don't go and say 'A Brit told me.......', but rather say a Brit I was talking to had this viewpoint. Oldusgitus (talk) 20:06, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

So, right now a worker from Poland can enter and the exit the country without a passport, correct? but if the UK leaves the EU, Britain would have to adopt some sort of guest worker program? nobs^{Bern baby bern} 21:25, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

No. As Britain is not a member of Schengen you have to show some ID to get into Britain even if you are an EU citizen. However, the free movement of labor according to EU rules allows you to live and work there just like any local citizen would. However, members of the EEA (European Economic Area) and EFTA (European Free Trade Agreement) like Norway or Iceland have an agreement that also gives them free movement of labor, so an Icelander can work in the EU without a permit and EU citizens don't need a permit for immigration to Iceland. Almost all people in the Brexit debate have either said they want to keep being in the EU or want a deal similar to Iceland or Norway. However, if Article 50 is triggered and the UK has to leave the EU after two years with no new agreement, the only one to decide who can and cannot live and work in the UK is Westminster. This is not likely, but it might happen. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 21:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

All this is very informative and appreciated. Now, the citizen vote itself is non-binding, IOW, simply advisory to parliment that would have to formalize withdrawl. The Tories simply have to elect a new leader w/o a dissolving parliament. Is this correct? nobs^{Bern baby bern} 02:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Jeez Rob, you want a course in the, famously unwritten, British constitution? I'm not a constitutional lawyer so all of this is my understandings, some are accurate, some are simply as I understand things and are likely incorrect. But. All referendum in the UK are advisory only. No government is bound by them in any way at all legally. It is unclear whether a vote is required in Parliament to trigger invocation of Article 50, but if one is not taken then it is also highly likely that people will seek judicial review of that decision. As for dissolotuion of Parliament. That's also slightly complex now. Strictly speaking the monarch dissolves parliament, the PM asks her to do so and she always agrees but she 'could' technically say no. she won't. However to dissolve the parliament there need to be one of 3 tings. One is the fixed term off 5 years expires. We had an election last year, so that would mean a 4 year wait. Secondly there can be a vote in the lower house where 75% of all votes must be cast in favour, this includes those votes applying to currently empty seats, where no mp is in place. Not likely to happen imo as many of the NI mp's, all the Scottish MP's and a lot of English and Welsh MP's are likely to vote no. Thirdly there is a vote of no-confidence in the government and no government is formed within 14 days that can command the confidence of the house. This IS possible but would almost certainly raise the rather bizzare situation where the opposition, Labout, Scot Nats ect will be voting in favour of the Government, whilst the government, the tories, would be voting no confidence in themselves. Including all ministers voting that they have no confidence in the job they are doing and, presumably, want to carry on doing after any election. Basically the entire situation is a cluster-fuck of the highest proportions. Oldusgitus (talk) 05:25, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Losing a no confidence vote on purpose to dissolve parliament is not so unusual. It has happened quite some times in other countries, but Britain has thus far had no need of it because until a change in law quite recently the PM could dissolve parliament just like that. As for what happens with the "advisory" referendum... Juncker and many other EU figures say they want Art. 50 triggered sooner rather than later. Most Brexiteers are of the opposite opinion (which just goes to show how Bullshit this "the EU does not respect the will of the people" line is). It is possible that whoever gets into 10 Downing come October will try to get some deal with the EU for the case 50 is triggered and then put that to a referendum with the alternative(s) either stay as is, leave without that deal or both on the ballot. However, it may well be that the EU has just about had it with scheming by Britain and may reject any negotiation that give the UK yet more opt outs. An interesting question is whether the EU can throw out Britain if Britain somehow never triggers Article 50... another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 12:40, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

So this is what I gleen from all this: (1) the Tories can change leadership without a nationwide election for the House of Commons; (2) with 2 million signatures for another non-binding referendum, it is possible Commons can have their own non-binding resolution on the results of the first national referendum - essentially saying, 'now that the people have spoken what are we gonna do about it?'. If Britain has a new Prime Minister by that time everything changes. Commons could vote to move to the next step of appointing a commission to study the results of the national referendum and make further recommendations, or it could say let the second referendum proceed if it seems likely to overturn the first, or it could say, 'fuck it, the mob is crazy, and we're just going to wait til the next general election and let a new House of Commons deal with it then'. nobs^{Bern baby bern} 19:56, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

1. Yes. 2. Yes, but unlikely. 3. Yes, but personally I doubt they will hold a second referendum. If you think world markets are in turmoil no I dread to think what would happen if we now start fucking round with the result. And I also dread to think what would happen on the streets in that case as well. I think the last option is the most likely. The government will somehow find a way of kicking this can so far down the road that whoever comes into the next government will end up dealing with it. After all, that is why Cameron resigned. He is quoted as saying 'why should I have to do all the hard work and deal with all the shit just to let those wankers walk in and take the credit' so he's left it to his successor to crawl through the rivers of shit that boris and the leave campaign have created. Oldusgitus (talk) 07:45, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

