Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive87

This is an archive page, last updated 27 November 2009. 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>, <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>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>

, (new)(back)

This is an archive page, last updated 10 November 2008. 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>, <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>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>

, (new)(back)

BREAKING: DEAR GENTLEMAN AT ANOTHER WEBSITE - Neener neener! We fooled you!

As an official unofficial supporter and Obama Campaign volunteer, I can now confirm that the following rumors that plagued Barack Obama's candidacy are, in fact, true:

1. Obama is a Muslim. He in fact visited Reverend Wright's Christian church just to gather ideas about how to defeat Christianity.
2. Obama is not a natural-born citizen. In fact, he was born on Alpha Centauri Proxima Centauri, which did not become an American colony until 10 years after his birth.
3. Obama is a socialist. The groundwork of "socialism" already laid in America by the advent of progressive taxation & the New Deal were in fact just preparations made in anticipation of his eventual coming by FDR.
4. Obama is in fact a reverse racist. Many of his policies are written by white people who work under his brutal command in return for only a salary.

I'm sure there are more. As Drudge would say, developing...-caius (mission accomplished!) 02:48, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Not only that, he actually supports teh gays being a part of the United States of America, as he said in his victory speech. Oh noes, Ken! Bondurant 03:35, 5 November 2008 (EST)

I for one welcome the prospect of an America caught in the icy, iron-hard grip of Islamofascistcommunistterroristliberal rule.

I think you guys have made the right choice here, TBH. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 08:07, 5 November 2008 (EST)

You're also forgetting Obama is gay. Because someone, somewhere, anonymously said it on the internet, it must be true, according to Conservative's quoting principles. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 08:09, 5 November 2008 (EST)

I, for one, welcome our new Muslim overlords. Etc 08:15, 5 November 2008 (EST)

ALL HAIL THE OBAMANTI-CHRIST! ArmondikoV^pathetic 08:25, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Celebrate the start of the Obama Caliphate! Fretfulporpentine 09:27, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Barack the builder

Hasn't anyone mentioned his new catchphrase yet? Bob the Builder "Yes we can".

TOAST

^{and butter} 05:19, 5 November 2008 (EST)

He seemed to be emulating Martin Luther King, in my opinion. :P Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 08:01, 5 November 2008 (EST)

New? That's been his slogan since New Hampshire and Iowa.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 09:21, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Yes, per TomMoore, it's been his slogan since like ever. This speech was the first time I'd noticed him explicitly doing the callback thing with the audience — I'm sure he's done it before and I just wasn't watching and/or paying attention (but mostly not watching) — but I couldn't bring myself to get too cynical about it. Obama last night had earned the right to put on a little bit of MLK style, IMHO. :) By the way, a less pop-culturey Wikipedia link than Bob the Builder would have been Sí se puede. :) --Marty 16:58, 5 November 2008 (EST)

I got the impression that now that he has won, he could afford to be a little "blacker", if it's ok to put it that way. For almost two years - or even most of his life - he has had to downplay any aspect of what might be his "culture" that would scare the easily-scared white folk. He is finally free to embrace those aspects of himself in public. ħuman 15:48, 6 November 2008 (EST)

CP Database Errorz

A database query syntax error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software. The last attempted database query was:

(SQL query hidden)

from within function "MediaWikiBagOStuff::_doquery". MySQL returned error "1213: Deadlock found when trying to get lock; try restarting transaction (localhost)".

ZOMG! Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 08:01, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Ed Poor. Ignorant.

Yes Ed, it was probably "some African country." ...no need to think about WHICH ONE, since well, they all kind of look alike anyway, right? PFoster 08:59, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Isn't heaven for those who are poor in Spirit? I'm pretty sure that if such a thing as Spirit exists, Ed Poor doesn't have much of it. InaVegt 09:11, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Oh, I dunno. Judging by some of his wilder outpourings, he seems pretty full of spirit at times. Fretfulporpentine 09:21, 5 November 2008 (EST)

I don't think he was thinking of a specific country; he was just wryly saying that he is pretty sure one of the nations almost entirely run by blacks was probably the first to have a black President. You're probably reading it in a different way than he intended it.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 09:20, 5 November 2008 (EST)

To be fair, it was quite an innocent comment. But good find, they actually made an article more factual by narrowing it down that he was America's first black president. ArmondikoV^pathetic 09:26, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Ouch, for the second time in two days, I've to side with Ed Poor (yes, he was right about Kepler et co.,too):

• there were prior black presidents of African nations
• it's not so easy to find the first one, I'm afraid: e.g., P. Lumumba was the first non-white prime-minister of the Kongo ...

Can't imagine what happened if Ed Poor is right three times - he'll get granted a wish, I suppose :-) --LArron 09:30, 5 November 2008 (EST)

The first was Liberia's Joseph Jenkins Roberts in 1848. Rather interestingly, he was born in Virginia and was a Republican. Totnesmartin 09:36, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Ding! Ding! Ding! Totnesmartin gets it. Wasn't so hard, was it? (Would have also given credit for an answer pointing out that Ethiopia had black Prime ministers serving under various emperors dating back to God-knows-when.)PFoster 09:49, 5 November 2008 (EST)

I think my problem is with this sort of vague "some African country"--as though the continent is sort of an undifferentiated mass, from a guy who dedicated so much time to Wikipedia. Is that the sort of attitude he brought to Wikipedia? PFoster 09:53, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Actually I think Ed's even more wrong than that - Haiti became independent much earler than Liberia. So it wasn't "some African country" after all.--KrissAkabusiAwoogar 10:12, 5 November 2008 (EST)

FUCK FUCK FUCK. I should have known that. I'm an asshole and an idiot and a fraud. *hangs head in shame.* PFoster 10:15, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Yeah, it was a bit vague, but it's no different to "some south american country" or "some european country", you just have to stab for the general area. ArmondikoV^pathetic 10:24, 5 November 2008 (EST)

So, was it Jean Pierre Boyer of Haiti? --LArron 17:51, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Toussant L'overture was the first head of state of an independent Haiti, I believe, as "Governor-General for Life". Researcher 22:23, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Not quite-Toussaint was taken to France and died in a prison cell in 1802. Haiti only became fully independent from France in 1803. What he was charge of was still essentially a French colony. PFoster 22:42, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Didn't realize that. I thought he actually got them to freedom. My mistake. Researcher 22:50, 5 November 2008 (EST)

If we talked about black head of states, there would be a couple of pharaohs to be named first, I suppose. And those of the neighboring states, of course. --LArron 02:07, 6 November 2008 (EST)

What Must Hurt Most for Andy

He can console himself with Prop 8, but THE issue for the American Evangelical right is abortion. And voters in South Dakota and Colorado were having none of it last night--the people want legalised abortion. If you believe, as Andy does, that that means killing babies, that's gotta be hard to take...PFoster 10:10, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Well, if you ban abortion, you're still killing babies as banning a practice doesn't ban the desire or need for something, something Andy and the rest of the neo-con tribe don't usually understand. So, it'll just change from "killing babies" by safe medical ways to "killing babies" via a coat hanger and a bottle of bleach, probably killing the mother too... go figure, he's probably still needing a stiff whisky or two after yesterday/today (time zones, who'd have em, eh?).

