Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive337

This is an archive page, last updated 17 October 2017. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>

, (new)(back)

Bad Coffee Disproves Evolution

While generally boring, now and then there's still a good yuk to be had on CP. I've been blocked for months, so generating links is more pain than it's worth but Anger Bear has some good lines on Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution recently. Ever-insistent that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is not limited to closed systems, he offers two new observations: coffee goes from hot to cold spontaneously and its flavor degrades with time, also spontaneously. Since this happens on the Earth, which liberals insist is not a closed system, entropy must always increase anywhere and everywhere. Some poor soul is trying to rebut this not-even-wrong logic, which just adds amusement value. Whoover (talk) 21:53, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

"A counter argument does not constitute proof [that something is false]" - Karajou, on the talk page of Counterexamples to Evolution; a page which concludes that counterexamples disprove stuff Ruddager (talk)

Andy and the NFL.

Andy takes credit for falling attendences in the NFL due to his "Unplug the NFL" campaign.[1] which is obviously ridiculous, akin to EPL attendences falling because of a blog post I wrote criticising it. So for those of you who know Andy better than I do, is he seriously deluded enough to believe he is making a difference or is he just out and out lying?--Mercian (talk) 20:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I think the line between the two has disappeared for him. He's "lying/deluded" or "delyding" or his brain is "diluted" or something. 94.1.169.89 (talk) 21:08, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

And, yeah — CP is totally a site with sufficent impact to command the consciousness of the NFL watching crowds (especially in 2016!). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:04, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Yep. I can see it now. Beyonce is going to unplug the NFL and move the halftime show to CP. nobs 10:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

A blog post with 19,000 views is responsible for taking down one of the largest organizations in the country. Considering we don't even know how many of those views are unique (probably not very many), that's pretty damn impressive. Snrub (talk) 13:07, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Conservapedia rising?

Why does their Alexa rating keep going so high? I don't understand it and its frustrating.^{— Unsigned, by: 96.33.125.68 / talk / contribs}

Hi Ken. I'm sure you'll tell us why when you tell us about this question on your blog and cp mpr. London Grump (talk) 21:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

This one's easy. I had been inactive from June 2015 to April 2016 when ratings started to rise. The rest is history. And they still haven't kept their part of the bargain in granting me full sysop powers back. nobs 23:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

There, there Rob. Let it all out and you'll feel better. I'll make us a cup of tea while you blow your nose and wash your face. London Grump (talk) 08:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton and Conservapedia

Gotta love Conservapedia's neutral POV on her article. Ladies and gentlemen, that wiki may cause brain damage--Panzerfaust (talk) 21:47, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

NPOV, that's right. Hilter was a misunderstood and frustrated artist, Jeffrey Dahmer was a lonely gay dude, and Jesus was a megalomaniac and slight-of-hand magician who really thought he was God. That NPOV is in the Hillary article. nobs 20:11, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

There's something off about the wording of that WIGO item, isn't there Rob? Are you so insecure that you need to use this page to celebrate your "achievements"? London Grump (talk) 09:47, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I'm proud Google used my article to promote its own NPOV. The key? Using almost exclusively mainstream sources rather than Infowars or rightwingblogs to make Hillary and supports eat their own shit. nobs 00:20, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

That's a yes then. London Grump (talk) 10:40, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the article Rob, I think that's what made America Great Again ! Ghost (talk) 11:41, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

It was an honor to serve my fellow human beings. Hope to see Andy at work in the Trump Justice Department soon. Somebody needs to go in there and cleanup that God awful mess. nobs 02:29, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

The banking sector, the arms manufacturing sector and the Russian Parliament have already shown their approval. Well done, Rob, on helping to deliver. London Grump (talk) 06:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

How does it feel to be given a wristy by Ken, Rob?^img Ghost (talk) 12:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

This election has really shown the hypocrisy of the religous right, in general not just at Conservapedia. It's ok to support a misogynistic, racist, fascist bigot (all of which are are liberal traits according to CP) as long as he is a bigot that supports their causes. --Mercian (talk) 17:36, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh, so they were supposed to support a corrupt bull dyke who murders anyone in her way? nobs 14:34, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

They, Rob? Third person? Is that how you're going to phrase your next masturbatory contribution to WIGO CP? London Grump (talk) 16:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Murder's anyone in her way? TerryH alledges the same on CNAV and insists Clinton goes to jail, even after admitting on his blog that they have no evidence of her supposed crimes. Tell me, what sort of regime locks people way for disagreeing with them or voting against them? Newt Gingrich has also been on Fox advocating a return to McCarthyism, if you are pro muslim you are anti American and must face the consequences. Down the line being pro Mexican or even pro Democrat will also meen anti Americanism and loss of rights or liberty. Gingrich also stated on Fox that anyone who voted against or opposed Trump will get no help whatsoever and will be made to suffer. This is Fascism Number One and you Rob are on board. I actually use to think you were alright but it seems you are just as big of a prick as the other Conservapedians. End of rant.--Mercian (talk) 22:14, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

So you believe everything Newt Gingrich says (assuming you have encapsulated him accurately)? Why do you believe Newt Gingrich? nobs 00:27, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Because he is likely to be named Secretary of State, de facto Trump's number two if not de jure.--Mercian (talk) 00:34, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I said as much 6 months ago. I've been following Gingrich's career since 1978; sorry to tell you, but your rant makes little sense beyond the general impression you don't like the guy. Now, being more less familiar with Gingrich's ideas (not saying I like the guy or support him), if you can come up with something substantive, I'd be happy to respond. nobs 00:42, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump is a fascist. And we should take him at his word. After all, he just announced he really want to deport 3 000 000 people. Worzelpete (talk) 21:23, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Pluto's formation

Galactic facepalm:. Seriously, WTF?!. Baraminology taken up to eleven (Yes, I admit I don't visit many sites of that kind or even FSTDT). I thought it was difficult to superate a fundie, who basically said in a skeptic blog that "science has proven that the shape of the Universe is the same as the Bible's description of the sky on Isaiah 40:22" --Panzerfaust (talk) 22:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

WTF is barminology? nobs 00:38, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Point of Order?

Does Rob S's self-congratulatory WIGO post about his Hillary Clinton hitpiece contribute to its high Google rating? If so, is it acceptable for someone to use RW to promote such shit?

I accept some people do post their own stuff, usually with a self-promotion advisory, so where does the red line lie? London Grump (talk) 23:10, 12 November 2was016 (UTC)

I wasn't promoting it, I was reporting the news that a long forgotten parody site was being used by the cronies at Google on Hillary's payroll to present some semblance of criticism of HRC. Leave it to the reader to pass judgement. Shit, I figured if people read this stuff on CL (as I'm sure Hillary & Co. & Google did), nobody would take it seriously. Was I wrong?

The highest it ever got was #15, and held steady at #22 for about two weeks. The thing is, virtually every site ahead of it was always some fawning promotional site. My piece was the first and only "balanced" piece a reader would encounter. nobs 00:37, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Please don't feel the need to justify yourself again. I'd hate to think I was part of some circle jerk in your head.

The way you promote yourself on CP via RW is normally quite entertaining but this is underhand. I'm concerned it could set a precedent. London Grump (talk) 10:10, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

My apologies. If I had it to do over again, I wouldn't do it. No need for an FBI investigation. nobs 19:00, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Fidel Castro

Our dear comrade Fidel Castro has finally fallen off his perch. When will conservapedia claim they where right and that Fidel actually died a decade ago, and their just getting around to proving conservapedia right ? ^{— Unsigned, by: Ghost / talk / contribs}

As soon as Andy (or one of his most arselicking arselickers) finds out, of course! I'd like to know what reason Andy will come up with for the Cubans having lied about his death for ten years and four months. Maybe he'll say that Castro's shortarsed lokky-likey died. Spud (talk)

And Andy has now used his wonderful Andy logic to come up with an explanation for why Castro's July 2006 death only became official in November 2016. "Rather than wait until Donald Trump was in power, Cuba timed its announcement of Castro's death for the slowest moment of the year. late Friday night after Thanksgiving Day."^img And he wrote it in bold text and italics, so it must be true. Spud (talk) 14:01, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

His latest refinement is that Obama knew Castro's been dead but Trump was about to be briefed and was going to spill the beans, ergo Cuba needed to get out in front of him. Nobody can pull a theory out of his ass like Andy. Whoover (talk) 05:27, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I must admit, when I heard about Castro I wondered what weird conspiracy Andy would come up. He didn't disappoint. --Night Jaguar (talk) 23:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

It's plausible. Can a carbon 14 test be run on his ashes to determine if he died in 2006 or 2016? nobs 21:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Carbon 14 is not nearly fine-grained enough for this. Not least due to all the atmospheric nuclear bomb tests. Besides if they managed to have a convincing double of a living breathing Castro for ten years, don't you think they can fake the ashes? Worzelpete (talk) 02:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Ken's new blog

It appears Ken has a new blog and is again linkspamming MPR. The content seems to be a cut and paste job from his previously failed blogs. I wonder when operation flying fortress will emerge like a phoenix and defeat atheism once and for all! Ole Ole Ole Ghost (talk) 04:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

In his latest post he is arguing that a religous society rampant with infectious diseases where people die young is better than a secular healthy society where many enjoy a long retirement.--Mercian (talk) 12:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Andy meets a real lawyer

Ed Whelan, over at the National Review's Bench Memos has been very publicly ripping Andy apart for the week.

It appears he circulated an email listing potential SCOTUS nominations which he believed were "NOT pro-life" and hence conservatives should veto. It landed in Whelan's inbox, and, well, the fun starts "here". JoeNinety (talk) 15:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

A new user attracts attention

So this guy http://www.conservapedia.com/User:Stirlitz comes in.

He attracts the attention of Andy and others.

On the death of Castro.Castro His page on Trump's cabinet.[2] On Patton singlehandely defeating the Russians.[3] His page on Robby Mook.[4] ^{— Unsigned, by: Stalin1953 / talk / contribs}

Thanks for the update, User:Stirlitz? --Tabrcg23 (talk) 04:30, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Time to close this page down?

Is it time to hold another vote whether to close this page? It has become so irrelevent in 2016 that it has becoming nothing more than unnecessary storage on RW's servers. Ken has stopped his mammoth editing sessions and even seems to have found a semblance of sanity, Karajou does absolute nothing aside block a few people and Andy's insites and other insane theories are becoming less and less. To me the whole thing has devolved into a total waste of time.--Mercian (talk) 17:44, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

To take a completely different angle to what you're arguing above, but with a similar end result to your own conclusion: the board is exploring our best options for overhauling the very mediawiki software the site is currently running on, bringing us up to speed with the latest update — and that, by default, will not have the WIGC feature. We'll have to cross the bridge of "Which of our current RW-specific features will we want to reimplement?" when we get to it. I personally kind of like the WIGC feature, but that's irrelevant — as you can rest assured that the entire community will be consulted on such matters when things actually draw near. ETA: TBD. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:56, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mercian: I don't think the server storage issue is significant, & the "total waste of time" thing is only an issue for the users who read & edit this page. If it gets to the point where nobody's posting on it for months at a time, we can look at shelving it, but I don't see the harm when it's still edited even periodically.

@RBP: by "WIGC feature" do you mean all WIGO pages or is there something specific to this one, if so what? Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:39, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

IIRC, all WIGO-type feeds were custom-written by Trent (et. al.) back in the day. Accounts differ on whether or not he was wasted while doing so, but I digest. The point is — as soon as all is in order, we're going to want to update RW to the latest MediaWiki version (for a plethora of basic reasons). This will mean that the starting point is a fresh, new MediaWiki core to the site. However, the old custom extensions and what not (like the WIGO-type feeds) will not be portable over to this new version of RW (for a plethora of basic reasons). Thus — and this is me speculating, as the actual technical exploration of the topic itself by the board is still ongoing — it appears that we would have to take various steps to either recreate these custom features from scratch, to find acceptable alternatives from among the plugins freely available for the latest Mediawiki, some combination of these two options, or indeed "make do without" the WIGO-type functions, atleast for a while. Naturally, the main factor will be looping back to whatever the community decides on at a later date, when there is something for them to decide on. Again, we're not at the point where the board is seeking the community's views on this, as the progress towards presentable specifics is still ongoing. But what I can say is that suggesting we basically do anything at all to the current, outdated RW and its related MediaWiki functionality is pointless, because a great and glorious overhaul is ultimately on the horizon. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:00, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

It would be a pity to lose the WIGO feature, it's an (to use the snappy German word) Alleinstellungsmerkmal (something which makes you unique) of RationalWiki. Without it, we are just another wiki, albeit with a great saloon. --larron (talk) 08:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Coverage of current events at Conservapedia need to continue until CP itself shuts down. Perhaps if Andy realizes that CP will never allow him to pass the vetting necessary to join the Trump Administration, the CP site would vanish from the interweb. Hclodge (talk) 08:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Conservapedia in 2016

For details, see http://rationalwiki.org/w/images/8/82/Action-Conservapedia-2016-40.svg

--larron (talk) 08:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Surprising that Ed Poor was not more of a player in 2016. Hclodge (talk) 08:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Dallas shootings, It's Facebook's fault.

[5].^{— Unsigned, by: Mercian / talk / contribs}

Baby oil and big dicks

They're primarily still talking about homosexuality. ^{— Unsigned, by: GreatPerson / talk / contribs}

Nils Heribert Nilsson

Dear ask:User:Ruylopez / cp:User:Conservative,

you wrote on Dec 16, 2009

“” re: Nils Heribert-Nilsson/"Director of the Swedish Botanical Institute" at http://www.astorehouseofknowledge.info/w/User_talk:Ruylopez/archive_7#Heribert-Nilsson-Day_is_coming_up.21 The database for that wiki is locked so I can no longer provide you an answer. The person who has a contact in Sweden has significantly greater responsibilities on him so it would be unreasonable for me to ask him about this matter. However, please look at: http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Nils_Heribert-Nilsson

That took you six years? For still not getting that there was and is no single "Swedish Institute of Biology" or "Swedish Botanical Institute" of which Nils Heribert Nilsson was a director, but that most Swedish universities have biological / botanical institutes, including the one in Lund, where NHN was a professor? Which made him director of a Swedish Botanical Institute, i.e., the Botanical Institute of Lund?