You didn't answer how an anti-globalist can be the head of an international global tourist and sales business as well as their clownish mascot? What does Canada have to do with anything? -MasterofLogic (talk) 21:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

You're speaking of Trump, I think. Well, what countries does he operate in? nobs^{Bern baby bern} 21:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I am, I don't know who Andy is. Seriously? He made the speech about the Brexit from his golf course in Scotland and had a damning report about a property in Dubai using virtual slaves. Besides foreign investors in other properties made possible by globalism. -MasterofLogic (talk) 23:31, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Slavery doesn't have anything to do with globalism; it's an old-fashioned Christian value! Trump is bringing the good old days back! --Ymir (talk) 05:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

It was a public report about a part of the business that was international. nobs asked what parts of the business were international... -MasterofLogic (talk) 13:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

So the point is Trump has business interests in a Dubai golf coarse. I'm assuming it would be impossible (which I'm 99.98% certain) for a kufr like Trump to own land there. But he could franchise the Trump name-brand on a golf coarse. But I don't think Trump has been involved in conflicts of interest for approving weapons sales to benefit of the U.S. military industrial complex, nor accepted money for an alleged non-profit organization from arms purchasers or sellers, nor is under FBI investigation for any of his international globalist business dealings. If I've oversimplified, let me know. nobs^{Bern baby bern} 02:57, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Do you know what a globalist is? It is not just another word for arms dealer. -MasterofLogic (talk) 13:38, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Rob, this is not Conservapedia and the internet is not just an echo chamber. You can use it to find out who can buy property in Dubai in a couple of seconds.

Trump has business in different countries and, like everyone who has business in different countries, he wants lower barriers to transnational investment and trade. The rest is spin for the plebs who trot out to vote every few years then go back to their TV. And let's npt start on the frankly psychedelic idea that the Tories who led the Brexit campaign aren't globalists. London Grump (talk) 16:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

If a non-Muslim can buy land in Dubia, I'll eat my dirty socks with some tobasaco sauce. 19:58, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

isnt that what shell companies are for?, like nature in jurassic park, money finds a way 20:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Rob,seeing as you struggle with the concept of looking things up on the internet, allow me to type "who can buy property in Dubai?" into a search engine on your behalf. Search time: 0.73 seconds. Let's see. How about This from the UK government?. Not clear enough for a Conservapedian? Let's try "Can Jews own land in Dubai?". 0.72 seconds gives us this. Like I said, Rob, this isn't Conservapedia. As for your socks, nobody believed you anyway. London Grump (talk) 20:33, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Should I link some tutorials how to use Google and the internet for new users like Rob? -MasterofLogic (talk) 15:00, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

No need. People can get what they want to hear over at the Trustworthy Encyclopedia. London Grump (talk) 06:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

is it possible rob is confusing saudi arabia with uae? AMassiveGay (talk) 09:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

It's possible. I doubt your average Conservapedian has a grasp of such nuanced differences. After all, they all look the same. London Grump (talk) 07:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Someone may need to bring this to Andy's attention

Apparently Trump used money donated for charity to buy himself a football helmet signed by St Tebow. Vulpius (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Could there be any part of this story to make it even more hilarious and right wing bashing by its very nature? At this point it doesn't even need a male sex worker... another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 17:57, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Ken starts a new blog

After manning the helm of the Question Evolution! Blog (which curiously he has deleted all reference to) Ken decided to start another. I present Combating Atheism - A Ken DeMyer joint. Aceⁱ⁹ 20:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

That would be the one that London Grump mentioned on WIGO a week ago? :-) Oldusgitus (talk) 13:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not here or there very often anymore. Aceⁱ⁹ 21:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

The first post of the blog invokes D-meyers law.[12] in the comments section.

Michael HaggerstromFebruary 5, 2016 at 4:30 AM

Glad to see the members of the User: Conservative account are blogging again! Don't mind hateful comments from anonymous sourpuss trolls like "Mark Mark" here. You're fighting the good fight! Olé olé olé! --Mercian (talk) 16:14, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Since my last posting the above comment has been deleted.--Mercian (talk) 19:53, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

That's right, Ken. Keep shitting into a cup and calling it chocolate soft-serve. Maybe one day, when you praise the taste, you'll actually believe it. Semipenultimate (talk) 17:27, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

CP vs RW: Here's what a domain search engine thinks

It looks like Godaddy is liberally biased. Or perhaps it just understands English better than they do (or whoever wrote Trusworthy). TeslaK20 (talk) 20:21, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

That awful moment...

...when you realise Tim Kaine's initials. Bicycle^wheel 18:42, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Imagine...