After some extensive googling because I wasn't 100% sure what to look for, I assume Prop 8 the reason all my US friends have facebook statuses that are estactic about Obama but embarassed for California? ArmondikoV^pathetic 10:21, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Prop 8 is about the banning of same-sex marriages or anything even closely resembling it. InaVegt 10:26, 5 November 2008 (EST)

From a non-gay, non-US American standpoint all this is kind of fascinating. There must be some considerable overlap between the set of people open minded enough to vote for a black guy for president, but bigoted enough to discriminate against gay people. I guess that fight is going to take another 40 years. --JeevesMkII 11:03, 5 November 2008 (EST)

I don't know that bigoted is the right word. I voted against the equivalent proposition in my home state of Arizona (though it did pass) however I do have reservations over gay marriage. My thinking is that marriage is two separate institutions. The first is a secular institution based for which one must obtain a license with the government. The second is a religious instituion with historical and cultural import. I do believe that all people regardless of sexuality should have access to the secular institution of a "civil union" though I don't believe the government has the right to define marriage from a religious perspective. I voted against the amendment in AZ because I don't believe that a constitution should ever enshrine a negative right. Stile4aly 12:49, 5 November 2008 (EST)

If it was just marriage that was banned, it would be bearable, but the proposition bans everything resembling marriage as well. This is, effectively, saying that non-heterosexual love isn't real love. InaVegt 14:18, 5 November 2008 (EST)

I agree with you and I think it's a terrible shame that Prop 8, Prop 202, and all the other anti-gay marriage propositions passed. Stile4aly 16:31, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Hang on. Does Andy really believe that abortion is killing babies? I mean, sure, most bible belt evangelists do. But he's not a bible belt evangelist, right? Surely it's all about control. This is part of the ideology that Andy and the religious right leadership of which he is a junior member use to control the evangelist masses, surely? Or am I being over cynical? Ajkgordon 11:11, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Nah, the heartbreaking thing is as far as I can tell he really believes all this crap. You can respect people like televangelists. They're just out and out scammers, looking to cream a buck (or a million) from the credulous hordes. You can respect them in the same way as you can respect someone who perpetrates a righteous zero day exploit, these are people who have seen a hole in the system and are busy poking at it for all they're worth. Andy on the other hand is a true believer. He really does think abortion is a crime against god, or that drugs are somehow a moral issue, because as far as I can tell he has all the common sense of a newt. I'm not convinced his mother is so stupid though, I guess she just forgot to let her kids in on the secret. --JeevesMkII 11:31, 5 November 2008 (EST)

I can't respect scammers so I'm afraid your point rather passes me by. Ajkgordon 11:39, 5 November 2008 (EST)

I think you have it backwards Jeeves. Even though I disagree with the true believers, I can bring myself to "respect" them (where by respect I simply mean that I can accept that we may never reach any kind of agreement with such people). The same cannot be said for televangelists. These are cynical manipulative charlatans preying on the credulous within our society. They cannot be respected, and we should never cease our denounciation of them.-- Antifly ^{Now with 50% less retirement!} 11:50, 5 November 2008 (EST)

...And that's the kind of attitude that ensures there's yet another generation of mindless sheep for these predators and charlatans to prey on. Insisting that people should have respect for idiots just because they're idiots who happen to be acting ethically is just plain wrong. Look at it this way, televangelists often rake in millions of dollars a year and have fancy houses and lavish lifestyles. These people are very successful at what they do. You and I may find them distasteful, but intellectually there's no denying these people are smart, capable and motivated.

At best, their victims deserve our sympathy. Many of them have been brought up to believe at lot of nonsense about divine intervention, etc. Respect is going way too far. Quite frankly, if you carry on giving your hard earned money to some dapper shark with shiny teeth and a sharp suit even after it has been revealed that he's a liar and hypocrite, you're going to lose even the sympathy from me at least.

Perhaps this is simply an attitude somewhat unique to security professionals where the dividing line between attackers and defenders is often blurred or even non-existent. I spend quite a lot of my time attempting to break other people's software, sometimes just for fun. I try not to let it spill over in to unethical behaviour but I definitely have some admiration even for those with less scruples. --JeevesMkII 12:28, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Huh? I think the word respect might not mean what you think it means.

But I think I understand your point. I wouldn't use the word respect as in "respect your enemies" because these people are not deserving of it in any way. But yeah, we should respect the fact that they are predatory charlatans and successful at it.

But not respecting them does not mean disregarding them. Ajkgordon 12:34, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Hmm, yes we seem to have got our wires crossed. Respect (from dictionary.com). It seems that you meant definition 3, whereas I thought you meant definition 4. I agree with your point as well.-- Antifly ^{Now with 50% less retirement!} 13:10, 5 November 2008 (EST)

ECThis word "respect" seems to be used in differing ways. First off there is the respect that every human being is due simply for being human. That's one of the things that the Universal declaration of human rights comes in. Then there is the respect that we feel for people who actually do something well. There is the respect that many people feel that we should show to those older than ourselves. Then there is the respect that some people tell us we should hold for some ideas simply because they are of a particular type. (religious ideas for example. I don't quite understand that last one.--Bob^{bing up} 14:06, 5 November 2008 (EST)

The next saga: Al Franken

Andy's tossed aside the presidential election, abortion, and same-sex marriage, not giving any input whatsoever. He did post about Al Franken refusing to concede, like it's some liberal tactic, but Minnesota law automatically requires a recount of less than 0.5% voter margin. 571 votes out of 2.9 million is about 0.025%. I expect some lulzy discussions from this, especially since it'll take a while for the recount to be over. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 10:54, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Crank the Irony Meter to 11...-- Antifly ^{Now with 50% less retirement!} 11:10, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Eugh. Conservative Movement 2: This time it's personal. Seriously, if the Conservative movement is so personal, why can't you just not marry any gay people and let the rest of us do as we please? Sanctimonious little shite. --JeevesMkII 11:23, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Damn, CP has problem again... anyway, what you're forgetting, Jeeves, is the basic difference between Conservative and Liberal mindset. As a Liberal, if there is something I don't agree with (lets say handguns) I won't buy one, I think the country would be better off without them, but I'm not going to city hall to try and ban them (mostly because of the futility) however, when it's something Conservatives don't like, they feel the need to enshrine their hatred in legislation. But on the bright side, the Supreme Court will overturn all these bans soon. SirChuckB^{Further bulletins as events warrant} 13:18, 5 November 2008 (EST)

*cough* While I agree that banning (gay marriage/marijuana/abortion) is a bad idea, and while I agree that in practice the judiciary will just overturn the bans again anyway, it sounds like you're basically saying "Liberals don't take their grievances to City Hall... besides, we don't need to, because we own the courts." Also, liberal gun-banning laws are on the books in several states, right? I lost track of that D.C. measure; maybe it got overturned in the courts — but I'm sure there are more. And what about smoking? Just this morning I read an op-ed piece in a fairly reactionary California newspaper claiming that we ought to ban outdoor smoking in public places! Aren't there really just as many things that scare hardcore left-wingnuts as right-wingnuts? (Admittedly, it seems to me as if right-wingers want to ban things that do make their brains hurt, while left-wingers want to ban things that have only the potential to hurt their bodies: second-hand smoke, guns, pollution. But is that a philosophically meaningful distinction?) --Marty 17:12, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Sorry for the confusion, I try to keep responses short (I have Biden syndrome) and it leads to confusion. I don't think Liberals own the courts, and we do bring reforms to city hall, but for the most part, Liberals aren't itching to ban things they don't like. Sadly, it seems a lot of the bans we push through are to protect people from themselves. I think the second hand smoke bans are annoying and should be thrown out (and I'm a nonsmoker!) I won't deny that a good chunk of liberals do push for bans, but like you said, it seems to be that liberals ban things that have potential for harm and destruction (physical, not that stupid fundie soul destruction nonsense) whereas conservatives ban anything they don't personally like. SirChuckB^{Further bulletins as events warrant} 17:33, 5 November 2008 (EST)

The irony isn't lost on everyone.-- Antifly ^{Now with 50% less retirement!} 14:04, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Slowly updating Obama article

Their defeat is slowly setting in and the Obama article is slowing being updated to reflect that he is the President elect, though it still says he may be the first Muslim president if elected. Amazingly, it appears that the phrase "Affirmative Action President" has been removed, though I imagine Andy is going to put it back any second now. Also the Jennifer Hudson incident, which has slightly less than absolutely nothing to do with Obama, is now right there near the top of the intro. Andy, you are so pathetic it's almost painful. DickTurpis 13:36, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Any bets "And to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn - I may not have won your vote, but I hear your voices, I need your help, and I will be your President too." is going to fall on deaf ears over there. The moron brigade (i.e. Andy, JPatt, Ed and half a dozen parodists) are going to work themselves into an ever greater froth of hatred over the next 8 years. Magnanimous in defeat, like MCcain? Ha! Not a chance. (btw, Palin has noticeably absent from our news wires, think she's sulking too?) Their hate - I can't even call it political bias, they've gone way over that line - is too ingrained, for them ever to see even vaguely eye to eye with Obama. They'll be like a bunch of vultures, waiting to pounce on his every word and twist to suit their own sad worldview. Andy's probably already out scouting knoll of grass with his weapon of gun. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 14:08, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Obama's win is enormously painful for Schlafly and the Schlaflettes. I can't imagine teh Assfly or Ed Poor, for example, in front of their keyboards, writing that Barack Obama has been elected the 44th President of the United States. JJ4e^{I love you} 14:56, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Just discovered something: Obama made his first appointment, chief of staff Rahm Emmanuel, THE SON OF A TIRRIRISHTTTT!!!!!111!!!! Why does this guy love terror so much? DickTurpis 15:32, 5 November 2008 (EST)

RE seems to have better things to do with his life than being Obama's Chief of Staff. Lucky Obama. Get some fresh blood. (OK, I know, he also needs people who know their way around WDC, but fuck the DLC types) ħuman 01:19, 6 November 2008 (EST)

You mean Obama, or Andy?