For further discussion, just unblock cp:User:Dieb or cp:User:RonLar (you remember, the one blocked by your buddy TK: RonLar is Larron backwards...and he is taking our POV apart with Larron's typical boatload of charts! Everyone wave goodbye to him. TK, Aug 4, 2010)

--larron (talk) 09:03, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Trump Administration

It is very odd that so much energy is going into Trump coverage on main page right, but none is going into the encyclopedia articles. Is it that everyone is busy polishing their resumes to apply for jobs with the Trump Administration, or that everyone is in a wait and see mode? The loan exception is that the new Republican Governor of Kentucky and his legislative blitz including new right to work law have been covered. Hclodge (talk) 14:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Every detail of the Trump Administration is being reported as a major achievement. For example, CP notes that the VP spoke at the March for Life rally, which I suspect will not go down in history as an enduring achievement. I predict that CP's list of Trump Administration achievements will grow longer than Bias in Wikipedia. Hclodge (talk) 13:06, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

If Trump appoints somebody off Andy's shitlist to SCOTUS, the air will go out of the bag. We'll know in a few days.nobs 13:59, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Do you really think Andy would do that? Just turn on his own champions the minute they stray from his divine plan? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:13, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

He'd be less enthusiastic, stick with Trump on the America First agenda, and be rabid in attacking Trump appointees he sees as RINOs, but would shy away from attacking Trump. nobs 14:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Do you think Andy would prefer seeing Pence as POTUS rather than Trump, if he had the choice? Or could he care less about Pence? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:22, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Good question. Pence has a record to stand on, so far Trump is all talk (like John Lewis). In a few months time that may be true.nobs 14:29, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I mean, you're a relatively far right conservative Christian yourself, as I understand things. From your perspective, isn't Pence easily the preferable candidate to RINO casino owner Trump? Pence has no empathy left for the despicable LGBT community, and he is clear on the fact that smoking is completely harmless. Trump, on the other hand, willfully poses with a rainbow flag for five seconds at some points, and his wife — the first lady — has nudes on Google? (Trust me — you can even do research if you wanna). Is Trump's willingness to shitpost fight PC really that important? Isn't outlawing family planning and teaching the controversy and stuff like that a higher priority for the CP crowd? Not trying to be flip. Thanks for taking me serious for a moment. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Trumps a winner. You go with a winner. Even Ronald Reagan, if you look closely enough, Andy's not that enthusiastic about and has a feeling of betrayal. But he dare not utter it. Andy is a team player. That's why he can turn so viciously on lesser underlings, but is a big kiss-up to someone who can rally a big tent. nobs 14:50, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Wow. You know, I think you're right — and come to think of it, as such, Andy's even more spineless than I thought. Also, don't forget to factor in his apparent love of doctoring the past to make the present sync up better with whatever ideal future he's driving for at the moment. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:54, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

He's willing to forgive the sins of conservative icons by not talking about. Lesser mortals get abuse. Here's the dicotomy: he doesn't respect independent thought, and nobody on the planet is more guilty of independent thought than Andy Schlafly. Independent thought, and respecting other's independent thought (so long as its cohesive, reasoned, and non-destructive) is cornerstone of conservatism. nobs 15:09, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

The cornerstone of non-statist conservatism, sure. But you're very right, and this observation you make is hilarious for the simple reason that what you infer from it is perfectly true. Like any crank, the man seems a vehemently independent — even purposefully contrarian — "thinker". Indeed, independent to the point of self-contradiction. Tempered with that one extreme, appearing on the other end of the proverbial spectrum as well, Andy is simultaneously the enthusiastic manager of a digital Ministry of Truth, based on a rather overt emulation of Orwell's winged edict:

“”He who controls the past, controls the future. He who controls the present, controls the past.

That type of retconned "inconsistency-erasing" activity is simply what needs to be done when one's worldview lacks even internal consistency, yet claims perpetual relevance in the face of new and ever-changing developments. Interesting, sad, hilarious, and always confusing — an ideological fun-house ride from the forced perspective of one Andy Schafly — the world of Conservapedia never ceases to amaze. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:32, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

In my User:RobSmith/Essay:the_nobsian_method, we know where his views were formed - from a controlling mother who believed strongly in traditions. But personal calamity of being socially ostracized never impacted him in any discernable way, while he held fast to what mom taught. They irony again is, mom had a tremendous ability to adapt her views to the contemporary world she lived in throughout her entire life, whereas Andy seems trapped in the 1927 world of the Scopes Monkey Trial of Phyllis' childhood.

Andy's biting his tongue over the sense of betrayal he feels of Ronald Reagan doing nothing to reverse Roe v Wade, and he's staked all in some vane hope Trump will make up for it. These people usualy end up being suicide victims. nobs 22:11, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Damn, son! No holds barred — nobs is letting fly tonight. Somebody please direct Andy here. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I think that Andy is still in grief over the loss of his mother. She was pro-Trump and it would take a lot to move Andy off that position given her passing. Hclodge (talk) 10:49, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

How will Wikipedia navigate the Trump era?

I stumbled upon this article about wikipedia's current challenges. Brave yourself, there is a picture of Andrew Schlafly in it: who could better exemplify the post-truth society!

“”A decade ago, conservative activist Andrew Schlafly, son of famed anti-Equal Rights Amendment campaigner Phyllis Schlafly, launched Conservapedia, a site very much intended to “fix it.” Conservapedia was modeled on Wikipedia, but its mission was to present an alternative to what Schlafly perceived to be the original site’s liberal bias. According to Schlafly, traffic to the site grew 50 percent over the course of 2016. He told Inverse that Conservapedia hosted 20 million visits in November (though the source cited for those figures was, inevitably, Conservapedia).

--larron (talk) 14:57, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Trump and his staff recognized that they do not pay a penalty with their base if they make up facts. Wikipedia insiders quickly learned that they only have to win a "wikilawyer" edit war to put their version of the truth into Wikipedia without regard for the "truth." There are three types of people editing CP now: (1) true believers who strive to synthesize and report facts from "fake news" and right wing websites; (2) parodists and editors currying favor with Andy who try to bend the truth as far as possible without having Andy step in; and (3) a very few editors who believe in the stated CP mission and try to maintain credibility.

This leads to strange results such as 1) the Trump Administration has many successes but no failures, 2) E = mc² is false, 3) the "official name" of the Democratic Party is "Democrat Party", 3) Obama is a Muslim and 4) relativity is a liberal hoax.Hclodge (talk) 09:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Speaking of strange results; worth mentioning is that they're also working to separate out the "fake news" of ages past — undistorting world's biggest pinko liberal rag back into its original, clear and intended message. No, really. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:51, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

You are right Reverend, and I never had read that before. There is a unifying theme to all of this. God wrote a law or instruction manual for all of mankind in the Bible. The Bible was translated over generations into verses by theological scholars, and one cannot arbitrarily delete verses without leaving important gaps to mankind's detriment. Similarly, Congress wrote a book of laws (the United States Code) in broad general terms (e.g., keep pollution out of the water) and left it to generations of technocrats to write detailed rules (e.g., don't dump certain chemicals into streams) explaining each section (the Code of Federal Regulations). Now, President Trump has issued an Executive Order which requires government departments to delete two existing regulations for every one that is added. Each deleted regulation leaves a gap without repealing the underlying law or addressing what caused Congress to pass that law. So, Andy ordering the mindless deletion of verses in the CBP foreshadowed Trump ordering the mindless deletion of regulations. cp:Biblical scientific foreknowledge Hclodge (talk) 12:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Sweet Christmas, it's President Best-Of-The-Public. Semipenultimate (talk) 19:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

On behalf of all liberal Wikipedia editors and all cp:Lamestream media, I surrender in the face of united and overwhelming opposition. Hclodge (talk) 08:34, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

It does not matter how Wikipedia navigates the Trump era, because it has millions in its bank and can spend it lavishly for more than the rest of Trump's term. Of greater concern is how Conservapedia navigates the Trump era. RobSmith is anti-Russian and can be expected to take a critical view of the Trump-Putin relationship. Andy is pro-life and has been critical of the nomination of Neil Gorsuch. Andy is also anti-Obamacare and will be disappointed when Trump "repairs" Obamacare rather than merely repealing it. Conventional Republicans have more popular alt-right websites to write for, and the recent active Conservapedia authors appear to be from Europe and are adding European content. It is mid-February and we still do not have articles on all of the members of Trump's cabinet, but we are getting articles on how the CIA built the European Union. Hclodge (talk) 15:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think Andy likes Trump but he will never admit it. He is going off rail a little and taking snipes at Trump's lieutenants. Gorsuch is not suffiently conservative and Pence is a (100% pro life, pro gun, anti gay, anti health care) foul mouthed RINO. Andy did not endorse Trump until his mother did and before that he was leaning towards the since RINOd Ted Cruz. Confusing times for Andy now he no longer has his mum to point him in the right direction.--Mercian (talk) 00:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

If Andy is confused, imagine how that leaves his posse when they try to enforce his views on the CP editor corps. Which Trump people can we criticize? Michael Flynn? Putin? Are we allowed to discuss any of Trump's failures? Hclodge (talk) 16:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Clearly the answer will always be 'never!' until it becomes expedient for it to become 'always!' thanks to Andy's convoluted doublethink. But there is some hope with the whole 'Mike Pence did a bad swear' thing. I'd like to see someone try to add the same line to Trump's page on Conservapedia; shit, you could even link directly to the so-called POTUS twitter feed. Screenies and I'll even buy you a beer (offer not valid outside of the Thirty-Mile Zone). Semipenultimate (talk) 22:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Point of Order (since my name was used). Let me be clear, I'm not a Russophobe, I'm anti-commie. I believe the Russian Federation has legitimate concerns and claims in its Black Sea Near abroad; the Baltics sovereignty should be respected (despite Gingrich willing to sell them out); the Qawqaz (Caususes) and Abkhazia should be a negotiated settlement without Georgia joining NATO, unless NATO redefines its mission as protecting against Islamic encroachment rather than Russian, and a Russian-NATO alliance is forged to defend against the global jihad; the status of Kaliningrad should probably remain as a Russian "exclave", and there's no reason similiar solutions, like the Crimea, for other disputed territories in the Black Sea region cannot be applied. Obama hit the Russian Reset after the creation of the state of Abkhazia, essentially legitimizing what it later called "occupation of Georgia". The Baltics don't need a large or threatening NATO presence, or a missile defense system. What is needed is closer EU-Russian relations. Putin's opposition to gay marriage has nothing to do with my sympathies. Neither does a willingness to frighten and piss-off China scare me. Yes, I'm with the Russian proposals for a Yalta 2 Summit and Agreement. nobs 07:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and Kuril Islands should be returned to Japan, perhaps in exchange for help in defeating Daesh and defending against Chinese high-seas expansion. nobs 17:25, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry. Nobs sees the world as a three-dimensional chess board. Although there are excellent staff and Secretaries of Defense and State, Trump and Pence are still learning the names of all of the chess pieces. Meanwhile Andy is trying to find a role in the family organization and how to keep it relevant in the Trump era.

John Wesley Rawles could not support himself with his survival blog, and became a novelist. Eventhough she was 90, mom's reputation was poweful enough for a pro-Trump book deal. Andy is losing money on Conservapedia, cannot get enough scale on homeschool tutoring, and is nowhere near the leadership on the abortion fight. I don't see a secure economic future for Andy. This is similar to Jimmy Wales, who was around at a time to personally exploit Wikipedia for great personal gain, but who has not been able to invent a successful second act to follow it. Conservapedia has been a very clever concept and someone had to lead it, but it has not been well executed, and it is not a viable career path. Hclodge (talk) 11:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey Rob, what is your view on CP supporting self confessed Neo Nazis like Le Penn and Wilders? Neo Nazimism is a "liberal" philosophy according to Conservapedia, surely you are not going to stand for that!--Mercian (talk) 12:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@Hlodge, I'm not so certain of that. You would be amazed at what's been accomplished so far already. It may very well be that the job Mike Flynn was brought in to do has been completed, and his departure is the beginning of a softening and reconciliation between Trump and the intelligence community. The Russian hacking fake news was never more than a cover for Clinton Foundation corruption, and as the Obama holdovers get rousted the intelligence community will get on board with Trump. Flynn's gone, so there should be no impediment. As to prosecutions of those involved in the coup, sure Trump's vindictive and a hot head, but it might set a bad precedent.