... if Andy's 'meritocracy' principles actually applied to real life, such as his legal antics. He'd be broke, as he's just lost another one. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 07:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

....Has he ever won a case?--Mercian (talk) 01:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

If Tom had a sense of humor, he's award Andy a case of Schlafly beer. Whoover (talk) 17:26, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

What 'shall fly'? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

An old word for an aeroplane. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 19:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Trump's wife vs daughter

"Melania trump, daughter of Donald Trump" For somebody who follows Trump so closely, apparently TerryH can't tell the difference between trump's wife and trump's daughter. Freudian slip?

Well considering Trump can't either.... ;-) Nil Einne (talk) 15:15, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

He'd be dating them all. Believe me. Bigly. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 16:32, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Passing of Phyllis S.

I know that we all morn the loss of Andy's mother. It has made the national news. Perhaps it is time to analyze what impact this may have.

She controversially endorsed Donald Trump, which prompted a split with some of her offspring that were helping to run the Eagle Forum. One could expect that donations will diminish after her passing and perhaps the operation folding. Will her passing force Andy to turn to more remunerative activity than CP and teaching homeschooled students? Hclodge (talk) 08:48, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Too soon, mate. He might be a shitbag but he's lost his mum. London Grump (talk) 11:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Too soon? Bah, humbug! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

that was done to death when thatcher died. As unoriginal as it is crass. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:11, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

there is something very misogynistic about it, beside the crowing over the death of another human being AMassiveGay (talk) 13:14, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Something very misogynistic about doing what? Certainly nothing either me or Hclodge have said in this thread, or the thread I linked, has any semblance of misogyny whatsoever. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:51, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

famous woman we dont like - lets compare them to witches. If they die, lets roll out the ding dong trope. After all, they harridans not real women. You dont see such specific responses when men die. ~~

"Ding, dong" trope? What? You do realize, of course, that I wrote that because I enjoy making cultural references and dad jokes. I haven't said she's not a "real woman" (has anyone even said that?). And, what? The literal example I used in the other thread was the death of Jerry Falwell, whom — to the best of my knowledge — was not a woman. Speaking of "misogyny", I suppose the mere fact that someone has died — which we all will — somehow outweighs the fact that said person dedicated her life to misogyny and antifeminism? It's going to take some serious todesangst to spin things to where the involuntary action of her dying is more important than a life of voluntary hate mongering. Surely the one thing we cannot blame her for is dying. The rest, however... Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:09, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Your lack of compassion for a family in mourning and just common decency says way more about yourself and the causes you represent than inflicts harm on the deceased. What child, or youth with an impressionable mind, would envy you and want to grow up to be such a disgusting person? Or have sympathy for such hateful idealogies and causes you stand for?nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 14:26, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

"Lack of compassion for a family in mourning" -> meanwhile at the Phillis Schlafly talkpage, I clearly state:

"Regarding the tragedy of others, I will say one thing. I'm not exactly bullhorning Andrew Schlafly about this. I believe in leaving the mourning people to deal with their grief. I wouldn't support people forcing their opinions upon the griefstricken."

Also, "inflicts harm on the deceased"? I don't know that that is even a coherent concept. It would appear you perfer to save your care for the dead that can no longer use it than for the still living who could actually use it. And for the record, if you're suddenly implying that I'm a disgusting person, then you should probably take five and go for a walk or something. You risk being consumed by your own defense mechanisms — suddenly the totality of my physical person can safely be said to be "disgusting" on the basis of my fairly curt refusal (in text, over the internet) to kiss the feet of an asshole that now happens to have passed on (like we all will in due time)? Talk about dehumanising me. Also — "hateful ideologies"? Which would those be, exactly — if nothing else, in stark contrast to those of overt antifeminism, misogyny, far-right fundamentalism and conspiracy theories perpetuated by the late Phyllis? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Andy has been receiving messages of sympathy from certain Conservapedians and even by some here at RW., but his 3 biggest goons, Ken, Karajou and TerryH who have posted since the announcements, have offered not a word.--Mercian (talk) 15:39, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

And I'll repeat right now that I don't condone any gloating over the passing of Andy's mom to Andy or the griefstricken. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the last time (before Phyllis anti Equal Rights) I looked at the Ding Dong the Witch is dead video was for Scalia. And there were quite some comments making allusions to Scalia. Maybe it is time to write a cheerful song about the passing of a male scumbag. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 18:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Trump and Andy share the stage at Phyllis's funeral. I'm surprised the local space-time was able to withstand that much concentrated right-wing stupidity. (BTW Donald, thumbs up may not be the best gesture at a funeral.) --Night Jaguar (talk) 21:16, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I dunno. A thumbs down whud've looked a whole lot worse. nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 00:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

If only Ken was also in the picture, then it truely would have caused a hole in the space time continuum, Hi Ken, really missing how atheism is dying, it's not, deal with it. Also Politico quotes John Schlafly, he's the closeted one right? Ghost (talk) 14:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry, Ken will be there at Trump's funeral. Or the other way round. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 19:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

And nothing of value was lost.--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 20:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC) 20:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)