And I find it amusing that this time, the US public's mayfly-like attention span worked in the Dems' favor. McCain: "Only I can keep you safe from Terrorism!" Public: "Terry-who? Hey, what are ya gonna do about the economy?"

--Gulik 16:11, 5 November 2008 (EST)

They've taken the Barack Obama article offline. Perhaps they're embarrassed by it. Proxima Centauri 12:07, 9 November 2008 (EST) It's online again now. Proxima Centauri 13:07, 9 November 2008 (EST)

Someone says Obama's gay now. The assfly looks gayer than Obama does. Proxima Centauri 15:50, 9 November 2008 (EST)

Not about CP, but still...

So prop 8 in California seems to have passed. My question is how that automatically changes the state constitution. Isn't the entire point of a constitution that it is a set of laws that doesn't change easily on the whims of the populace? Isn't that why amending the US Constitution is such a chore? Why even have a constitution? Just have direct voting. Fareed Zakaria's The Future of Freedom makes a strong case for why this is a bad idea, and blames a good portion of California's problems (notably budgetary) on this misguided aim for "pure democracy". And can't they just put up a ballot initiative every year negating proposition 8 until it passes? DickTurpis 14:36, 5 November 2008 (EST)

The California constitution is a famously bloated, useless document that long ago lost all sense - it's been amended over 500 times this century. As an example, the California constitution actually contains a fee schedule for a three-year phase out of gill-net fishing. Yes, really. DogP 14:45, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Maybe we can get Conservative to insert pictures of Hitler into the California Constitution? What say ye, Gentleman? DogP 14:47, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Remember that the best case against democracy is talking with the voters. :S Sometimes they just need protecting from themselves at large. The IQ of a crowd is very rarely the arithmetic mean. Just take any research group out there :D. ArmondikoV^pathetic 14:48, 5 November 2008 (EST)

I seem to remember a quote from a Terry Pratchett book - 'the collective IQ of any mob is the IQ of the least intelligent member, divided by the number of members of that mob.' Zmidponk 18:35, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Like I said, eventually, the Supreme Court will say "enough" and all these stupid state laws will be shot down, just like all the anti-abortion laws.... The sad truth is, that every major social change in America has come from a mandate from the top, not from the people. SirChuckB^{Further bulletins as events warrant} 14:51, 5 November 2008 (EST)

I still can't figure out what the big deal is. "Oh no they are getting married! This doesn't effect me at all but I will stop them!"

That being said, can Cali. really add an amendment to their constitution saying that the state will not recognize a marriage unless its between a man and a woman? Not being fluent in law of any kind, I seem to remember that a leagally binding document from one state is valid in all others. In which case if two men married in NY for example, wouldn't Cali have to recognize it? It seems to me that all this does is make it so they can't get married in Cali...which is a rather worthless amendment.--ScottA 15:00, 5 November 2008 (EST)

1) Scott, you are talking "full faith and credit", and it has been "deflated" by "DOMA" (Defense of Marriage Act). Doma is likely unconstitutional, but given our current Court, any challenge to doma is likely to fail --"somehow".

2) A state can define marriage any way it likes. that is the power of the state.

3) The real odd conundrum is what happens to the 18,000 LEGAL MARRIAGES that occurred between the Court saying gay can be marriage (July, I think) and the new constitution. by common and stated law, no law can be passed retroactively, however laws can include grandfathers. The point is, this new constitutional act in no way invalidates the 18,000 marriage that happened Yesterday, just those that will happen today forward. Talk about a total cluster fuck.

4) Why do people think gays are so damn evil? HOW can a state possibly say gays are worth less then every other human in trying to make a legal statement about their partners?--En attendant Godot_{"«Let the credulous and the vulgar continue to believe that all mental woes can be cured by a daily application of old Greek myths to their private parts. V.Nabokov»} 15:11, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Humans need to hate, and since hatin' on the dark skinned people is starting to become taboo in the US of A, they need a new social group to hate. ('Funnily' enough, with the increasing acceptance of LGBTQ people in the Netherlands, people have turned back to racism. Geert Wilders is getting dangerously much support, considering his political agenda seems to be limited to 'Arabs are Evil') InaVegt 15:17, 5 November 2008 (EST)

"The body is but a vessel for the soul, a puppet which bends to the soul's tyranny. And lo, the body is not eternal, for it must feed on the flesh of others, lest it return to the dust from whence it came. Therefore must the soul deceive, despise and murder men." - Vagrant Story--Stunteddwarf 22:51, 8 November 2008 (EST)

Liberals did it. Seriously, though, I'm concerned at the growth of the far right in Europe (Denmark, Netherlands, and, oh my, Berlusconi, who's now making no secret of the fact that he's set a dead course for Fascism). Despite the best efforts of a string of Home Secretaries from hell, (Blunkett, Clarke, Reid), it seems not to have spread here too much though. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

Godot, you are 100% percent correct in everything you said except one. DOMA is indeed insanely unconstitutional, as it spits in the face of the interstate commerce clause. I think this is why Clinton signed it in the first place. It got him cheap points with the right and he knew, as a lawyer, that it wouldn't fly. It just hasn't been challenged yet by someone with standing to challenge. Also, while a state is legally allowed to define marriage, it can't contradict federal law or supreme court rulings. Almost every state had Interracial Marriage bans, some in the state constitution and those became obsolete after Loving v Virginia (those Lovings always manage to screw up Right Wing hate don't they?). This would be a similar situation. The supreme court will hand down a major decision, the right will scream about activist judges and a new test will be added to future court nominees. Back to Godot, as for why people think gays are evil? I think it's part what InaVegt said and part it's just human nature to fear and hate things you don't understand and/or are different from you. SirChuckB^{Further bulletins as events warrant} 15:43, 5 November 2008 (EST)

California Results: Farm Animals - 1, Homosexualists - 0. DogP 15:46, 5 November 2008 (EST)

On the bright side, Amendment 48 (aka "Fertilized egg-cells are people, too!") got shot down here in Colorado. --Gulik 16:19, 5 November 2008 (EST)

on the next bright side, the Challenges to Prop 8, look really really really strong, constitutionally speaking. Effectively, what they are saying is that 1) the constitution of CA already protects equal rights. 2) the Courts ruled that marriage is one of these protected rights, 3) the only way to change the constitution to remove someone's protected rights is not to simply amend the constitution (which only takes a simple majority) but to actually change the language of the equal protection clause (which would take a 4/5ths majority). Sadly, in this country "rights" are almost never given to people by other people (the voters) but by courts in "protection".--En attendant Godot_{"«Let the credulous and the vulgar continue to believe that all mental woes can be cured by a daily application of old Greek myths to their private parts. V.Nabokov»} 17:00, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Just wanted to say I'm glad all you Rational people are here and talking about Prop 8 in a good way. That is all. --Too tired to log in 18:44, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Just to play devil's advocate here: the argument can be made that DOMA is not unconstitutional because it enables full faith and credit, by permitting states to differentiate on the issue at all. If not for DOMA, gay marriage would essentially be mandated upon the whole of the country, who would not be able to choose otherwise; DOMA enables each state to choose for itself.

The counterpoint to that, of course, is that states are not permitted to choose which basic rights they want to grant. Arizona cannot take away habeas corpus, for example.

Don't forget, folks, that it wasn't just California that passed a gay marriage ban; several other states did as well. My home state of Florida is among them.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 19:42, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Great points Tom, but the problem with DOMA is that it only affects a very speicific set of contracts. It would be like if Rhode Island passed a law that said they wouldn't honor any contracts signed in March (insane example picked intentionally). Marriage, from a government standpoint, is nothing more than a contract. That simple. Another example, if fundies took issue with Vegas and the drive through marriages, so they passed a law that they won't recognize the marriage as valid in Alabama, the courts would laugh them out of town. Yet, essentially, that's what DOMA does: It allows states to cherry pick which contracts they'll honor.