@Mercian, yes, an interesting point I'll look into. nobs 18:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

There are so many similarities between the Donald and Andy: they have this knack to find the right personal! The world would be better off if Donald Trump was just managing a website financed by his wife, but I have no doubt that he would have put his trust in TK and Bugler, too. --larron (talk) 23:32, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

We have a "pot calling the kettle black" credibility problem from both Trump and Andy. At Trump's first press conference, he warned about "very fake news" and predicted that the press would report that he was "ranting and raving." He was trying to launch a preemptive strike against his critics asking that his followers reject any counter-narrative. Similarly, Andy offers extensive criticism of RINOs, Wikipedia and the "lamestream media" hoping that his followers (a bunch of homeschooled students????) believe his narrative on evolution, relativity, the geometric growth of "Conservative words", etc rather than those other information sources. Does Trump's call to reject information from "the media" implicitly include CP? Does Andy's call to reject information from immoral people (who father children with three different wives and who grope women), from politicians (who seek to enrich themselves while holding pubic office), or from the media (who frequently just repeat "fake news" information issued by the White House) implicitly include Trump and the White House? Hclodge (talk) 20:52, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

You have to understand what Andy means by "conservative" and "liberal". A conservative is somebody who is clean, wholesome, and normal. Liberal's are pot smoking hippies and college professors. It has little to do with beliefs and ideology. So long as Trump doesn't smoke or drink and takes a shower once a day, he's a conservative. nobs 00:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

So in Andy's eyes "grabbing women by the pussy" is clean, conservative and wholesome? As a liberal I was not so concerned with that (The dressing room banter that is, I would deplore the action), at the time he was a private citizen with no desire for public office and I admit I have spoken in not too a disimilar about women in my younger years but I was 16 and not 60 at the time. But surely an ultra conservative like Andy would hate it?--Mercian (talk) 10:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Correction: In Andy's terms, a conservative is someone who agrees with him. A liberal is everyone else. Worm (talk) 11:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

If that were true, Andy wouldn't have any friends. So he is is willing to compromise. And he's sophisticated enough to see a conservative who "grabs 'em by the pussy" is victim of liberal hypocrisy. BTW, How did the Clinton's ever think they were dealt a winning hand with the "grab em by the pussy" video when they basically recruited Trump to play Hillary's foil and demonstrated how to survive such a crisis? nobs 15:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Nobs, there are so many people involved in a campaign. Although polling and media purchases are centralized, every state has an army of volunteers and paid staff. I can't believe that there was a massive conspiracy with thousands of participants able to keep a secret. How could the political party process end up with unpopular and flawed Trump and Clinton as the national candidates? If there is a need for reform, I would make Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) a requirement in every state's primary. Hclodge (talk) 12:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I understand you POV and, believe it or not, agree with it within how the US system works. The way you stated it means "federalizing elections", which is just never going to happen. For two reasons: (a) elections are run by states, meaning we have 50 different state laws governing both primary and general elections, and (b) primary elections are fundamentally private sector, non-governmental, party affairs. Some deem state law intervention in these already as a government overreach of power. nobs 23:14, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

The basic criticism of Donald Trump's leadership style is that he is a narcissist who overvalues his own abilities, ignores facts inconsistent with his narrative, attacks his "enemies", and lacks an appreciation of the complexities of the problems that he must address. It is not surprising that neither Andy nor Jimbo Wales can see this, given their own track records in leading CP and WP. Hclodge (talk) 21:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Trump has to learn to be Reaganesque, reserved, rehearsed, disciplined. His improvisational style works in a campaign rally, but outside of that he needs to just shut up. He admires Reagan, and media-wise, the two are similiar. He has to re-invent himself now into President Trump.

Really, Trump, Reagan, & FDR's style of governance is very similiar; none of them are policy wonks (Hillary Clinton's big asset), they speak in broad outline, and delegate authority to others to work out the details.

Right now Trump has stumbled into the middle of a massive dispute within the national security and intelligence community, and it really is not of his making. But he aligned himself with a faction that was removed from power in the Obama years. Obama brought signigicant changes to US foreign policy, and it's the Obama appointees trying to hold on to those changes.

Trump has not aligned himself with the neocons - yet. But it could happen.

At root, the CIA has become involved in domestic politics - this is Obama's legacy. I don't see how the CIA thinks it can win, Congress and the American people will never allow it. It's why Bush was voted out of office and it's why Jeb never gained traction, and why Hillary lost.

I'd like to see Trump do what John Kennedy threatened, scatter the CIA to the four winds. nobs 08:25, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

He is going to have to change his style without the advice of Jeff Sessions. Talk about a House of Cards.--Mercian (talk) 14:48, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Think about it for a minute, if the biggest criticism of Trump from all quarters is, He is a narcacist and egotist not wedded to principal and ideology, it shouldn't be too hard. He after all, in his second career as a TV producer, is obsessed with manipulating TV ratings to serve his ego. nobs 17:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

To return to the question posed by this section, historically, people relied upon print media to deliver the factual news, but that news was biased. During the Revolutionary war, printers tried to inflame passions to favor independence. Later the press tried to incite the US to enter the Spanish American War. On the whole, print media had a conservative bias. Perhaps some people welcomed the Internet as a way around the corporate/conservative bias of the mainstream media. Yet, what happened was talk radio and some very conservative Tea Party bloggers on the far right as well as unconventional media on the left. Wikipedia bent over backwards to come up with rules as to what is acceptable media sources. Trump is trying to do the same thing - pushing people to reject information sources contrary to his narrative as "fake news." Wikipedia's challenge is whether to allow Trump to define what are reliable sources or to run the risk of being labeled a "fake news" source itself.

Conservapedia also faces similar challenges. CP has openly adopted a pro-Trump bias (replacing its pro-Conservative anti-bias stance). Since the Trump viewpoint is delivered by Twitter, and Twitter is not a "reliable source" how does a WP or CP editor accurately reflect the Trump viewpoint? Hclodge (talk) 11:36, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Very briefly, WP should not use the Washington Post because of the CIA/Bezos conflict of interest scandal. nobs 13:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Nobs is assuming that WP wants to have correct unbiased content. In fact, most edits to WP are paid by publicists. What difference does it make whether some toothpaste company is using WP to promote its product without disclosure or the CIA is funding content that is refactored by WP to spread without disclosure? Hclodge (talk) 08:54, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I laid out my position to Andy in plain English even Andy should be able to understand. His efforts to undermine the Trump agenda are Putinesque, and if Trump turns out to be a failure (which we'll know by June), it's backstabbing and second guessing by Deep State stooges like Andy that subverted him. nobs 13:37, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Guys, I've got it - every time nobs says 'Deep State', donate $20 to your favorite freedom-supporting charity. I'm cycling between Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, the SPLC, Susan G. Komen for the Cure, and the Sierra Club. Go Rob, go! Semipenultimate (talk) 16:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

It's interesting read. Amazingly Conservative's contributions to the discussion are lucid, well reasoned even --Mercian (talk) 05:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC).

There are a number of well-visited articles that undermine Conservapedia's credibility with the general public, and many of them deal with the over-board attacks on Barack Obama. One would hope that now that Obama is out of office, these articles could be refactored to reflect reality. However, now that Trump is officially adopting the tactic of blaming his predecessor (much like Stalin blamed Lenin and Nikita Khrushchev blamed Stalin) there may be a new emphasis at CP on over-the-top attacks on Obama. Hclodge (talk) 14:43, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Obama's name is shit now, for plotting the Deep State coup. And his treasonous, anti-American activities exposed for future generations. nobs 01:29, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, I guess that is better than judging him by his "religion." When I compare cp:Barack Obama's religion to cp:Donald Trump's religious views, I am amazed. I am told that Obama is a muslim, but that the star of the Access Holywood tape is a devout Christian. More to the point, between Trump and Obama, who has studied and respects the Constitution? Hclodge (talk) 08:08, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The fundamental problem of the Trump era is that the public gets a raw Twitter feed directly from the source. All secondary sources, including WP and CP should be dismissed as "fake news" under a new broader definition. Why should anyone read anything other than Twitter? nobs has a very dark view. Hclodge (talk) 09:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

We're long form. And RW is brilliant at snarky attention getters. Twitters is just for pointing you to the longform source. Then it's a matter of reading trends, demographic targets in Twitter etc. Most important is timing. When the average American thinks, 'What's Allepo', you need a current stock of material to toss out there. nobs 10:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Andy Schlafly on Neil Gorsuch

Did anyone else see LifeSiteNews quoting Andy Schlafly on Neil Gorsuch? For once I hope Schlafly is actually right about something. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 06:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I have now. What we see on Conservapedia is Andy the buffoon, mad but essentially harmeless. These articles show he is somewhat nastier and darker. Fuck democracy, human rights and common decency, he just wants to impose his own insane dogma on America and it's people. Thanks for posting.--Mercian (talk) 20:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

LifeSiteNews are completely loony. Some of the Disqus commentators there were complaining about Scalia being a liberal – because he said he was guided as a Supreme Court justice by his interpretation of the US constitution not by the teachings of the Catholic Church – that's the heresy of Americanism, to put secular law ahead of the Church's teachings. And Scalia said that while he personally disagreed with abortion and wanted to overturn Roe v. Wade so states could ban abortion if they wanted to, he believed that states that wanted to allow legal abortion had the constitutional right to do so – a True Conservative(TM) would recognise a right to life for the unborn in the constitution so abortion would constitutionally banned nationwide. But, if Andy is right and Gorsuch is a closet liberal (or even just not as extremely conservative as many of his GOP backers hope) – that'd be a good thing. I hope Andy's right on that front. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 21:51, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Right, I misunderstood. I agree, If I were a democratic congressman I think I would not appose Gorsuch.--Mercian (talk) 22:32, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

ahh, democratic senator. House members have no say. Senators must approve appointments and treaties. Since the 1840s a 2/3 majority was needed, but thanks to Harry Reid, who destroyed a 175 year tradition of bipartisanship and compromise, the Senate operates like House where a simple majority rules.nobs 03:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, but you also believe that the Clintons personally murdered 40+ people and run a billion dollar pedophilia ring out of a DC pizza parlor. Republican tactics have paid off in spades, nobs; you'll never need a trial or a jury to convict anyone, ever again. Just assassinate their character, lie loudly and forever and consistently, and you end up with tens of millions of people falsely believing that, say, Planned Parenthood is buying gold-plated toilets with all that sweet sweet baby parts money. Semipenultimate (talk) 19:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

You say that like trial by character assassination is a recent phenomenon. RoninMacbeth (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

The thoroughness and scope is new. A large swath of the population is willing to believe a presidential candidate was a baby-eating Satan worshiper because the nice men on the radio keep screaming about it. The right are the ones that cried 'treason' at any mention that Iraq War 2 was an illegitimate war of choice. The right are the ones that believe anyone who thinks abortion should be legal are murderers worse than Manson and ISIS. The right are the Oath Keepers screaming at the Trump rally in Arizona today that they can't wait for the liberal genocide to start. The crusaders that can't wait to start the holy war and stack Muslim heads a hundred high? They're all on the right, guys. Semipenultimate (talk) 20:38, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

There is no left left. It's been thoroughly discredited globally. Welcome to the mainstream, if you want to be heard or taken seriously. nobs 01:34, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Rob, you consider the centre right, corporatist Hilary Clinton as left. If not you personally then many of your fellow conservatives do. The far right at the moment is like a star going supernova. It is making a lot of noise and causing a lot of instability but what happens to a star after a supernova? It dies and turns into a remnant. That is the far right at the moment.--Mercian (talk) 02:49, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

The far right pretty well died with the Hitler Youth, squashed under Russian tank tracks. The far left has had many victories since then, China in 1949, North Korea in 1950, Cuba in 1959, Obama in 2008; but it becomes victimized by its own success and transforms itself into conservative reactionaries trying to hold onto its inglorious past - as we're seeing now in the streets of America - afraid of the future. nobs 04:18, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Obama far left? I tell you what far left is. Far left is growing up in 70s Britain not knowing if you are going to have electricity because some communist infiltrated union decides to go on strike for some petty reason. Or rubbish not collected for weeks on end because the collectors demand a 50% pay rise. Or an entire car plant being shut down because a supervisor dared to bollock a union member for being late back from his dinner break. Or non union members being harrased and assaulted because they dare to go to work to support their families.Obama far left indeed.--Mercian (talk) 04:40, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok, you got me there. Winter of Discontent has long been one of my favorite WP articles where WP tells it straight from the shoulder.

But by American standards, FDR & LBJ were not far leftists, who did more for liberalism than Obama, who was certainly, in principal, ideologically, more to the left than they were. nobs 05:08, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Believe me Rob, I may be a liberal but I despise the far left as much as I do the far right. That is why is really riles me when some people suggest I am a supporter of Mao, Stalin or Kim Jong Un because I happen to be slightly left of centre.--Mercian (talk) 05:18, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

It's a typical far-left or far-right tactic, intended to rile you, not to pursuade. This has caused the demise of the American Democratic party, overuse of racist and fascist pejoratives causing most people to dismiss the party establishment as extreme.

Now some may argue, Wouldn't this allow genuine racists to sneak in under the radar undetected? In a limited sense, yes. It was Hillary Clinton who gave birth to Deplorables, who wear it as a badge of honor. But here now, self-policing within the GOP and the mainstream at large, is necessary. What's unfortunate is the Democratic party has excluded itself from protecting the public from genuine racists, cause nobody trusts them on this issue anymore.nobs 05:35, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Let's look momentarily at two fairly "mainstream" liberals comments made in just recent days:

• Oprah Winfrey
• Obama Attn. Gen. Loretta Lynch

Now I know the niche market they are talking to, but do these people, who at one time were respected Moderates, understand how this is being viewed and recieved in the mainstream? Can you find anyone with a public stature equal to theirs, Trump included, who remotely has spoken like this bout their fellow countrymen in the past two years?nobs 05:59, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

A, that Oprah quote is not new, it's from November 2013, speaking with respect to how bigots like my father never accepted Obama as an American, let alone their President. It is being trated as new by fake news media in order to distract from the uncovering of Trump's server that only talks to a bank in Russia. B, the whole 'Loretta Lynch called for bloody death' is double-standard framing bullshit and you _know_ it; every Tea Party douche has been screaming 'TREE OF LIBERTY! BLOOD OF PATRIOTS AND TYRANTS!' for the last eight years. Here is the exact quote, so please tell me what specifically you find so vile about it?

“It has been people, individuals who have banded together, ordinary people who simply saw what needed to be done and came together and supported those ideals who have made the difference. They’ve marched, they’ve bled and yes, some of them died. This is hard. Every good thing is. We have done this before. We can do this again.”