I'd also like to point out that we focus more on Cali because it is the first state where marriage rights were granted, but people still decided their hate was strong enough to reclassify people as second class citizens. There is a great irony in that the same night we elected a darkie, turning a page on old Jim Crow laws, we told the homosexuals that they're not equal... Sad sad sad SirChuckB^{Further bulletins as events warrant} 20:15, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Please, I hope, Chuckie, you mean the whole clause as "the first". Since gay marriage bin legal for a while elsewhere - and the Supremes honored bumporking and its associated deviations with constitutional legality a couple years back. Hi, Larry! Oh, and back on topic - in MA, the legislature was able to quash the homophobic response, embarrassingly so, but for a good cause? Ick. CA's process is different, and I guess a bunch of out-of-state Mormons cranked the cash in and got the awesome definition of marriage as being one man and as many women as he can afford placed into CA law forever and forever, Awomen. ħuman 01:27, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Wait, wait--the Mormons came out en masse for marriage being one man and one woman? :) --Gulik 16:05, 7 November 2008 (EST)

My friends

My first proposal for the Eminent Forty-fourth President of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama (I love typing that!) is to call a Constitutional Convention and git to fixin' some of the fucked up stoopid enshrined in said hallowed, historical, and yet gravely flawed document. You heard it here first (mostly because Trent didn't call me back after he got home to his Top Ramen Noodles). ħuman 01:23, 6 November 2008 (EST)

I know, I know....in the middle of tenant/landlord dispute over an invasion of rodents, and my landlady was standing at the door when I got home. I am trying to purge these unwanted mammals humanely but the next electrical wire that has been chewed up is going to see a full blown warfare even if it requires the dreaded glue traps. tmtoulouse 01:28, 6 November 2008 (EST)

I kill mowses humanely with a trap that virtually cuts them in half. As home invaders, they have no rights and I can kill them all the way to Texas if I catch them! That said, there are traps that are little plastic boxes that pivot about their middle, making a door drop closed. After the mowse pees all over itself in panicked fear for a few hours, it's easy to toss them outside near a local cat. ħuman 17:00, 6 November 2008 (EST)

All your Hitler are belong to us.

He really has no clue, does he? PFoster 18:16, 5 November 2008 (EST)

He can't possibly be this stupid, can he? He must have some severe need for attention, and he just doesn't care what type. --JeevesMkII 19:46, 5 November 2008 (EST)

To paraphrase the man of the hour: YES HE CAN!!! PFoster 20:03, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Helper Jazz go back and edit http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYt2hTGAGAk into your invisible man comment. Talk to Ken in a way he can understand :) --BoredCPer 20:13, 5 November 2008 (EST)

In that thread, Kenny totally fails the Turing test. I've had more intelligent conversations with Eliza. In fact, if I could find my javascript implementation, with a few tweaks I could almost certainly replace Ken with a very small shell script. --JeevesMkII 20:19, 5 November 2008 (EST)

'Attack of reasonableness'

I'm sorry, but I don't really see what's so reasonable about what Jinx said. Obama fits the only meaningful definition of 'black person' - his skin is dark. The idea that he isn't really black, as he has a white parent, is the kind of thing I would expect to hear from a racist trying to justify how he could be racist and a patriot under a black President at the same time. Zmidponk 18:26, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Additionally, I took it to be a negative comment, as in "well, it's not that historic because he's only half black." --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 18:30, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Jinx _{hi Jinx!}: Phenotype doesn't work that way! NightFlare If just one [counter-example] is correct, then logically the theory of evolution must be false. If there is merely a 5% chance that each example is correct, then the odds of at least one of the following counterexamples being correct is nearly 100%.<ref>At 14 examples and a probability that each is correct being 5%, then the odds of at least one being correct is greater than 1-(.95)^14</ref>[1] 18:49, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Er, you're right. I thought my sarcasm cut through like a laser when I posted that but clearly my WIGO writing skills were at a low earlier today as I re-read it. This can be explained by my attempts to sample the entire contents of the bar I was celebrating in last night, followed by champagne, wine and tequila back home afterwards. Eurgh. Please feel free to rewrite with additonal snark. Obviously, Jinx's point is an especially weasly attempt to minimize the importance of BO's victory. Remember kids-Don't Drink and WIGO!! DogP 19:46, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Jinx is right on this one, Obama is as much white as he is black. That's why Wikipedia's page is careful to say he's the first African-American president. --Toiretni 19:50, 5 November 2008 (EST)

The only person qualified to speak about Obama's "race" is Obama. If he self-defines as "black," he's black, if he pulls a Tiger and makes up a term that fits him ("Cablinasian"), that's what he is, and if he refuses the category, that's his call. PFoster 19:55, 5 November 2008 (EST)

My race: awesomebeardfaceimsocool. JazzMan 20:11, 5 November 2008 (EST)

I'm not for that whole self identifying crap.... Races are given to ourselves, they're given to each other... but anyway, remember the old one drop rules that dictated segregation in the south? One droop of Negroid blood and he's one of us (Black people that is). SirChuckB^{Further bulletins as events warrant} 20:18, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Sir Chuck; you're right and you're wrong. You're right that it doesn't matter how one defines one's race if I still won't give you a job 'cause you're black, so I sort of stand corrected. You're wrong, though, in assuming that that isn't historically contingent--in other places and other times, "race" meant other things, or maybe didn't exist at all--and there's a reasonable chance that the word will mean less and less, and have less and less power as time goes on--and having the agency to self-0define, as opposed to living an imposed identity, is part of that. PFoster 20:23, 5 November 2008 (EST)

So, what Jinx is saying is that the American people elected an inadequately black male? Those darn RINOs might as well half elected the golfer Tiger Woods or EO, the starship captain played by Michael Jackson in that Disney movie. --QEast 22:17, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Can't we all just be a sort of medium beige? Sorry, I'm light green, but still... we live in the future now! ħuman 01:29, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Make that coffee-colored (Melting Pot by Blue Mink, 1969). Seriously the whole attribution of color is a difficult topic and while people of a certain disposition might like to claim him as one of their own I would like to hope that now we've got a "first black president" tag out of the way, in future it won't matter. Of course there's still the first Hispanic, or Native American, female or gay to be got over and I can't see the mass-media not applying a label of some sort. Personally the first avowed atheist president can't come too soon as far as I'm concerned. That's probably the biggest taboo in the US.  Lily ^{Ta, wack!} 06:54, 6 November 2008 (EST)

I agree with Lily (and everyone else ;)). My race is "obstacle", although I was raised "steeplechase" by some "hurdles" who found they were able to pass. ħuman 18:19, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Way I see it, it's a simple test: If he'd've been beaten by the police in 1940s Alamaba for trying to use the "Whites Only" water fountain, he's black. --Gulik 18:42, 6 November 2008 (EST) {{Incoherency}}

I've always wondered what kind of coffee we're supposed to be coloured like... latte? Espresso? Also, Chuck, I think you just typoed Barack Hussein's dad into erectile dysfunction. Wazza (Not Wazzock, Wazza)^{Approach the Presence} 23:45, 7 November 2008 (EST)

It's Official

Ken is a parodist.-- Antifly ^{Now with 50% less retirement!} 20:11, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Does it please you to believe that Ken is a parodist? --Marty 22:28, 5 November 2008 (EST) Does that have anything to do with the fact that you think we should probably agree to disagree on the whole evolution issue?

I was pointing out that he flirts with self-parody on occasion.-- Antifly ^{Now with 50% less retirement!} 22:55, 5 November 2008 (EST)

I only wish self-parody explained it. This conversation about the Dawkins article is amazing to watch, as he responds to accusations of ignoring other editors by locking the article, spewing non-sequiteurs, failing to address points, and then just toddling off to happily putter with the article instead of answering the points that he asked for. Either he's a parodist pulling off an act that even surpasses Bungler, or he sees all other editors as annoyances. Guess which one's more likely? --Kels 23:20, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Don't forget the funniest part: he's totally ignored me, except to respond to something I never said. JazzMan 23:33, 5 November 2008 (EST)

It's funny because even parodists tend to steer clear of Conservative. He literally puts parodists to shame, simply because they can't make the situations any worse than he already does! Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 23:25, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Best. Conservative. Quote. Ever. Etc 00:26, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Election Reaction Over There...

...Has been minimal. The one dick thing I think Andy did was the "three strikes" thing w/r/t gay marriage bans in a few states. I wrote him a red telephone script "in regards to" that.-caius (mission accomplished!)

Funny I thought I was going to spend the day after Obama got elected trying not to lash out at conservative stupidity but instead it's the liberal gloating that's been getting on my nerves. JazzMan 01:20, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Funny, it's the love and the achievement that are still bringing tears to my eyes. Gloating, my ass. That comes in 2020 when we once again balance the fucking budget - and aren't involved in any major shootin' wars. PS, Fuck you George W., you gave me the worst six years of my life. PPS, Fuck you "neocons", all you were was "cons". PPPS, Bill Kristol, get a life and a job where your pay is based on being right once in a while. Whew. ħuman 01:33, 6 November 2008 (EST)

I'm not one to gloat often but that little "see we still won" schpiel of Andy's ticked me off.-caius (mission accomplished!)

Which says a lot...about you or about the external world is up for debate I am sure. tmtoulouse 01:23, 6 November 2008 (EST)

What can I say? I <3 teh gheys. -caius (mission accomplished!) 01:26, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Jazz, if I may ask, what exactly was your mood in 2000 and 2004.... Cause I sure as hell found Bush's 51% mandate from the people incredibly annoying and the Conservative idiots that kept repeating it over and over sure didn't help. SirChuckB^{Further bulletins as events warrant} 01:27, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Not you Ames, but our friend Jazzman was who I was speaking too, I think our reactions and spin are probably pretty similar right now! tmtoulouse 01:30, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Tmt: I'm not making it up, there was much gloating going on today. I didn't read Ames' page and I'm sure the title he chose was being facetious (ok I'm not sure, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt); however, surely you can admit that there was a lot of gloating going on.

Sir B (Sir Chuck?) 2000... I can't say I remember. I was "in to" politics at that point, but I had no idea what the heck anything actually meant. That was right around the time when I invented a conservative form of communism -- despite that the only things I knew about the two was that they weren't the same. My biggest memory of 2004 wasn't gloating, but I do remember telling a friend of mine to get a life when she whined about wearing black all week and wanting to move to Canada. However, if you were annoyed in 2004, that doesn't actually have any bearing on whether I'm annoyed in 2008. (I could mention also, that Obama's "morally superior" campaign should, in fact, negate much of the gloating but I won't. Except for just then, when I did mention it ;-) ) JazzMan 01:38, 6 November 2008 (EST)

I'm actually pretty in favor of gracious victory; my emotion of the day has been exuberance, not in-your-face-PWNED. But I'll note that the ultimate "gloating" is not shoving a radical agenda down America's throat. In that sense, Obama has a lot of gloating to do before he even matches Bush 2000.-caius (mission accomplished!) 01:41, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Also, TMT - sorry I misunderstood you!! Rock on buddy :)-caius (mission accomplished!) 01:42, 6 November 2008 (EST)

While any protracted discussion between us is likely to lead to a turd blossom template, I will say that your perception of what is gloating may be off, and even if it is accurate, 8 years under the Bush administration deserves a day or two of elation after this win. I was disappointed in my friends and family after 2004, I was the only one that actually did move to canada. tmtoulouse 01:45, 6 November 2008 (EST)

@ Trent, pwned! (eh, you went to college, you still vote here!). @ Gloating? It's not gloating, it's sheer joy at the hopeful redemption of the republic. PS, to the rest of the world: you're welcome, and thanks for still talking to us during these hard times, since our government sure as hell wasn't listening. ħuman 01:36, 7 November 2008 (EST)

It's more like the rebound when a great pressure is removed. There's an initial surge that'll drop back in a few days. I've no doubt that Democrats will return to the norm soon. In passing, after a surf around the web, I can find very little about the divine Sarah anywhere.

TOAST

^{and butter} 02:00, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Jazzman, I don't know in the US, but here in the outside world it wasn't much gloating for Obama's victory, but freedom from that massmurderer of GWB. I guess that it resembles - in due proportion, obviously - the day after WWII was over. Editor at CP^{Oh, Finland! Why?} 07:17, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Is Joy and a sense of freedom, "gloating". I've never cried before during election returns. I did Tuesday night. I watched interviews with Lewis, with Eugine Robinson, watch Jesse with tears streaming down his face. I looked at a "white house family" that blew my socks off for something real, something human, and yes, something Black. I also have quite the "girl crush" on Ms. Obama. That woman is hot! "I'd go gay for her" i think is the quirp. I don't think this man is God, nor do I think he is perfect, nor do i think he will do everything he claims, or that he will be better than any particular other democrat. But I find him inspiring, adn frankly, I dislike "us them" so much. I want someone who says "we". I am about as left wing as you can get, and yet simply because of my personality, i don't want to sit here and vilify the Right. I want a bi partisin attempt from our government, and I disagree that we can't have civility. Think that's just the Hype? Think that's simply being innundated by media and being told how to vote? That's fine, maybe you're right (though I do doubt it). mostly, i'm just going to enjoy the Joy, and then watch as this country attempts to right 8 years of blood that it managed to wade through, thanks to bush.--En attendant Godot_{"«Let the credulous and the vulgar continue to believe that all mental woes can be cured by a daily application of old Greek myths to their private parts. V.Nabokov»} 10:56, 6 November 2008 (EST)

What she said. Except I wouldn't have to go ghey for Michelle. The monsieur, I guess? As I said above, it's JOY, not gloating. ħuman 01:40, 7 November 2008 (EST)

I must be the odd man out here, as I don't want 'bipartisan' effort. I want the Republicans CRUSHED, HUMILIATED, STRIPPED OF ALL POWER, and DRIVEN INTO THE WILDERNESS to lament their losses. They've had eight years to implement their policies and they've uniformly SUCKED. --Gulik 18:55, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Yeah, but Colin Powell might yet make a good Secretary of State ;) ħuman 01:40, 7 November 2008 (EST)

I dunno--a lot of people out there in Otherplacistan still remember how SINCERE he sounded, telling the UN about Saddam Hussein's Weapons of Mass Destruction. --Gulik 18:36, 9 November 2008 (EST)

The joys of copy/paste

Ah yes, 'tis a wonderful thing when whoever it was can't even proofread his copy/paste fests. Thus, not only the Scots, but the Japanese too were running around 4000 years before the creation. I wonder how many other countries existed before teh heavens and earth? Come on PJR, I know you read us, be a good boy and fix up your blog posts over there. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 02:39, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Bring on another "stop making up dates" edit! It's my favourite flavour! ArmondikoV^pathetic 08:53, 6 November 2008 (EST)

ListUsers

I must say, cp:Special:ListUsers is pretty amusing to browse through. I wonder if there's any way to get the same list with "number of edits" and "banhammered? yes/no" columns. But, in the interest of preserving the lulz, I also kind of hope there's not. (BTW, re Azi's comment earlier about whether RW is the only community interested in CP, the answer is pretty clearly no; just look at all the variations on Ebaums, for example. :) Or Mudkips. Or the 19 variations on FBI; obviously CP is under surveillance!)

And then there's this.