C, "Can you find anyone with a public stature equal to theirs, Trump included, who remotely has spoken like this bout their fellow countrymen in the past two years?" Well since talk radio jocks and televangelists are the Oprah of the right, let's look at some gross shit they've said in the last 2 years; most of the items are just since January. Way, way more where this came from:

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/rick-wiles-a-satanic-child-murdering-cabal-is-leading-a-coup-against-president-trump/

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/lou-engle-calls-for-god-to-take-out-judges-who-uphold-abortion-rights/

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/7-other-times-donald-trump-suggested-obama-is-a-secret-muslim-and-terrorist-sympathizer/

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/gordon-klingenschmitt-atheists-need-more-exposure-to-the-ten-commandments-to-free-them-from-their-demonic-influence/

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/cindy-jacobs-god-wants-christians-to-be-rich-so-jews-become-jealous-and-convert/

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/donald-trump-raises-suspicions-about-justice-scalias-death/

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/rick-joyner-obama-holdovers-are-committing-treason-against-trump-to-cover-up-their-crimes/

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/louie-gohmert-says-that-if-clinton-had-won-hed-probably-have-been-in-jail-within-four-years/

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/pat-robertson-opposition-to-trump-is-satanic/

To sum up: A satanic child-murdering cabal is leading a coup, an imprecatory prayer for god to kill judges who are really secret witches, the so-called POTUS alleging vast conspiracies without any evidence, the push by evangelical preachers to cast the opposition as the very embodiment of evil, some casual anti-semitism, allegations of treason, some paranoid bullshit from a sitting Congressman / talking penis, more treason, more conspiracies, more satanic bullshit, and this is just five minutes of googling 'Obama devil man'.

So yes, nobs, I fucking well can. Not to mention how one of your 'new' items was four years old and the other was taken wildly out of context by some fake news double-standards bullshit operation. Semipenultimate (talk) 17:25, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I misspoke on 'recent days,', sorry. (1) Most of those people I never heard of, Klingenschmidt, Engle, Joyner, Wiles, Jacobs, hardly of the stature of a billionaire richer than Trump who fancies herself as president someday - Oprah Winfrey - or a cabinet Secretary and chief fundraiser for Senate Democrats. And we're not talking about over-the-top rhetoric. (2) While Trump, Robertson, and Gohmert might have high stature, where do any of those you provided suggest bloodshed and death in a struggle with their fellow citizens? or in the case of Oprah, suggest people of a different race "just need to die"? nobs 18:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

"or in the case of Oprah, suggest [old, powerful racist bigots who've been racist their whole lives] "just need to die"?" - fixed that for you. Otherwise people might've thought she was talking about -all- white people, which I am presuming was the intent of the quote mining. Semipenultimate (talk) 21:28, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I didn't want this discussion to get too far afield. I know who she's talking to. But a woman whose made billions off of white people in broadcasting certainly would understand what she said, and how it be recieved in the mainstream. I was shocked, cause frankly I see a tinge of racism and hate there, unless the woman doesn't know what racism is, which would be her only excuse to deny it. nobs 00:45, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

• Engles makes a reference to bloodshed of Hamanites while calling Trump a King Cyrus, but I can't find any data on the size of his audience. For comparison one could check Engles' Alexa ratings against rightwingwatch.org, I suppose.
• Wiles. Another local broadcaster. More interesting, here's a Chicana who seems very troubled that Wiles told his listeners to stop listening to Alex Jones, and she's more inclined to give up on Wiles instead. She also has a Catholic crucifix hanging on the wall. So this video pretty well destroys the myth that conservatives and the Christian right are made up of angry white males & WASP's suffering from white privilege. And do all the mean, nasty things said about Wiles & Jones' listeners transfer over to an Hispanic female residing in Texas, where I'm assuming this video is from? nobs 20:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
• Klingenschmidt, a former state legislator is innocuous and a non-starter to this discussion. nobs 20:29, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
• Cindy Jacobs. What's the point here? nobs 20:33, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
• Rick Joyner. His allegations seem equally as absurd as Russian hackers. In fact, I had difficulty discerning his allegations from the same evidence against the Trump administration so far. Again, no suggestion of violence, blood, and death of persons of a particular race or political opponents. nobs 20:40, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
• Trump & Savage on the death of Scalia. What's the point here? That Trump and Savage read the Washington Post? nobs 20:52, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
• Gohmert. Again, relevance? And rightwingwatch.org is wrong, Loretta Lynch has discussed taking legal action against 'climate deniers'. nobs 21:02, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
• Pat Robertson. Opinions about Satanism, including the right to worship Satan, are protected by the First and Second Amendments. nobs 21:05, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
• Trump on Obama: No call for bloodshed or death of American citizens of any race. nobs 21:19, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

The point of all of it is that the central presumption on the right is that the opposition are motivated by the fucking _Devil_, nobs. And that it is hammered home in churches large and small and over talk radio every day. Every one of Gordon K's talking points, for example, is dutifully regurgitated by Rush, Savage etc. in the right-wing echo chamber. And if the other side is absolute evil, then nothing you do to them can possibly be wrong. That is the point of ALL of this - to pretend powerlessness in the face of 'evil' so that when the real persecution begins, it will look to the Trumpists like self-defense. Worked in Germany in the 30s with the Jews, homosexuals and foreigners, working right now in the USA with the 'liberals', homosexuals and foreigners. Semipenultimate (talk) 21:44, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Respectfully, I wouldn't know where to begin picking apart the flaws in your argument, it's just a flim-flam pile of verbiage that says Trump=Nazi. My argument can be summarized as that's why you lost and that's why you will continue to loose in the US & Europe, and the gains of Trump, Le Pen, Wilders, and AfD have as much to do with arguments like that as with merits of anyone on the list just cited. And I myself can testify - I'm no fan of Trump, but the distortions and violence from the left cause me to recoil and look to Trump for leadership. nobs 00:29, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Respectfully, you have proven over and again, here and there, that you know fuck all about Europe, let alone the difference between liberals and leftists. London Grump (talk) 18:10, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Ahh c'mon. Be fair. I spend more time reading leftist crap and can understand and empathize more than an average right-winger. Rightwing echo chambers I generally avoid cause I have to spend too much time walking every idiot sentiment backwards. On balance, I'd say leftists and rightwingers generally both can be open to persuasion and moderation of views, but generally it's easier for me to persuade leftists, cause I don't have to go into a debate over what the meaning of their core beliefs are. Pragmatism rules on both sides. And when I say accusing everybody and their dog of being a racist backfires, I mean it as advice from this side how it's being received. And that issue of name calling alone is why Dems lost in 2016, and why the "far right" is gaining in the EU. nobs 23:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, you're not as pigshit ignorant as Conservative. I'll grant you that. As for the rest of your word soup, QED. London Grump (talk) 23:57, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

At least Rob acknowledges that the rise of such sentiment in Europe is the far right. The rest of the Morons on Conservapedia are insisting, with great gutso, that Marine Le Pen and her ilk are wholesome, trustworthy, loving conservatives.--Mercian (talk) 15:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

My thesis isn't complete because we haven't had enough empirical evidence yet, but we're halfway there with Brexit and Trump behind us, and LePen & the AfD lying before. I theorize the Left has desensitized the West to racial terms, race baiting, and arguments based on identity politics through overuse of certain terms and arguments. And at core is, when legitimate criticism can be found, it is ignored for an an automatic reversion to terms like 'racist' or 'fascist'. Donald Trump and supporters is a classic case in point; there was no shortage of legitimate criticism of Trump and the Trump movement. But to make it exclusively about race not only further desensitized a moderate public to those arguments, it produces a backlash. It may be too late, cause the roots of this mass desensitization go back well before Reagan.

The only way to stop this mass desensitization now is to virtually stop those tactics completely, except in genuine cases, which are much rarer than the Left believes. Then there's danger of an overreaction. But I haven't thought this theory through completely yet. It is not that the Left is creating racists by their actions, it is a mass public is becoming increasingly immune to Leftist arguments. And fundamentally, the Right never had a monopoly on racism. The Left needs to clean its own house, and not lecture the world on morality. There is a serious flaw in the ideology and theories liberals have foisted upon recent generations of schoolchildren who grow into their 20s to discover they've been indoctrinated with fringe theories.nobs 18:08, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

No, you daft bugger, Brexit is not behind us. It hasn't even started yet, particularly now that Nicola Sturgeon has played her hand. Do keep up.

Besides, in what alternative universe is Brexit a straight right-left issue, even if you conflate the left and liberalism?

@Mercian: I don't think there is a rise in the far right. It's always been there. It just stayed in the shadows. Now that people are realising that neo-liberalism has failed them, and the left having been marginalised by the same liberals over the last thirty years, people are just a bit bolder, a bit more confident expressing themselves in the open. Mind you, that's just my view from the gutter.London Grump (talk) 19:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

duh, I was speaking of the Brexit vote, where a sizeable portion of the people rejected decades of indoctrination that Alle menschen werder bruder with a common destiny. nobs``19:33 13 March 2017

You wrote one thing and you meant another? Uh, OK.

Tell me, did you mean to write "decades of indoctrination" or did you mean something closer to reality? London Grump (talk) 21:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The anger/protest vote is very interesting to watch. In the UK a vote for Brexit did not mean "I think that the UK would be better off without the EU." In the US a vote for Trump did not mean "I think that Donald Trump is qualified and would make a great President." In the UK, Brexit won by a slight majority, although lost in many areas. In the US, Trump lost by about 3 million votes, but won enough states to win the Electorial College. Hclodge (talk) 14:56, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Bingo. Trump & the Brexit vote were more a rejection of the Left than a majority embracing Right-wing Populism. And how has the Left responded? Doubling down on what the public has been desensitized to. nobs 21:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Nope, the safest Labour seat is Sunderland. Sunderland voted for Brexit and it is not the only example. If anything it was a protest against David Cameron who is not a leftist. Nor is Clinton, she is right of centre, not by much but she is.--Mercian (talk) 21:51, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Sunderland is like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania voting for Trump. When they were loyal Democrat voters, they were 'blue collar working class'; when they held Democrats to account for broken promises, they were 'racists'. I'm sure this is a good analogy to Sunderland. The mistake the Left makes is thinking blue collar working class is too stupid to figure this out, which workers are reacting to and could probably make the crossover permanent. nobs 00:20, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Today, Donald Trump flies to Tennessee to put flowers on the grave of Andrew Jackson. For decades, Democrats worshiped Jackson as their hero and held annual "Jefferson-Jackson Dinners" as their annual fundraising galas. However, in the past couple of years, there have been moves to rename these events because Jefferson owned slaves and Jackson actively displaced Native Americans from the eastern US. With the Democrats disowning two of the most important Presidents in US history, Trump is embracing Jackson as his own. A very clever move that will endear him to middle America and even to disaffected Democrats who had spend years organizing and supporting Jefferson-Jackson Dinners only to be slapped in the face by "politically correct" millenials. Even President Kennedy recognized that Jefferson was probably the greatest intellect to ever be President. Hclodge (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

So can we interpret this to mean that Trump represents what, up until a handful of years ago, we've known as the Democratic party? The GOP establishment never embraced him. Here's a theory: Democrats went so far as to vote for a black man, not because of his merit or qualifications, but because he was black. Simply to prove they were not racist. In the end, when they disagreed with him on policy or ideology, they got called racist. They had enough, knowing nothing will satisfy the commie Left short of castration and enslavement, these Democrats turned to Trump. nobs 19:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Rob. Until you realise that liberalism and socialism and communism are three very different and often mutually exclusive things, you will never understand what has happened over the last hundred years. Get those basics straight and then maybe you can start to understand what is happening today. Until then, there really is no point in trying to discuss politics or history with you.

And you still don't have the first Scooby Doo about Britain and Europe. London Grump (talk) 21:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Europeans are as ignorant as Americans, and liberalism, true liberalism, is a diametrical inverse of those other two things you mentioned. What's more to know? nobs 06:48, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say Americans were ignorant. I said you were. As for the rest of it, you're still wrong. You sound like Conservative when you use bafflegab phrases like "diametrical inverse". Take the foundation of NATO, for example. Churchill is looking to building links with Europe, Truman wants to bring the USSR into a European settlement but Ernest Bevin, British trade unionist and socialist, is the one who wants to exclude the communists, look towards the US and is the main force behind NATO. How does that fit in with your simplistic world view? Where does Tony Blair fit in? Walk on, Rob. London Grump (talk) 06:57, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Stalin himself rejected any European settlement within weeks after FDR was dead, basically, cause as he saw it, France was guilty as Germany was in fighting the Soviet Union for 4 years, including French soldiers in German uniform on Russian soil. As he saw it, the French KP was the legitimate successor regime, and when the US started giving to DeGaulle as much as it was Stalin in post-war reconstruction aid, he about lost it. Really, you can date tbe Cold War from that moment (which adds to my thesis cause DeGaulle was Churchill's boy). True, Truman thought he could negotiate FDR's big dream with Stalin, but events over the next two years drove things in the direction of a military standoff rather than a negotiated peace.