I also wonder about the consecutive usernames Pheba, PhebaGotFingered, PhebaJRayment, and PhebaMcEntire. (All blocked by Croco; the last two with the block log comment more unneeded phebas. No contributions in sight.) --Marty 03:40, 6 November 2008 (EST)

For the lulz, I prepared a list of those who were banned-on-sight. I just don't know were to put it... --LArron 04:11, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Cool, can't see any of mine on there. Though I can see a few Final Fantasy referrences. ArmondikoV^pathetic 08:55, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Then, your socks have left some traces over there: these are the roughly 6000 editors without a posting history. --LArron 09:01, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Is that 6000 without a posting history and aren't banned or 6000 users without posting in total? 144.32.180.39 10:16, 6 November 2008 (EST)

When I took the data at the end of October 2008, there were 24,665 registered users at CP. 12,563 of these were blocked. And for 5,888 of these blocked users, I couldn't find a comment - either, because they were blocked on first sight or because their comments were pulled. I included the blog reasons (for lulz :-), but I didn't want to give a ranking of the blockers... --LArron 10:52, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Jinx Retired

See Wigo. PFoster 09:57, 6 November 2008 (EST)

We'll see if this lasts any longer than Karajou's "retirement". I'm betting not by much. They're such drama queens over there. Only DanH appears to have meant it. DickTurpis 10:01, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Dunno, they were avid editors and going cold turkey meant they'd come crawling back for comfort. The outside world is a scary place to them, within the confines of CP they're GODS! Jinx has been missing as of late anyway, pretty sure he's just lost interest or took a step back and thought "Wow, I didn't realize how crazy Conservapedia really is. This is pointless." and moved on. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 10:39, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Your hypothesis would make sense were it not for the fact that Jinx was one of the craziest. Had had been a person with a slight twist of reasonableness to him, such as DanH, I would be less skeptical. But Jinx quitting for such a reason is like Andy, Karajou, or Bugler (OK, Bugler if he weren't a parodist) doing so. PJR might leave for such a reason, but not Jinx. DickTurpis 11:11, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Hey, another excuse to break out my template!

Alas, these opportunities occur so seldom. --JeevesMkII 10:50, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Has that certificate of death been properly notarized by the State of Hawaii? Godspeed 12:22, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Allegedly. Corry^{I've made a huge mistake.} 17:37, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Perhaps he decided to move to a country without a "half black" president. NightFlare If just one [counter-example] is correct, then logically the theory of evolution must be false. If there is merely a 5% chance that each example is correct, then the odds of at least one of the following counterexamples being correct is nearly 100%.<ref>At 14 examples and a probability that each is correct being 5%, then the odds of at least one being correct is greater than 1-(.95)^14</ref>[1] 19:48, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Not about CP, but don't really know where else to ask election questions

Can someone tell me what the deal with Oregon is? Why the fuck does it take them so long to count votes? At least the other states that haven't called their Senate races haven't done so because the election is really, really close, but Oregon hasn't done it's because they still haven't counted 20% of them! Are they all high? ("Dude! One more vote for Obama. Awesome. [next ballot]...oh man, this one it totally a vote for McCain. Bummer.") DickTurpis 11:18, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Nevermind, looks like they just called it for Merkley. That's 6 pickups for the Dems. DickTurpis 11:47, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Oregon has a bizarre system of vote by mail. Which basically means EVERY vote is an absentee ballot. Researcher 11:50, 6 November 2008 (EST)

I recall hearing that before, but don't these mostly come in before election day, and then isn't it just a matter of running them through machines? DickTurpis 12:07, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Okay, genuine Oregonian here. Yes, we vote by mail, which is essentially the same as an absentee ballot. Maybe half the ballots come in before election day. The problem comes with ballots returned in different counties than they were issued in. For instance, my daughter is away at college. Her Multnomah County ballot was mailed to her in Lane County, where she voted, and returned it to the Lane County Clerk. The day after the election, the Lane County Clerk gathers up all these out-of-county ballots and returns them to their originating county clerks. There are thousands of these ballots. Normally it's not enough to matter, but the Smith-Merkeley race was tight, so these out-of-county ballots might make a difference. It'll be Thursday or Friday before this all gets sorted out and the official 100% count gets reported. One of our stupid ballot measures is undecided for the same reason. -- Simple 13:07, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Interesting. Thanks for the info. Out of curiousity, do you think this is a good way to vote? (Shit, I just realize that sounds like a Ken question: "Gentlemen, your liberal state takes days to tabulate the election results which conservative states do within hours. Do you think this is a good way to vote? Please be specific with your answers." But honestly, I'm curious as to how popular this method is). On another note, there is clearly going to be a recount in Minnesota, but no one seems to be talking about absentee ballots there, and clearly with a 400+ votes separating the candidates they could very easily swing the election. Do they not have them in Minnesota or something? DickTurpis 13:49, 6 November 2008 (EST)

I like vote-by-mail. It boosts turnout a little. When it was first implemented, there were some worries about fraud, about undue influence from family members over the kitchen table, and about the loss of community from everyone going to the polling place. I don't hear anyone talking about going back to the old system. Oregonians seem to be pretty used to it. -- Simple 15:04, 6 November 2008 (EST)

I like the new trend towards "early voting" - makes it more like "voting month", and if people got "de-registered" they have time to fix it. Anyway, Oregon is bound to figure out a way to "vote stoned bro" if they can pull it off. Good for them. ħuman 01:45, 7 November 2008 (EST)

Come on, own up

Which parodist has hacked Andy's account?--KrissAkabusiAwoogar 11:12, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Oh that's Andy alright. Coming soon, the newest Conservapedia Challenge (TM) - catching Obama on tape refusing to eat pork. --SpinyNorman 11:23, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Um. WTF? Did I wake up in bizzaro world this morning? Or perhaps this is the new style of argument in vogue in academic institutions. Drawing from life is a popular form of expression, however Islamic tradition considers it idolatry. I've never seen Andrew Schlafly draw anything from life, therefore he is quite clearly a Muslim. QED. --JeevesMkII 11:25, 6 November 2008 (EST)

OMG that is hilarious.--Damo^Hi 11:27, 6 November 2008 (EST)

At least my fears that George W Bush is a Muslim have been put to rest. DickTurpis 11:28, 6 November 2008 (EST)

I see someone preempted me at WIGO. Very well. DickTurpis 11:30, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Yep, sorry DT but I remembered how lame W looked at the time, and made that a part of the WIGO. Guess that makes me a Muslim though, because I can't dance to save my life. I can just imaging all the age-50+ white Republican men trying to be seen on tape dancing for the benefit of their supporters. --SpinyNorman 11:32, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Andrew Schalfly. Not a Muslim.

I wonder if Andy has ever invoked Occam's Razor. -Lardashe

He stopped after repeatedly nicking himself on the legs. --SpinyNorman 11:59, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Kudos for the image above, btw! --SpinyNorman 12:00, 6 November 2008 (EST)

This is a brilliant insight by Andy. And of course, in case Obama should be seen dancing in the future, it is simply a case of Islamic deceit to convince people he isn't a Muslim. Andy is a genius. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 12:26, 6 November 2008 (EST)

His denial knows no bounds. To paraphrase, "Judging by the determined effort to remain rational, it will be fascinating to see how long it takes people to wake up to my view of who Obama really is." --SpinyNorman 12:33, 6 November 2008 (EST)

One thing I've never understood about the whole Muslim thing, is "so what if he is?" It's not like he was running for Pope or King of England and surely Andy et al don't look to their politicians for spiritual guidance? Does it say anywhere in the constitution that the Prez must be Xian? I would have thought if Obama was Muslim and sneakily implemented sharia law, the cons would be cock a hoop... gay? Death! fornicating? Death! Woman? in a burkha, in the kitchen, or Death! Smoking in public during Ramadan? 50 lashes! (a friend has the scars to back up the latter). I'd love to experience Andyland for myself one day, but I don't think I could handle that much LSD. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 12:51, 6 November 2008 (EST)

I seem to remember reading that the probably wasn't that he was a Muslim, but that he was lying to people about it. I can't seem to find it, so maybe that's just my internal rationalization.... JazzMan 13:06, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Jazz face it, you are contributing to a project who's leader honestly believes that Obama is secretly a Muslim. Why do you defend him, he is clearly delusional? You are one of the best contributors and he wont give you edit rights so you can edit when it is convenient for you. I'll tell you what. If you block Andy using the Obama article reason on the menu, I'll make you a bureaucrat. - User $\scriptstyle -i\ln(-1)$ 17:41, 6 November 2008 (EST)

I wrote something similar to that over in CP yesterday because I think thats what they mean. Never know, the whole dancing business is totally insane and now I think Andy may have very well lost it completely. Though I did like this funny. Ace McWicked^{The Liquid Room} 14:44, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Andy has missed the most obvious point. Obama can't dance well and yet claims to be black. He even benefited from Affirmative Action (he is the first AA president). Ergo Obama is actually just pretending to be black! He stole Affirmative Action from the ACLU and once again fooled a bunch of child-like black people! Oh Noes!!1!!!! We must spread the word! Obama can't dance! Think of the unborn children. Liberal Deceit! Basketballs in the white house! dooooommm!!!! doooomm!!!