Blair? Even though he's a guy I respect, can't give him much credit for brains. Any fool who is so willingly taken in by Clinton's and their bullshit, then seeks to emulate them, can't be too gifted. But he deserves immense credit for dumping hereditary peerage. Shit, if Britain had done that 250 years ago, we might be singing God Save the Queen over here today. You know, that's what the American Revolution was about; settlers didn't see the point in paying rent to some Lord stooge-friend-of-the-King, who never saw the land he supposedly owned, or cut down a single goddam tree to make it arable. We did away with heritary peerage in 1776. nobs 04:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I notice you ignore my point about ideology and focus on carefully selected facts, woven into imaginative deflections (DeGaulle and Churchill?), instead. Was that intentional or did you mean something else again? London Grump (talk) 06:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

When the old international order broken down - the Versailles convention - two visions emerged of a post-Hitler Europe. A Stalinist view of a Soviet Socialist Republic of France along with a Soviet Socialist Republic of a United Germany. Based on Churchill's view as early as May 1940, the Churchillian vision ultimately won the day, out of which was born the EU and other global institutions. nobs 15:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Let's, for the sake of argument, set aside Churchill's lacklustre post-war career and pretend that his pro-European vision was the only alternative to Stalinism. What the fuck does it have to do with Ernie Bevin and the way his various legacies crap on your half arsed political analysis? London Grump (talk) 19:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Bevin deserves credit and respect as a father of NATO and the idea of collective security. His role as a visionary was however, in a divided, bi-polar world of a military alliance, even before the divided world was set on a nuclear hair-trigger. And clearly, Bevin had a much more profound understanding of Europe than anyone in Washington at the time (if indeed, anyone in Washington has ever had an understanding of Europe, or the world, at any time). Without sounding critical though, cause Bevin truly does deserve recognition, it is more in a limited parochial sense of the signatories of NATO and aquiesses in the failures of Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin. A quick fix as we would say. I covered a lot of this here, beginning with, "Nato is a freak of nature..." and not scripted as part of the original plan. Kinda the way the Apostle Paul calls the Church a "mystery hidden in God until now". nobs 18:05, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Here's the minutes of meetings between Stalin and Hopkins, May 26-30, 1945, on page 894, the start of the Cold War can be dated. The entire discussion, beginning with Churchill's congratulations on the victory of "The Grand Alliance" on page 885 to the end of the chapter on page 916 is all interesting, relevent, background as well. nobs 18:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Here's a picture of a kitten. It has nothing to do with Ernest Bevin either. Would you like me rephrase my earlier point in simpler words? London Grump (talk) 20:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Sure. nobs 00:53, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

How does Ernest Bevin fit in with your conflation of left of centre movements?London Grump (talk) 09:21, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

As a nationalist. Being a trade unionist he was an ardent anti-communist. This has to be seen in the context of his day. Bevin, like Joe McCarthy, or Hitler for that matter, saw communism of his day for what it really was - an international, Moscow directed, Stalinist conspiracy. This ran counter to popular and media perceptions in the West. nobs 17:13, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Close enough for our purposes (ie its broadly bollocks but it will do for now). Now, how does that fit in with your conflation of Socialists, Trotskyites, Stalinsist and Liberals? London Grump (talk) 20:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

"a diametrical inverse of those other two things" that shows a spectacular ignorance, not only of what you were trying to discuss, but also of English and simple geometry. Sphincter (talk) 03:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

You're too critical; a true-blue Democrat would know what I'm talkin' about - and be impressed. nobs 04:42, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Australia attack page.

Nothing to do with Trump. Ken likes to troll certain CP members, in this case the Australian Alan E, he is hoping to get a response. When the German AugustO posted Ken wrote articles such as Germany and bestiality. I was a poster once and many anti-Britsh articles appeared. I never mentioned my nationality but Ken does love checkuser.--Mercian (talk) 06:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

User Conservative is a multiple account, I think. Basically, Andy & Ken. nobs 06:49, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

WIGOing your own activity on CP

has always been the height of trollish asshattery, nobs. It's as sad as Ken's constant pleas for attention. 197.87.142.71 (talk) 11:37, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm just trying to get a damn response to Trumps attacks on conservatives. The silence is deafening. You can understand, I hope. nobs 03:04, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

You're confusing attention with affection London Grump (talk) 10:37, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey, I'll get to your question about Stalin et al above, just been busy w/ Obamagate and trying to rehab those hardliners over there, you know, trying to convince them these's suicide attacks are fruitless. nobs 10:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

A palpable hit! London Grump (talk) 17:02, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Am I the only one who notices? It's been three days now since Trump trashed-talked the Tea Party conservatives, I laid out the Trump/Ryan/Priebus case in explicit, minute detail, and no one rises to their own defense (although Andy has continued sniping on MPR-this, right here, is why he won't give me MPR access). When the shit hits the fan, and it will, these conservative kamikazees and shahids won't get any sympathy anywhere. nobs 11:21, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh come on Rob, you should know how Andy works by now - all Republicans are awesome... until the Teabagggers come along, then most Republicans are RINOs... unless they're the Presidential nominee, then they go to being the Greatest Conservative In The History of Always... until they lose, then it's straight back to being a RINO... then for once Andy backs the right horse... after his love affair with Huckabee... and suddenly because Trump's racist, misogynistic message resonates more with Andy than actual Republican policy, Trump becomes the new norm for Andy... expect the Freedom Caucus, or whatever those dribbling lunatics are called, to become RINOs any day now.

And who exactly are you expecting to comment? Andy won't, as per above, and editors know that disagreeing with Andy equal a ban. Fuck, you should know that by now. TerryH is only there to whore his blog. Ken is incapable of original thought. Karajou does nothing but block people and the rest are missing in action / given up / dead / in jail. Not sure which one of those applies to Ed Poor. 197.87.142.97 (talk) 12:51, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

• expect the Freedom Caucus, or whatever those dribbling lunatics are called, to become RINOs any day now. What an eye opener. I never even thought of that. nobs 15:30, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Does Andy like Ronald Reagan? Considering Trump is Andy's favorite president (afaik), and Reagan is Trump's favorite president? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:40, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Andy opposed both Reagan and Nixon cause he's isolationist. They were internationalists, like Rockefeller (Rockefeller & Ike brought the GOP out it's isolationist mold where Andy, Phyllis, and the Tafts were stuck). Trump,'s 'America First' nationalism resembles isolationism, but Andy conveniently ignores statements like, "I'll bomb the shit out of them."

Trump resembles FDR & Reagan in style, affluence, 'hands free' approach to governance. He speeks in broad terms, leaving the details to others. Rexford Guy Tugwell for instance, really was the mastermind behind the New Deal. FDR, Reagan, and Trump are the visionaries whose main task is dealing with the public, not the Congress or bureaucracy. nobs 19:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Everytime I go to MPR to debate GOP & administration strategy and tactics I can't help get the picture of these guys out of my mind. nobs 20:17, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I know how you feel. The "debate" on Conservapedia remind me of these guys. London Grump (talk) 13:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Yep. Exactly. And most everybody gets anesthetized sooner or later just like that. In my video, you can see the the Bacha bazi on the right thinking, "You sure this is a good idea?" nobs 08:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Truthiness

I have always been uneasy about the "wisdom of the crowds." (Andy calls this "The best of the public.") The problem is that the people who edit wikis are not representative of the public as a whole. WP probably draws from left-of-center, and CP was designed to draw from the middle and right-of-center. The problem is that CP has gone from hundreds of editors (including trolls and parodists) to about a dozen. Some are far-right and others are non-linear thinkers. Instead of updating and improving content, the core dozen is concentrating on mediating a battle between Andy and AugustO over the Conservative Bible Project and on bending over backwards to praise Trump's every move as well as Trump's redefinition of "fake news". If one accepts the fact that Trump is neither a Conservative nor a true Republican (he is a Populist), one has never seen CP so far adrift from its stated mission. Forget about truth or conservsative values, let's praise Trump some more. Hclodge (talk) 17:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

You nailed it. With Trump's rise CP has become a cauldron of cp:moral relativism.nobs 19:53, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

The Andy-Bible is the only thing which makes me watching CP anymore: it is so much fun to see how all of AugustO's meticulously crafted arguments, all his anger and frustration is deflected by Andy who really just says: "Whatever, I'm right" - if there ever was an example for the Dunning-Kruger effect, then Andy.

I suppose Andy just has to wait until AugustO reads a particularly idiotic statement, gets an infarct and dies: the rightful wrath of God for contradicting Andy!

--larron (talk) 11:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

That's awesome. In fact, would you mind helping us update the Conservapedia Bible Project article? I did some work on it (unifying/polishing old content) a while back, which helped a lot, but it could really use being brought up to speed with what they're doing over at CP! I mean, if we updated it and made it in-depth enough, it could even become a Gold article (IMO) Thoughts on this? All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:34, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

The standard has gone from "is this a true and balanced article" to "is this article less slanted than WP" to "is this article pleasing to Karajou Ken Terry or Andy" to "is this article click-bait that can generate a few page views." Hclodge (talk) 13:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Haha. So will you help with our article on their Bible project? Unintentional comedy of this magnitude deserves to be preserved for posterior. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

No, but I will conflate cp:PizzaGate and Conservapedia Bible Project. If you read the CP talk pages instead of the Podesta emails, and make the following substitutions you will see that the basement of Andy's house appears "to be at the center or the front group in an underground network that involves" the CP administrators. CBP = "child sex", Alleged code words: “Mark” = boy; “action at a distance” = girl; “Biblical Foreknowledge” = little girl; “relativity” = little boy; “storm” = male prostitute; “spoke” or “said out loud” = person of color; “sea” = semen; “translate” = orgy; "editing" = oldest profession. Hclodge (talk) 04:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Haha, fair enough. Though, would you mind doing me a solid with any of the following:

• Simply perusing our Conservapedia Bible Project article and succinctly talkpaging if/when you see something that's seriously out of whack (e.g. a misconception in the text)?
• Just dumping some assorted links to select CP discussions/edits/blocks/etc which would be of relevance to our coverage of the CBP?

You're probably the most up-to-speed RationalWikian when it comes to the CBP, and while I'd love to improve our article on it, it's per definition a bad idea for me to gung ho it without some knowledgable counsel (see above two bullet points). Regardless, much appreciated Reverend Black Percy (talk) 09:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

"Andy comes up with an insightful example of biblical scientific foreknowledge"

Anyone got a record of what this was? Sphincter (talk) 00:20, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

The edit summary was deleted and the image won't load. Anyone have the content? Parrrley 11:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

This is the image. (To view images when "Error creating thumbnail: Invalid thumbnail parameters" is displayed, scroll down and click "Original file‎".) ~ FluffyRatTomato ^t 11:45, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Gotcha. Thanks. Parrrley 11:51, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I like "Liberal abuse of the second law" explained with conservative abuse of the second law.--Mercian (talk) 20:23, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Archive list

Will whomever fucked up the WIGO page wrt the archives, please have the decency to fix your fuck up? 197.89.223.167 (talk) 10:05, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Archivist

Does the bot still work (for this page, at least)? The last time it archived content was on 3 February 2017. Archiving had to be done manually at least twice thereafter, on 18 February 2017 and on 2 May 2017.^t 09:01, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I think there's something in the code that means it only archives a page when they get really long. Christopher (talk) 08:56, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Conservapedia Finally gets a bot!

After the demise of Uncle Ed's bot, Edbot many eons ago, it seems Conservapedia finally has a user that has made a bot. Meet User:DavidB4-bot. Ghost (talk) 09:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Ken has a new hero.

Anders Behring Breivik[6][7]--Mercian (talk) 06:26, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

C'mon now, you know you're being unfair. Yes, there is such a thing as being unfair to Ken. This is a milestone. Ken is criticizing right-wing violence. nobs 02:39, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

No he's not. He's trying to deflect criticism of it and, to an extent,justify it.

By the way, Rob, you're on top form on CP. Your knowledge of the inner workings of the Republican Party is truly wonderful. London Grump (talk) 08:47, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Prediction:Trump fires Jared Kushner, maybe Ivanka, too, when he gets back from Europe. It may be his last hope to salvage his presidency. If he keeps them and fires some other scapegoat like McMaster or Priebus, he may never pull out of this slump. nobs 19:10, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

It seems that crimes against liberals, from body-slamming reporters to the mass murder of 16 and 17 year olds is acceptable at Conservapedia, to the extent of mockery. Rob, If (when) Trump is impeached and it becomes clear that he is a bent as a 3 bob note, what will be Andy's get out strategy? There is an awful lot to over-sight and burn.--Mercian (talk) 02:00, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Impeachments probably is not going to happen, nor a 25th Amendment removal. But I wouldn't rule out him dying in his sleep from something he ate out of the White House kitchen. Latest rumors are him firing Priebus & Spicer, while keeping on Kushner and his half-breed Russian wife Ivanka who got their nuts in a vice with the FBI & CIA, while going with a full-bore Steve Bannon attack on media & Deep State critics. This would be a mistake; firing Priebus is his last connection to the GOP, and he'd loose 30-70% of the 40% base he's got now. Perhaps then, before Midterms, some GOP House members might start thinking about impeachment, depending on polling data in various House districts if it made a difference in retaining the House. But it would not be an issue in the Senate, were conviction or aquittal wouldn't matter either way.

OTOH, you have to look at the mainstream sources on this, which unequivocally are full of shit. Firing Priebus would be an irreparable breach with the GOP.

More likely to occur is, Mueller and company try to frame him up on so some bullshit. It could happen, but will take years.

If McMaster gets fired, then there's no repairing the breach with the Deep State Intelligence Community. It'll be a war of attrition, as he roots them out, one by one, all 8000 Obama appointees. He can't get them all by 2020, and he needs people like Ryan & Priebus to find replacements. It'll become a game of survival on both sides. nobs 02:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

This whole saga fascinates me. Thank God for the Separation of Powers in The USA.--Mercian (talk) 03:20, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

We've definitely reached a turning point in history. The latest headline is Merkel and the German's stand alone against Putin and the jihadis. I don't know what to think or believe anymore. nobs 03:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I used to think The Separation was not a good idea but the brilliance of the Founding Fathers shines through, hats off to you Mr Franklin--Mercian (talk) 03:26, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Do you think the former conservative of the year runner-up come train-wreck is up to the job?--Mercian (talk) 03:34, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Pence? He's a Gingrich machine Republican. He could nominate Kasich to take over VP and everybody would be happy. Except the isolated Tea Partiers, but they've isolated themselves so much even Trump doesn't want anything to do with them. Only their so damn ignorant they haven't figured that out yet.

Granted, the Gingrich machine is getting old-school, but what set them apart from today's Republicans is, they were a veritable fountain of ideas. Even Obamacare - mandatory private sector insurance to head off a single payer system, Obama stole from Gingrich. Paul Ryan is the last of the Gingrich Republicans, overflowing with ideas, but one guy can't do everything himself, and for some reason, nobody wants to hear solutions today. People would rather just bitch bitch bitch, on both sides. Whether it's Trump bitching about the world, or the world bitching about Trump. Nobody cares to focus on anything else. But Pence seems undistracted. nobs 06:58, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Obama's Religion

Nobs, is trolling big time at cp:Obama's Religion. "(Allah be praised)" really? Hclodge (talk) 01:44, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Photo bias

Andy has created an article on cp:Photo bias. For example, cp:File:Hillary on the campaign trail.jpg

When image cp:File:Obamaatcampdavid.jpg was placed on the cp:Obama's Religion page, Andy removed it claiming that it would be cp:photo bias. User:SamHB came back with a well-done rebuttal on cp:Talk:Obama's Religion#Absurd rationale for removing the picture at the Evergreen Chapel The page is still a mess. Hclodge (talk) 15:02, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

The Obama's religion discussion is recent but photo bias was created back in 2007. Christopher (talk) 16:02, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

This is a very interesting question. Why, when you enter the name of anyone in Google, you get the Wikipedia photo in the results EXCEPT for one entry: Donald Trump. Rather than getting the official White House photo, you get a rather unflattering view looking up his nose? nobs

Because it's all a huge fucking conspiracy against YOU, nobs. You fuckin' found us out! Good work! Now get back to Comet Pizza; I think that's ready to break any old time now! Semipenultimate (talk) 23:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, yep. A nutcase listens to InfoWars and it's Alex Jones fault. A nutcase shoots Rep. Gabby Gifford's and it's Sarah Palin's fault. A nutcase works for Bernie Sanders and listens to CNN, shoots Rep. Scott Scalise, and it's the victim's fault for not voting to ban guns from the mentally handicapped (Sanders supports) after Sandy Hook. nobs 00:11, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Andy on the warpath

It is getting difficult to keep track of all the groups that Andy is warring with at this time. The list so far:

• Reince Priebus (who should be fired)
• Corporations that apply for patents or anyone who is not an individual inventor setting up a small business.
• Anybody anti-business
• The Koch Brothers
• Anybody pro-life
• National Football League (which is a large business owned by wealthy people)
• Anybody who promotes a Constitutional Convention
• The Democratic Party
• Third parties (because they tend to take votes away from Republican candidates)
• RINOs (very broadly defined)
• Paul Ryan
• Mitch McConnell
• Anybody who disagrees with the gentile high-class approach to politics of Phyllis Schlafly
• Anybody who disagrees with the smash-mouth approach to politics of Donald Trump

It is more than a disagreement with these groups, it is a primal urge to write attack pages about them on Conservapedia. Hclodge (talk) 04:58, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I've been thinking of doing an essay discussing Living Constitution vs Salafism. Seems to me US & NATO allies foreign policy has been to get the Islamic judiciary to adopt the idea of a Living Koran and dump cp:Originalism. nobs 06:48, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

You better write fast. If things keep going at the present rate, the current NATO countries plus the mideast will all join the Warsaw Pact to seek Putin's protection against Trump's aggression and erratic policy shifts. Hclodge (talk) 00:22, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

A link to a Conservapedia article? Why would you think we would go and find out about anything on Conservapedia? We go there to laugh and occasionally throw peanuts at the inmates. London Grump (talk) 18:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Topic ban

Apparantly, Ken and Karajou have instituted "topic ban" policy. They are applying it. What do you make of this? Hclodge (talk) 02:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

voting mechanism

The WIGO voting mechanism is not working. Please help.Hclodge (talk) 04:09, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Is anyone working on a solution to the voting mechanism problem? Hclodge (talk) 19:05, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

See RW:TECH#WIGOs, as of writing it's still borked with no comments from anyone with server access. Christopher (talk) 19:07, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Sock of "x"!

It looks like Karajou has another scapegoat. He banned an unused account created a month ago as a "sock of JamesWilson"! I guess sock of Horace and everyone else just wasn't enough?! [8] --Taylor Swift lover (talk) 16:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)::

haha! I've become the latest one! Well, I'm planning on getting plenty more in! It seems Big Ron is back and foiling my plans! He and his big nose cannot stop me! --Elvis is King (talk) 00:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I am not convinced. The alternative narrative is that someone has hacked the user name/password file of CP, and is reviving old signons, including Ron's. It is very strange that Ken is deleting old user and user talk pages, just as this is happening, and doing so under a sock account. I miss Ameriwiki. The people were colorful, but intelligent and not as mean as CP. People in general have a lot of common sense. They suspend disbelief to enjoy a good movie like Star Wars. Some people are so immersed in the Star Wars "reality" that they write fan fiction. This is a useful model for understanding the current CP editor corps. I believe that the current CP authors are writing Donald Trump fan fiction, after suspending disbelief in reading his tweets and breitbart.com. All of the crew from Amerikiki pre-date Breitbart/Donald Trump. Taylor Swift is remarkably charming and innocent compared with Donald Trump, his family and friends.

Another alternative theory is that some of the new editors are actually socks of Andy and Ken. They want to create the impression that there are more people who are active editors than in fact exist. So, rather than profess that User:Conservative is multiple people, I believe that Andy and Ken now actively sock. Hclodge (talk) 09:12, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

DT fanfic does exist - look it up.

As Grignr would say Mrifk! 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:43, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

RobSmith and the collaboration between Trump and the Russians

The CP editor with the most experience with the modus operandi of the Russians in RobSmith, who has done extensive research into the cold war. Assuming that current press reports are true and that Donald Trump Jr met with six or seven people, including an ex-KGB agent, I wonder what Rob thinks of this. Was this a soft test to see if Trump would report the contact? Were the Russians working with the Trump campaign to microtarget their propaganda efforts? Conservapedia has been strangely silent on their reporting of these developments. Hclodge (talk) 21:58, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps the snide websites he uses for "extensive research" haven't confronted the issue yet. London Grump (talk)

Here's all you need to know about nobs. A list of unarmed black men so long I can't recall more than a dozen names, all of them shot dead by the cops, usually in the back? Had it coming! Shouldn't have looked so threatening! No trend here! One, single unarmed white lady? THEY'RE COMIN' FOR US! Semipenultimate (talk) 22:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok, here's a rundown on what's known.

• Early June 2016. Clinton donors hire FusionGPS which employs Rinat Akhmetshin and Natalia Veselnitskaya who are involved in illegal unregistered lobbying to repeal Russian sanctions (the Magnitsky Act, authored by John McCain). FusionGPS hires Christopher Steele who authors the Steele dossier.

• 9 June. Rinat Akhmetshin and Natalia Veselnitskaya, working for FusionGPS, meet with Donald Trump Jr.

• 27 June. Bill Clinton-Loretta Lynch tarmack meeting. Bill reports Don Jr successfully compromised in FusionGPS operation, giving probable cause for FISA warrant.

• Late June. Lynch seeks FISA warrant to eavesdrop on Trump and associates.

• 8 May 2017. Eric and Donald Trump Jr. summoned to FBI headquarters for emergency meeting with Dir. Comey, bureau cybersecurity agents and CIA representatives. Comey leans on Don Jr hard with plea bargain in effort to get Don Jr to implicate higher ups. In the tradition of J Edgar Hoover, Comey is trying to blackmail Trump Sr.

• 9 May. Comey fired.

• 11 May. Mueller hired. Comey, thinking he's on to something hot, leaks allegations of obstruction of Justice.

• 8 June. Comey testifies to Congress. Don Jr sends out 80 tweets during hearing, still fuming over Comey's treatment.

There's the theory in outline. I'll be happy to entertain questions. nobs^{Aloha Snackbar} 22:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

If you're happy to entertain questions, why not answer the one you were asked. What do you think of it all? Remember to use footnotes for the air of authenticity. London Grump (talk) 12:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Hclodge's questions? Ok. No, this was a Clinton machine operation to harass and compromise the Trump organization and get the foreign intelligence gathering apparatus on them. An easy task, being the Trump organization are business people and novices in the political arena. This phenomenon is discussed here: "attempts to silence, censor and stifle its opposition through intimidation and harassment, and encourages law enforcement scrutiny of opponents". Russia has no connection with the Trump campaign. This was Clinton operatives collusion with unregistered Russian agents efforts to repeal sanctions. nobs^{Aloha Snackbar} 15:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey nobs, it's fairly impossible to speak with you on a human level because, as I've said before, you're insanely biased against the Clintons. You think they're mass murdering child molesters, and as such, no activity is below them and every single thing they do is presumed to be motivated by this deep, satanic evil they have inside of them. All of your logical processes are tainted by this irrationality. So here's my 2 questions, nobs, I'm going to start small and work up from there: 1. On 1/19/2009, was the closing value of the Dow Jones Industrial Average 7949? 2. On 1/19/2017, was the closing value of the Dow Jones Industrial Average 19742.58? These are yes-no questions, and the facts they reference are easily found, non-controversial matters of public record. Semipenultimate (talk) 15:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

(A) What does that have to do with Hillary gate and the Obamagate scandal?, and (B) I should hope so the Dow be that high. Where else do you suppose all the cash pumped into the system by quantative easing and Maiden Lane Transactions should be? If it wasn't in Dow stocks, we'd have uncontrollable inflation right now with all that cash walking around on the streets. Those increases do not reflect any productivity gains or increases in real wealth. nobs^{Aloha Snackbar} 18:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

What it has to do with all the connections you are creating is your willingness to have two wildly different evidentiary standards between the way you think about Donald Trump and the way you think about Bill & Hillary Clinton. Your avid consumption of every piece of nonsense, from Vince Foster up to and including a child slavery ring run out of a pizza shop, confirms it. Hillary shall be viewed with monster-colored glasses; thus two people running into each other in an airport is spoke of in hushed, breathless tones by bloody-minded conspiracy theorists with twenty-year grudges to settle. Almighty Trump shall be viewed with saint-colored glasses, through which his constantly-shifting explanations for the deep connections with Russia are hand waved off. This is the exact reason I left the Republican party, when the bullshit parade began to drum up support for the invasion of Iraq. By the time shock and awe happened, just about every Republican had lined up to agree it would be free, nobody would die, and they'd love us forever, despite vast evidence to the contrary. Reality was abandoned and hard truths ignored. AND NONE OF YOU HAVE FUCKING LEARNED A GODDAMN THING SINCE THEN. You just keep doubling down, and now somehow Barack Obama is running a vast conspiracy while simultaneously on the best year-long vacation I've ever seen. Semipenultimate (talk) 17:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

(Up front let me state, I have never posted anything anywhere in mainspace about the alleged pizzagate scandal. May have made one or two nuetral to disparaging comments in discussion somewhere, but nothing implying anything). Overall, the current scandal is not partisan. The Iraq war was not partisan. If anything, John McCain's complicity in the mess created since the Arab Spring ought to be apparent, and I am working hard to hold him and others to account in the historical record. McCain plays big in the Russia scam, too.

Only a true blind partisan would ignore the Lynch-Bill Clinton meeting, and I have enough solid sources all around - if not Lynch's & Comey's own words - to condemn it. As to Trump, as stated earlier, the real scandal is in money laundering, not election hacking. You guys have wasted a year pissing in the wind and barking up the wrong tree. Good. Now that you've destroyed your own credibility, we can get to facts with less noise. No one is more anxious for facts and evidence than me. nobs^{Aloha Snackbar} 22:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok, so you're not a pizzagate believer. I believe you! I agree with you! Pizzagate is a pack of lies put out by people with an agenda who don't care about the truth! Now please let me know if you believe any of the people on this list were not, emphasis not, murdered by the Clintons: James McDougal, Mary Mahoney, Vince Foster, C. Victor Raiser II, Paul Tully, Ed Willey, Hershell Friday, Luther "Jerry" Parks, John Wilson, Kathy Ferguson, Bill Shelton, Gandy Baugh, Donald Rogers, Stanley Huggins, Florence Martin, Susan Coleman, Paula Gober, Paul Wilcher, Jon Parnell Walker, Ron Brown (+34 others in the plane), Barbara Wise, Charles Meissner, Kevin Ines, Don Henry, Keith Coney, Keith McKaskle, Gregory Collins, Jeff Rhodes, James Milan, Jordan Ketelsen, Stanley Heard, Steve Dickson, John Hillier, Maj. Gen. William Robertson, Col. William Densberger, Col. Robert Kelly, Spec. Gary Rhodes, Steve Willis, Robert Williams, Conway LeBleu, Todd McKeehan, Sgt. Brian Haney, Sgt. Tim Sabel, Maj.William Barkley, Capt. Scott Reynolds, Gary Johnson, Dennis Patrick, L.J. Davis, and, gasp for breath, Larry Nichols? As I said earlier, you don't even need to be complete! Simply identify _any_ one of these, just one, as having died for reasons other than being murdered by BC/HC or the theoretical conspiracy that represents them. Semipenultimate (talk) 21:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment: of all the source links provided, the ABC News from May 8th, the day before Comey's firing, is the most interesting. Here we learn an unsuccessful "overseas cyber attack" was the email chain received arranging the June 9 2016 meeting. nobs^{Aloha Snackbar} 19:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Update: This item from RT a few hours ago almost certainly confirms Natalia Veselnitskaya is a Putin operative. The public evidence now is virtually conclusive that FusionGPS & Russia colluded together to influence the Obama Justice Department and US intelligence community to harass the Trump organization. This is not to say as the investigation progresses things can't be twisted, as they usually are. It seems Leftist critics think this is the smoking gun after a year of innuendo. In fact, the investigation is only beginning after the media destroyed it's crediblity over hacking. It never was about election hacking. It has always been about sanctions violations of the Magnitsky Act. nobs^{Aloha Snackbar} 03:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Update: How do we know this is so? In the link, Veselnitskaya lays all the blame on Bill Browder. Browder is the guy who lobbied Sen. John McCain to author the targeted Russian sanctions bill (Magnitsky Act) which Obama signed. Browder is Putin's archenemy responsible for the sanctions. Putin has had trouble getting his side of the story told; (basically, Browder, an American, invested $350 million in Russia when the Cold War ended. He & Putin were best friends. Corruption in Russia ripped off his $350 million. Browder sent an accountant, Magnitsky, to investigate. Putin's boys threw Magnitsky in jail and sent Browder a big tax bill. Magnitsky was serving a one year sentence, and died on the 357 day just before his release. Of course this pissed Browder off, and told John McCain all about it. When Putin took the Crimea, targeted sanctions were leveled against all the gangsters involved in stealing Browder's money. Putin has been trying to get the sanctions lifted by discrediting Browder & Magnitsky's tale of events, which Veselnitskaya does here now before an audience that never heard Putin's version because of the sanctions.) nobs^{Aloha Snackbar} 03:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