. . . Oh sorry. Nevermind ^{Exasperate me!}Sheesh!_{Not the most impressive contributor here} 13:00, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Come to think of it, Franklin Roosevelt never danced either! He must have been a Muslim too, there's no other explanation. (Tip of the hat to the Onion).Czolgolz 14:11, 6 November 2008 (EST)

You know, I don't think I've ever seen Obama publicly eating pork products either. Hmmm....--WJThomas 14:31, 6 November 2008 (EST)

I'm still waiting for McCain and Palin to show up on Dances With The Stars. I am half disappointed at Obama for not having a photo op on Labor Day eating some pork product. It would have been very simple, and natural and would have put a crimp in any of the "he is Muslim" bits that went out. --Shagie 14:34, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Gentlemen, behold! weaseLOId~ 15:57, 6 November 2008 (EST)

The Best Part of Democracy

My favorite part of any election, no matter who wins, is seeing some of the losing sides responses. Just from I've seen recently, Andy has gone under for the 87th time with this whole, we haven't seen him dance, except for that Ellen thing, oh and the various videos, but he's not really in sync with the beat, Muslim!! Brit Hume looks on the verge of tears, Larry Elder's latest column completely ignores the past six months of crap he's spewed and focuses on how Obama's victory doesn't prove anything about the American Dream Have I ever mentioned I hate that boot licking Uncle Tom? and Ann Coulter can't even put together a coherent sentence. I mean, say what you want about her normal shrill rantings, but at least they had some flow and decent grammar... She's just gone.... I love it. SirChuckB^{Further bulletins as events warrant} 13:13, 6 November 2008 (EST)

You want to see loosing side responses, give this a read. --Shagie 13:17, 6 November 2008 (EST)

What's worse, even Fox News reported the above link. They claim they knew of the strain between the two sides, but didn't release the information until after the election. Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, what a lovely tea party!} 13:33, 6 November 2008 (EST)

I heard a snippet of Rush Limbaugh ranting about how 56 million people voted against Obama, and what that says about Obama's plans. This is the same guy who during the first Bush administration said that the president had a mandate, so Congress should get behind his entire agenda. People like Rush and Coulter are either complete idiots who believe everything they say, or real smart people who know how to make a fuck-ton of money off of idiots by saying stuff they don't believe all of. Coulter surely knows that there's not much money to be made making intelligent, reasonable, insightful comments; they're a dime a dozen, unless you're outstandingly bright, knowledgable, and insightful. But being the single most shrill, hateful, despicable, batshit insane person on the planet is something she can outdo everyone on (you're not going to make as much being the second most batshit insane moron). I'd almost be willing to say the same holds for for Andy; I do find it difficult to accept he actually believes half the shit he writes, and remains blind to the complete double standard in everything he says. But since he's not making any money off of it, I don't see his angle. Andy, I think, is really, honestly going insane. I'm not just saying that to insult him; I think it is true. If he was this fucking nuts all his life there is no way he could have made it through prestigious colleges as he did. He is slowly sinking into a pit of paranoia and neurosis. DickTurpis 13:43, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Being stuck in the boondocks means I have the advantage of not having been exposed to Coulter, except for what I've read here. So I toddled off to her blog. Whoo-whee. Now here's a chick - sorry, rabid weasel - who makes Andy look sane, especially when she says "Indeed, the only good thing about McCain is that he gave us a genuine conservative, Sarah Palin. He's like one of those insects that lives just long enough to reproduce so that the species can survive. That's why a lot of us are referring to Sarah as "The One" these days." The One??!! Oh please, please. Let her run in '12 - then the GOP will see what "losing by a landslide" really means. I'm willing to bet we never hear the name Sarah Palin again. "The One" ha ha ha ha! What a chump. For extra lulz: "all I care about is hunting down and punishing every Republican who voted for McCain in the primaries. I have a list and am prepared to produce the names of every person who told me he was voting for McCain to the proper authorities." Fan of Himmler is she? --PsyGremlin_Whut? 14:09, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Actually, Psy, she is a HUGE Fan of Joe McCarthy (but strangely enough, not Charlie McCarthy). She has devoted huge sections of her books and at least two dozen columns to discussion about how Joe was doing great work and was a true American hero. She has said, on many different occassions that it was only Liberals who were all secret Communists that wanted to get rid of Joe. Hence the "I HAVE HERE A LIST" bit. SirChuckB^{Further bulletins as events warrant} 14:34, 6 November 2008 (EST)

It's less a matter of having any set of ideas as it is just being an attention whore. If she were 14, she'd have a livejournal about cutting herself. Hell, she was too much for Jonah Goldberg, whose latest book is just a (somewhat) more intellectually respectable version of what Ken does with his Hitler images. Godspeed 16:26, 6 November 2008 (EST)

We haven't seen the last of Palin. She may well take Steven's Senate seat, eventually. In any case, she'll run in 2012, like Quayle did in 2000, and do slightly better than Quayle, but probably not as well as, say, Alan Keyes. After that, we will probably have seen the last of her. Just like Quayle. DickTurpis 14:47, 6 November 2008 (EST)

I honestly think Rapture Spice has got a shot at the nomination in 2012. There are numerous members of the Republican base that think they didn't talk enough about how Obama was a secretMuslimnoncitizenwhopalledaroundwithterrorists, and she's their logical candidate. That shows my low opinion of Republican primary voters, I guess. Godspeed 15:13, 6 November 2008 (EST)

I don't think she has enough mainstream appeal. She could be 2012's Huckabee, maybe, but he wasn't exactly about to snag the nomination. DickTurpis 15:27, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Ah, sweet Schadenfreude. Someone (someone with more work-ethic than me, anyway) needs to make a big link-list of all the most frothing predictions of the Obamacolypse, so we can go back around mid 2010 and ask 'em how stupid they feel, and if they'd like to vote Democratic this time around. --Gulik 19:03, 6 November 2008 (EST)

If you need counterpoint to Coulter give Maureen Dowd a read. --Shagie 20:00, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Regardless of her apparent 'hotness', winks, hair and MILF slap-happyness, Palin hasn't a hope in hell in 2012. Huckabee is actually pretty knowledgeable, presents policy well, plays the bass well enough in something approaching a 'rock band', and is beguiling enough when you switch channels to him on TV that you can believe he's a sensible bloke - and all this despite the fact that he's a raving looney who thinks the Earth is 6000 years old. Ol' PigLipstick can't remotely compete with him intellectually or politically, and he was roundly booted out of the Primaries. No Creationist will EVER get enough of the centre to be presentable to the masses. DogP 21:53, 6 November 2008 (EST)

So now we're going to heed a person who can't even spell "center?" I think not. I think not. Palin is going to go through a four year make over. All she needed to be palatable to the *base* was a bit more lipstick. She'll get that and a fat deck of talking points to allow her to fake her way past the Katie Courics of the world. All she needs is a good cowgirl impersonation and a handful of simple homespon wedge issues. Never underestimate the power of stupidity. I know these things. ^{Exasperate me!}Sheesh!_{Not the most impressive contributor here} 11:27, 7 November 2008 (EST)

Seriously, Jpatt might actually be mentally challenged

When does it start being wrong to laugh at this shit? Coarb 15:39, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Nah. He's just a parodist. surprised they haven't figured it out yet. DickTurpis 15:43, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Seriously, CP is overrun with parodists, and no one is doing anything about it.... for extra Lulz, take a look at the CP:Rodney King talk page and see what happens when an actual good faith editor runs up against an immovable wall of parody. SirChuckB^{Further bulletins as events warrant} 16:00, 6 November 2008 (EST)

There was an SNL skit a few weeks back, "Narc High," about a high school which every student was a narc, all trying to buy drugs from each other. CP is not too different with parodists. DickTurpis 16:38, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Just to double-check (English may as well be my second language), it isn't a real word in this context isn't it? ArmondikoV^pathetic 03:52, 7 November 2008 (EST)

HITLER MEGAZORD

needed moar Hitler. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

BEST. PARODY. EVER!!!!! SirChuckB^{Further bulletins as events warrant} 16:00, 6 November 2008 (EST)

I am having fun with those pics. I am gonna work the cheetah one in somehow. Ace McWicked^{The Liquid Room} 16:01, 6 November 2008 (EST)

link for posterity. Coarb 16:05, 6 November 2008 (EST)

If you can include clog dance.gif, then there shall be much rejoicing. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

I am having fun on my day off work. Ho ho ho what fun. Ace McWicked^{The Liquid Room} 16:33, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Have to laugh.