It's a thing of real beauty watching the insane right in the US desperately trying to spin this into an anti-Clinton and Obama mess and to try to claim that Trump is entirely innocent. And the latest one for you to try to blame Clinton and Obama for nobs? How Trump lied about having a second, essentially private, meeting with Putin at the G20. Go on, find a way to blame Clinton and Obama for yet another lie Trump has been caught telling. Oldusgitus (talk) 05:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

See, this is why we gotta address the opioid crisis. If you think you're on to anything at all cause Putin and Trump talk, you really need to stay away from that pill bottle. nobs^{Aloha Snackbar} 07:15, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm British, our socialised National Health Service isn't like the US where you can apparently get opoids just by saying you want them and paying your doctor to give them to you. We don't have an opoid crisis, we leave that to people like Rush Limbaugh in the US and other right wing nutters who deny that their president and his family colluded illegally with an enemy power to subvert the US constitution. You don't know a right wing nutter who is in that kind of state of denial do you by any chance nobs? Oldusgitus (talk) 09:49, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

A tip: you'd do good to drop the word collusion. It's only s boomerang. nobs^{Aloha Snackbar} 22:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

---

Andy Schlafly's weekly column at WND

The latest zingers by Andrew Schlafly, the general counsel to the Association of American Physicians & Surgeons and founder of Conservapedia.com. Enjoy! --larron (talk) 11:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Is it me, or did Joseph Farah think Andy was a dick? I know Phyllis wrote for WND but I seem to remember Farah being blunt about Conservapedia. London Grump (talk) 18:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

It was the Conservapedia Bible Project that really did it. A few pieces were written, some words went back and forth, nobody really rocked the lunatic boat too much. Ironically, changing the Bible is one thing Andy and I agree on! I present the brand new Ephesians 6:5-9: "Slaves, rise up against your masters, for slavery is of the Devil. Serve wholeheartedly, until such time as their guard is down, and then strike quickly. Masters, free your slaves and give them your worldly wealthy, and beg for their mercy, and for the LORD'S, for slavery is of the Devil, and so is the slave-master." For some reason, no takers. Semipenultimate (talk) 22:06, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Coservapedia's racism confirmed

If a white policeman kills a black person then always back the policeman not matter what the circumstances. If a non white policeman kills a white person then we have this.[9]--Mercian (talk) 19:38, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Their racism was confirmed when they wrote a positive article on the alt-right. Christopher (talk) 19:44, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

According to Rob's extensive research, excellent contacts and I authoritative footnotes, "The shooting is not a race issue, as many are trying to make it. Mohammad Noor executed shariah law on a woman who ratted out his Somali Muslim homies.". I would link to it, but, seeing as he sees them as some kind of objective validation, he can nurture his own Google rankings.London Grump (talk) 07:27, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you are not grasping the full extent of this issue. Follow it in the Minneapolis Star/Tribune or St Paul Pioneer Press/Gazette, or any other twin city site. It is not a race issue. It is multiculturalism itself on trial in a city and state that deems itself the nesting place of social democracy in America. Minneapolis has a large, highly educated Swedish dominance, that mirrors the social experiments of its motherland. Minneapolis is probably the only city in America (if not the world) that has a Dept. of Human Rights. Minneapolis had, up until yesterday, the first and only lesbian gay married chief of police in America. HMOs, a form of single payer, were invented in Minneapolis in the 1970s. Hubert Humphreyu, more than JFK or LBJ, is considered the father of the modern civil rights movement in the Democratic party. Minneapolis was specifically selected by the federal immigration authorities for resettlement of black Somalian Muslims based on all these factors, and the experience of experiments conducted in their homeland Sweden. Minnesotans are not only aware of these factors, they formulated this plan themselves. Now comes a backlash against shariah (this video was made in the MinniApple) which they have been in denial about since this experiment began.

As noted elsewhere, Americans do not have free speech restrictions as Sweden & the EU have. We can talk openly. This is not a race issue, it is a shariah vs women's rights and public safety issue. nobs^{Aloha Snackbar} 19:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Fuck off, Rob. You know bugger all about the world outside the US, as you prove time and time again.

I'm in the UK and I can say and write the same kind of ignorant paranoid bullshit you do. I choose not to because I stick to stuff I know about. I'm sure you can prove me wrong with an op-ed or blog by someone else who knows fuck all about the rest of the world, someone who's frightened, embittered world view vindicates your outlook without too much concern for reality, but that's the way it is.

Fact is once again one of your trigger happy cops killed someone. But this time you can twist the cop's ethnicity into your simplistic narrative.

If it walks like a narrow minded bigoted duck, and quacks like a narrow minded bigoted duck...London Grump (talk) 22:42, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

This is an interesting case, and look at the facts. Mpls has a trigger-happy, undertrained, scared shitless, Uncle Tom token Somali on the force as a PR move to create a "role model" for Somali youth, and improve relations with the Somali community. Bottle rockets were being set off in the neighborhood that night - the perfect cover story for the cop hearing a "bang". Normally in officer involved shootings, the department hangs together. The chief returns from vacation 4 days later, gets briefed on the facts and says publicly "this shouldn't have happened", thus blaming the cop. Chief gets shitcanned the next day by the mayor. What's wrong with this picture? Ironically, the shooter is still on the force. nobs^{Aloha Snackbar} 04:03, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

At heart is multicultural tokenism. The city's broader objective at integration can't be forever marred and police/Somali relations marred because of one guys fuck up. We're very familiar with these stories. It took 4 dead girls before the US Navy ever had it's first female land a plane on an aircraft carrier, or the first female FBI agent killed on the line of duty was shot by a fellow agent cause we're never trained to consider a woman running in high heals might be an agent. But we learn from these things, and progress. nobs^{Aloha Snackbar} 04:18, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Would you say that these problems essentially stemmed from (or were exacerbated by) the simple involvement of women in the aforementioned contexts? I.e., do you feel that negative outcome could've likely been avoided (or reduced) in these scenarios, had the relevant women — ceteris paribus — been men? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:01, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

The deaths are the result of an active social experiment to build a multi-racial, multi-ethnic society based on equality. Social engineering. Progress, or Progressivism. The social engineers promoting "transformational change" (these were the words Hodges used even after the shooting) typically don't make full disclosure of the risks to innocent people or active participants. The risks being death, be it by accidents which could be avoided, or murder, in what is essentially a controlled experiment. nobs^{Aloha Snackbar} 15:45, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

The mayor was elected to improve relations between citizens and police. To understand what's happening in Mpls, read this item from a year ago. Some snipits: time for change on policing and race; a new culture of accountability; Mayor Betsy Hodges, right, and Police Chief Janeé Harteau, seen at a May 14 news conference, have launched several initiatives to improve interactions between officers and residents; Minneapolis is a leader in this work nationwide. We are doing things few other cities have done... nobs^{Aloha Snackbar} 16:11, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Answer the question, Rob. London Grump (talk) 20:35, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

No. There probably were several, if not even more male deaths back in the 1920s when air carriers were invented, and more with each technical upgrade over the decades. The point is, the Defense Dept., under a mandate from Congress, needed to produce a female aviator, regardless of cost. nobs^{Aloha Snackbar} 15:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

"The deaths are the result of [the existence of the United States of America]. [People being treated equally under the law.] Progress, or [the idea that we can come to a better understanding of each other and so grow as people]. The [people trying to stop us from hating each other all the time for bullshit reasons] promoting [the concept of hope] typically don't [automatically pre-judge people based on their skin color or past]. The risks being [an immigrant cop might shoot an innocent person] in [the United States of America]. [Native, non-black cops may do that all the time, but I don't have a problem with any of that, just this one time.]" Fixed your words. Semipenultimate (talk) 17:18, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Here's a good read on the Inspector General's report on the competition to produce the first female fighter pilot ("the women are going to graduate regardless of how they performed....this is bigger than all of us, these women are going to graduate no matter what." ... The Inspector General suggested that publicists wanted fliers to earn their wings regardless of their performance: "The failure of any single female aviator would have implications (at least in the media) far greater than the concerned individual. Failure would be portrayed as a failure of the female gender." The point is, why do people have to die, and in the Noor case, an innocent civilian who trusted the police, to meet a timetable for social engineering? Are there ethical concerns here?

Let me add, I fully understand the City, from the Mayor's office on down, concerns to cover up the facts of the case and support the Officer. It probably was an accident, and one guy's mistake cannot jeapordize the city & police department's future relations with the Somali community. The question is over the ethics of social engineering when the public is not fully informed of the risks. nobs^{Aloha Snackbar} 17:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

The 'It probably was an accident, and one guy's mistake' nobs needs to have a conversation with the 'Mohammad Noor executed shariah law on a woman who ratted out his Somali Muslim homies' nobs, because those are two wildly contradicting statements about the exact same person in the exact same situation. Semipenultimate (talk) 18:30, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Where does the "women and ethnics need to know their place" Rob come in? London Grump (talk) 19:54, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Heads up: Blacks are tired of liberals (@2:55). This is significant, coming from the MinniApple where liberal programs are field tested for the rest of America. nobs^{Aloha Snackbar} 01:40, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

A word about the MinniApple: it is the end of the earth going west from the Big Apple. There is nothing of comparable size til you get to Seattle, and nothing of comparable size going north til you get to St. Petersberg, Russia. It's a regional center. nobs^{Aloha Snackbar} 01:52, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Again: the 'It probably was an accident, and one guy's mistake' nobs needs to have a conversation with the 'Mohammad Noor executed shariah law on a woman who ratted out his Somali Muslim homies' nobs, because those are two wildly contradicting statements about the exact same person in the exact same situation. Semipenultimate (talk) 15:05, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

(A) I was articulating the word on the street and popular sentiment in contrast to liberal/commie media talking points in the cover up narrative (it is NOT a black-white race issue); if anything, Black Lives Matter activist ought to see now why and how police shooting coverups occur, from the mayor on down, for the "good of the community"; (B) my revised statement was based on the facts of the investigation. nobs^{Aloha Snackbar} 18:06, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

And a final point on Mayor Hodges: it should not be overlooked that Betsy Hodges upholds the tradition of Minneapolis mayors in the global spotlight, Hubert Humphrey, founder of the human rights movement, and Don Fraser, author of the DNC's elitist Superdelegate rule. nobs^{Aloha Snackbar} 18:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Update from local KSTP tv: Authorities Searched Damond's Home; Law Prof Believes That Could 'Cause An International Incident. nobs^{Aloha Snackbar} 01:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and? The exact same efforts are made every time an unarmed black person is murdered by police - try and find unsavory details of their lives, a photo on the Internet that's easy to misuse, search for drugs, insinuate malevolence whenever possible, find friends with criminal records and publicize the connection, characterize them as 'aggressive' or assign great importance to what they did wrong in hindsight (stood still? -> too rigid, hiding something; didn't stand still? -> fidgety, worried, hiding something), to make it clear that whatever did happen, they had it coming. Destroy their character, make what happened OK. In this case, the white lady hitted the cop car and fireworks were going off. Maybe she was all potted up on the demon weed, which is what made her so aggressive, like a charging bull! Philando Castile and Justine Damond were both murdered by police officers, full stop. You see so much police abuse here in this singular case, yet you see absolutely none, none whatsoever, whenever a black person is the victim. If you could indicate one black person killed by police for bad/wrong/no reason over the last decade, in addition to this one white lady, it'd be much appreciated. Doesn't have to be Michael Brown, but Philando Castile would be a good one, since his murder was recorded. Maybe Walter Scott - he was unarmed and shot in the back, and the cop lied on his police report about it. Maybe just look at these two images, and tell me if you see any differences in the way the two individuals are being presented to the world? https://twitter.com/SvmmieArnold/status/498892967231238144 Semipenultimate (talk) 22:38, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Rob Smith proven right again

Tillerson leaving. Here are the actual facts. nobs^{Aloha Snackbar} 18:13, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Tillerson was basically hired as a lobbyist for the revised Russia sanctions bill. Now that he's failed, there's no need for him. Putin has to wait till after the 2020 election when Trump has more flexibility. nobs^{Aloha Snackbar} 18:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

You're confusing us with Conservapedia again. London Grump (talk) 21:43, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Nobs makes a very important point with this example. Phyllis Schlafly viewed the total Republican landscape and decided to bet on Trump in 2016. She has passed away, and cannot revisit that decision. Andy as a loving son, is stuck in "back-Trump-to-the-end" mode out of a sense of loyalty to his mother. Suppose establishment Republicans like Tillerson, Paul Ryan, and Mitch McConnell run for the exits as the un-Presidential behavior and Russia ties become too much to tolerate. Where does Andy lead Conservapedia as alliances and old-Republican-money shift quickly? He is currently pro-Breitbart, pro-Trump and anti-Government Health Care, anti-Koch and anti-RINO. If Breitbart becomes anti-Trump or Trump becomes pro-Government Health Care, or Phyllis Schlafly's big money donors scatter in different directions, does Andy have the smarts to stay in the game as a player? Once Trumpcare replaces Obamacare, can he sell his clients on funding a legal challenge to that new law? Will home=schooled students pay him to teach them about the President's pardon power as applied to friends, family and self? Hclodge (talk) 17:04, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey, Rob, what are the shonky websites saying about Scaramucci (sp?)? London Grump (talk) 23:48, 31 July 2017 (U

I understand that Conservatives are very wary of foreign investment. A Chinese company is trying to buy Mooch's firm. Does CP or admirers of Donald Trump want to see the State Dept approve the deal? Hclodge (talk) 19:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Conservapedia:Best of Conservapedia

Is it just me, or is the list no longer visible due to a glitch?^t 15:31, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

It is indeed broken. -Xbony2 (talk) 01:05, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

RationalWiki:Technical support#Conservapedia:Best of Conservapedia^t 10:20, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

User:1990sguy

I question whether putting these important discussions under collapse templates really advances the discussion. If you read them you will see that they say more about Andy than 1990sguy. Hclodge (talk) 13:37, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Mission drift

Is there anyone left at Conservapedia who is trying to write an online encyclopedia? Over the years, people dedicated to encyclopedia writing would be kicked off Wikipedia and find a home at Conservapedia. The remaining active editors do not seem interested in this any more:

• Aschlafly - no longer care about the material being accurate and up to date. When JDano pointed out that editors should go back and note on cp:Donald Trump achievements when a court overturns a rule on judicial review, he disagreed noting "a court ruling against an action by Trump does not erase the achievement."
• 1990sguy - seems more intent of compiling a bullet point list of Breitbart articles discussing alleged Trump accomplishments than in writing unbiased prose.
• nobs - still working to compile his CIA-centric world view one bullet point at a time.
• DavidB4 - college student who seems sincerely dedicated to the project.
• Conservative - mostly on Homosexuality and atheism.

Hardly anything happening to build an encyclopedia

Bullshit. My Arab Spring article, an ambiguous term, is the definitive text you'll find on the Obama legacy anywhere. Still needs some copyediting. But as the Obama Presidential Library Archives are opened, we can fill in the blanks to support the definitive text. nobs^{Aloha Snackbar} 19:24, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

We love you too, but neutral prose counts more than bullet lists when building an encyclopedia. Where did everyone else go? Hclodge (talk) 19:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

It is (semi) neutral prose. Have a look. It's an eye-opener. nobs^{Aloha Snackbar}`

Dear Rob, above you say "Bullshit". I totally agree, a better word cannot be found to describe your article. Although it is less "Bullshit" than all the other articles on Conservapedia. How very sad.--Mercian (talk) 21:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Assuming the article is accurate and well-researched, what credibility can it have when it is hosted on a site that is a fake news aggregator? Hclodge (talk) 08:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

The Dunning-Kruger is strong in this one. Don't go changing, Rob. It will be a long time til we come across someone as blissfully full of shit as you. Definitive text indeed. London Grump (talk) 11:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Andy's leadership style

I think that an alternative to Wikipedia was a very powerful and timely idea back in 2005 or 2006. Conservapedia was doomed due to Andy's lack of judgment and leadership style. For Andy, it must hurt to see CP's readership decline, and it must hurt to see the number of page edits decline as well. But the real gut punch must have been that Donald Trump took a doctored WWE video posted on Redit and tweeted it out to the world. In the old days, Presidents would quote poets or recommend book authors. Now Donald Trump is elevating a Redit video editor to national prominence, instead of some witty bullet from Conservapedia. As of today, it is "cool" to hang out and post on Redit's Donald Trump forum, but not "cool" to hang out with Andy regurgitating bullets from breitbart.com and whitehouse.gov. Hclodge (talk) 09:44, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

If you read Conservapedia five to ten years ago, there was a preoccupation with religion and moral values. Hence, the Conservative Bible Project and Ken's series on beastiality and atheism. Today, it is Donald Trump 24/7. Ken is even working on a new essay singing his praises. Has worshiping at the alter of Donald Trump replace religion as of Jan 20, 2017? What happens if it turns out that President Trump has clay feet, does not have a coherent foreign policy and fails to delivery on his (somewhat internally inconsistent) set of campaign promises? Conservapedia is "all in" on Donald Trump, even if he is not a traditional conservative. Hclodge (talk) 04:06, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

If and when Trump falls out of favour with the CP crowd, they will all deny that they ever supported him and claim that they always thought he was a RINO. All of the pages singing his praises will disappear and they will burn any evidence that those pages were ever there. Oceania is at war with East Asia. It has always been at war with East Asia. Spud (talk) 07:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Ah yes, 'Donald Trump's glorious victories'. It looks like something they'd have written for Stalin when he starved seven million Ukrainians to death - 'A glorious victory over thieves and wreckers!'. For people who think homosexuals should be imprisoned or forcibly 'converted', they're really eager to get on their knees and work for that gravy. Semipenultimate (talk) 15:37, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

From reading Andy's talk page, 1990sguy spent July 14 following around JDano reverting all of his edits. He then went running to Andy and posed a "Dispute resolution request". In essence, 1990sguy said either JDano goes or I go. Before JDano could reply, Andy said, sure, block him. JDano then explained his concerns with 1990sguy's edits, and Andy came back after actually reading the edits in question, with:

JDano, I find 1990'sguy to have made justifiable criticisms, and he is free to use his blocking authority. In addition to changing the introduction of the popular gun control entry in a way that obscured the liberal push for it, you inserted this sentence: "So, to the extent that opponents of gun control laws claim that the government is trying to "take away" guns, such [forfeiture] provisions are the focus of their concerns." [20] That is not what most opponents of gun control are focusing on when they talk about the government trying to take away guns.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:28, 15 July 2017 (EDT)[10]^img

So, 1990sguy has gotten yet another long-time editor voted off the island. Hclodge (talk) 21:28, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

At 1990guy request, Andy blocked JDano based upon his edits of Public Schools in the United States^img Hclodge (talk) 22:41, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Andy seems to be more active lately after months of inactivity. It is not clear whether his increased engagement helps or hurts the site. Hclodge (talk) 19:33, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump achievements

On January 3, 2017, cp:Donald Trump achievements started out as an interesting article. Trump had promised to achieve a lot on "his first day" and during his first 100 days in office, and the idea of an objective article that tracks whether Trump met his promises could be interesting to readers. The article quickly became politicized by User:1990sguy, who many suspect is a parodist. Anything mentioned on breitbart.com became an achievement, and any "failure" added by other users was reverted as premature. According to 1990sguy, the fact that corporate earnings increased in the first half of 2017 is a Trump achievement and not the result of Obama's economic policy. Rather than try to collaborate with other editors, 1990sguy repeatedly ran to Andy's talk page. His standard for achieving agreement is:

If you still disagree with me, please go and convince the site's owner to agree with you.[11]

It has been a long time since an editor has argued "We are here to do what Andy would want" instead of "We are here to follow the Conservapedia commandments." The harder 1990sguy labors to show that Donald Trump has had countless achievements, the more he makes a case that very little has been achieved. Hclodge (talk) 09:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

1990sguy is starting nuclear war. In essence, he is adding bias to other people's writing and then goes running to Andy if anyone pushes back or reverts. 1990sguy is too busy to actually read and think about other people's edits, so he is complaining to Andy about inaccurate edit summaries. In response, Andy threatened:

Misleading or inadequate edit summaries are a justification for blocking, whether the edits themselves are considered actual vandalism or not. In addition, any editor who repeatedly distracts productive editors should be blocked, and will be blocked. No further justifications are needed.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 16:35, 15 August 2017 (EDT)

,

The context of the dispute was that 1990sguy wrote that President Trump had denounced black lives matter as "anti-police" when in fact, the official transcript of the speech (as well as the media reports) show that Trump did not expressly mention black lives matter. Instead of admitting that he was wrong, 1990sguy complained to Andy about inaccurate edit summaries. In response, this new essay appeared: cp:Essay:Truth and accuracy matter^img 1990sguy is busy adding inflammatory stuff into JDano's text and Andy claims that JDano (rather than 1990sguy) is an "editor who repeatedly distracts productive editors". Hclodge (talk) 18:27, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, 1990s guy is a reasonably subtle parodist who slowly but surely is working his way into Andy's favour. JDano is a deluded type who thinks he can make the site more reasonable. His days are numbered--Mercian (talk) 22:51, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

You may be right. 1990sguy blocked JDano again today for inserting neutral statements about Trump's transgender tweet and his Phoenix campaign rally into cp:Mainstream media and Donald Trump. The article had started out as an interesting exploration of how those two interacted. Now that 1990sguy has discovered the article, he is turning it into a pro-Trump megaphone of how the Mainstream media (except for Fox and Breitbart) is hounding our poor, defenseless President. Not that I want to dox anyone but 1990sguy has given out inconsistent information about his age, his country of residence, and his educational background. This leads me to agree with Mercian that his is not what he presents himself to be. At least Breitbart is refreshingly candid about what it is: a clickbait site that sells ads to people who can't resist an admittedly outrageous headline. Conservapedia has its commandments (as well as the unique insights of Andy), but is trying to convert into a Breitbart want-to-be. Hclodge (talk) 23:18, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

As one cannot enumerate the set of real numbers, one cannot bullet-point the true beauty of the set of achievements of Donald Trump. They are a continuous flow never rising above a reasonable reader's threshold of detection. But then we have Breitbart to do that for us. Paid Breitbart staff is under orders to turn every non-story or non-achievement into a story about a successful Trump achievement. 1900sguy then must reword each Breitbart story into a bullet, without regard for whether it really was the Trump Administration's achievement. Take Trump's campaign promise to build a wall on the Mexican border and make Mexico pay for it -- no failure there. How many hundreds of bullets will I have to read before Trump and the Congress pass a major piece of legislation? Hclodge (talk) 09:44, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Will Donald Trump's greatest achievement be the decision of the rest of the world to no longer rely upon the US to be the world's police-person/policing-the-world state? Anna Livia (talk) 10:30, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

All Donald Trump achievements represent his imposing his will over the considered policy preferences of others. Any independent thought or "blacklash" is not factored into his thinking. Therefore, any beneficial but unintended consequence of his action is outside the Conservapedia definition of "Donald Trump achievement." Consider this proposition:

Putin controls Donald Trump
Trump's policies are driving the world away from US leadership
Hence, Putin gets his goal.

Hclodge (talk) 11:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

As we have already noted 1990sguy has expanded his personal fiefdom from cp:Donald Trump achievements to cp:Mainstream media and Donald Trump an article that had been the product of other editors. His heavy-handed editing has resulted in an essay fork by User:JDano: Mirrored here So far, the only reaction has been a talk page comment from Ken, which Ken quickly deleted. It will be interesting to see how 1990sguy reacts because the contrast between the essay and 1990sguy's article shows many problems with how the non-essay version handles the material. Hclodge (talk) 16:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Ken kills off the freedom to Essay

Probably the most sophisticated feature of Conservapedia is how it handles internal dissent. After all, it was founded to be unlike Wikipedia which can be very brutal in handling minority views. They came up with Essays as the way to allow expression of dissents. Even the strange outlier TheAmericanRedoubt still has essays on the site reflecting his unique world view. On Tuesday, two editors sought to address long-standing editorial differences by creating the essays cp:Essay:Mainstream media and Donald Trump (now deleted userfied at: cp:User:JDano/Essay:Mainstream media and Donald Trump) and cp:Essay:Pussy Riot - an Anti-Putin Perspective. 1990sguy took this as a personal affront and went running to Andy demanding that the former be deleted. Andy responded that it should not attack him, and an appropriate change was made. 1990sguy went running back to Andy's talk page to no avail. Finally, Ken stepped in and moved the essay to a user subpage on the grounds that it was too similar to the cp:Mainstream media and Donald Trump article. Ken wanted it to be 80% different (not 80% more accurate) under threat of the user subpage being deleted. So, Ken felt free to delete it as an essay, and as a user subpage because it exposed 1990sguy's sloppy scholarship and misuse of sources because readers don't like articles that are too similar to each other. Ken invented a secret magic tool to measure the degree to which articles are different and was sharing the tool with 1990sguy "so he can evaluate your efforts in an objective way." Having realized how flawed this approach was, Ken just deleted the page both as an essay and as a user subpage. As a parodist, 1990sguy has been more effective at tearing down all of the poles in the circus tent than anyone before him. Hclodge (talk) 10:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

After 1990sguy spends the morning mindlessly edit warring, he gets Karajou to lock his preferred version and JDano makes another essay with his further research on Joe Arpaio. Meanwhile, silence from Andy. Hclodge (talk) 15:43, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

The rationale keeps shifting. 1990sguy looked at the biographic material, which has sentences different than WP and sources other than those appearing in WP, and claimed "The info that you added is essentially copied from WIKIPEDIA: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joe_Arpaio&oldid=799706221 The other changes insert left-wing bias (SPLC and ACLU are left-wing orgs, NOT "civil rights." JDano modified the bio further, but 1990sguy just kept reverting. However, Karajou adopted the rationale "Push to include biased liberal POV by JDano. So, 1990sguy does not want a biography in an alleged biography article because it distracts from his political narrative, and any wiki biography will be similar to the dreaded Wikipedia. Karajou is worried about facts containing liberal POV. Somehow a man with limited management experience in law enforcement, who showed a lack of competence and professionalism as county sheriff resulting in millions of dollars in lawsuits is being touted as a saint who got his pardon "noting his over 50 years of 'exemplary' public service". Hclodge (talk) 16:11, 11 September 2017 (UTC)