We need to work on a list of articles that need moar Hitler. Start off with Art and Vegetarian. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 16:43, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Excellent work. that's fucked it up good and proper. StarFish 16:47, 6 November 2008 (EST)

HAHAHAHA Its fucked. Ace McWicked^{The Liquid Room} 16:53, 6 November 2008 (EST)

I tried to add it to Jeremiah Wright in a less obviously parody way, but it wouldn't take. I think only Ken is allowed to do that. He's like the retarded kid that adults let get away with misbehaving because he doesn't know any better and will throw a temper tantrum. DickTurpis 16:47, 6 November 2008 (EST)

I'm suprised non of those survived, the Obama article certainly needs more Hitler. RW has the "This Page Needs More Goat!" template, CP may as well have "This Page Needs More Hitler!" 03:54, 7 November 2008 (EST)ArmondikoV^pathetic

Coudln't agree more. I think the Stalin picture could do with a bit more airplay too. Surely it should be in the Dawkins page now that his old pal Hitler is. StarFish 10:35, 7 November 2008 (EST)

Palin Block over Fox Comments

The way the Palin article and Talk page are so chivalrously protected has inspired the lame joke of the day:

"What's the difference between a pit bull and Sarah Palin?"

- You're allowed to put down a pit bull.

--SpinyNorman 16:24, 6 November 2008 (EST)

My favorite, and more offensive, Sarah Palin joke:

Q: What is the difference between Sarah Palin's mouth and her vagina?

A: Not everything that comes out of her vagina is retarded.

Post your objections below. DickTurpis 16:34, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Pi points for posting that somewhere on CP. DickTurpis 16:36, 6 November 2008 (EST)

LearnTogether cranks up the irony meter: "we attempt to avoid gossip, especially when there is zero evidence." Gee golly, has he seen this awesome section made by... *gasp*... ANDY! Probably WIGO worthy. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 23:35, 6 November 2008 (EST)

• Headdesk*... ouch. Obama is rarely seen dancing? You've seen Barack-Roll right? I say to bring back Clinton and the sax playing!!! ArmondikoV^pathetic 03:57, 7 November 2008 (EST)

cp:User:RSpode

Black shorts? Coarb 16:33, 6 November 2008 (EST)

In the Jeeves stories by P. G. Wodehouse, Roderick Spode is the leader of the Saviours of Britain, a Fascist organisation known as the 'Black Shorts' (with so many extremist parties, they had run out of shirts). There appears to be a cell of Wodehouse enthusiasts over there. Fretfulporpentine 16:42, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Bugler is nothing if not adept at researching connections to unusual usernames. --SpinyNorman 16:43, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Bugler makes a Wodehouse reference, AKjeldsen is in the land of Wodehouse and has a way too similar sense of humour. Uh oh, another name to my list of suspects! Editor at CP^{Oh, Finland! Why?} 16:53, 6 November 2008 (EST)

I also thought the Wodehouse thing was a susipciously close fit for Bugler's CB persona. He always reminded me of a Wodehouse character in the way he speaks. StarFish 16:57, 6 November 2008 (EST)

CB? Fretfulporpentine 17:17, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Speaking of which, I've always assumed that Bugler named hisself after the musical instrument. Turns out, too, that "Bugler" is a brand of roll-your-own tobacco (according to WikiPedia, the most popular brand in U.S. prisons). Hmm...--WJThomas 17:05, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Here it is weaseLOId~ 18:26, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Interesting. At least it proves that he may have some culture. Just googling RSpode or Spode doesn't bring up the answer. Perhaps RSpode was a Bugler sock designed for him to block with a witty comment to make him seem educated, if I got block rights there I'd do it; keep up appearences and all. (and I always thought it was pronounced bug-ler as in buggerer) ArmondikoV^pathetic 04:02, 7 November 2008 (EST)

I posted about that a few weeks ago, I made the connection based on this: [2] (There's a familiar name in there).131.107.0.101 13:45, 7 November 2008 (EST)

Using much of money to buy defensive weapon of gun

My God, Andy of Schlafly makes more idiotic of mistakes than even I of Germany do at four of morning. (Then again, you know what they say: "Always proofread carefully to see if you any words out." :P) --Sid 21:41, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Why bother proofreading, given the quality of what gets written anyway? --Kels 22:01, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Well... point. Especially the Obama article is more of a Stream Of Consciousness thing full of smears and wild speculation, so proofreading is indeed the smallest issue right now. --Sid 22:09, 6 November 2008 (EST)

ZOMG, someone is using Conservapedia as a serious souce...

...and they don't appear to be total nutjobs. For fun, I googled the phrase "defensive weapon of gun," and found this. it's from US Elections.com which on a VERY quick glance seems to be a fairly neutral voter-information web site. Anyone know anything about it? PFoster 22:06, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Holy crap, CP links all over the place! Somebody actually links to CP's Focus Articles (including Gun Control, Global Warming, Liberal/Conservative, etc.) without openly mocking them. How weird. My money is on him just not realizing just how nutty CP is. Or maybe he does, and he just wants to make conservatives look less sympathetic? I dunno, but it's late, so I'll go to bed. --Sid 22:29, 6 November 2008 (EST)

About us: "a successful portal development and online marketing company". There's a long list of sites he runs, and almost all of it is SEO copypasta. He doesn't even take his own advice: fail. It wouldn't surprise me if Conservative met him in some back room and agreed to some hot swapping action. --Toiretni 01:02, 7 November 2008 (EST)

A key to the mystery? Or is it just a case of Big Brother watching you? JazzMan 01:07, 7 November 2008 (EST)

Just Big Brother, I'm sure. I can't wait to see Hsmom's reaction to Dean's Mainpageright link to the "largely defensive weapon of gun". :) --Marty 03:22, 7 November 2008 (EST)

Probably part of a deal I reckon, while uselections.com does have the bonus of a pretty shit hot URL for it's subject matter, it doesn't look that professionally constructed so is basically looks like someone's cheap-ass blog. And we all know that Ken

's plan is link swapping with cheap-ass blogs. CP is a source (albiet below WP) on the definition of liberal, which, while not outright bad does sway a little, although the definition oc conservative on the site is styled similarly so it's probably just the author's own version of snark in both cases. ArmondikoV^pathetic 03:48, 7 November 2008 (EST)

Damn, that USelections.com makes on of the most annoying and fundamental mistakes, a fixed page width. Why do I own a 19inch monitor when 40% of it is white space? - User $\scriptstyle -i\ln(-1)$ 04:10, 7 November 2008 (EST)

Does anyone want to tell all these blogs and crap that CP has rel=nofollow set, so it won't do any good at all for their search engine rankings? Pseudomonas 07:47, 7 November 2008 (EST)

Interesting, the main page post about USelections.com's reference belies the whole point that Conservapedia is a useful source. It's tantamount to saying "there is one website on the entire internet that takes us seriously." Not something to brag about. Also, that site makes an interesting point about SEO misuse, and getting banned from google. Can we do that to CP, or at least Ken's pet articles? That would be really funny. DickTurpis 10:37, 7 November 2008 (EST)

I looked at that, but I don't think he's quite gone far enough. He might need to go a bit further before Google will dump CP to the bottom of their rankings. I look forward to his reaction. Pseudomonas 10:51, 7 November 2008 (EST)

But can we help him? DickTurpis 12:12, 7 November 2008 (EST)

I don't know - how open to suggestions is he? Pseudomonas 12:16, 7 November 2008 (EST)

I mean can we linkspam CP articles all over the place in an effort to get google to reject them all for abuse? DickTurpis 12:19, 7 November 2008 (EST)

Even if google weren't wise to that sort of antics, I really think it would demean us. We should play fair. Pseudomonas 14:12, 7 November 2008 (EST)

Did anyone see the alexa results for uselections.com? It shot up enormously in the last few days. I'd dismiss it as interest in the election, but other election sites saw a steady rise going back months, not one big spike, and it seems the increase largely comes after the election. Their rank shoots up just as fivethirtyeight's goes down. DickTurpis 12:17, 7 November 2008 (EST)

Blank Pages

I'm getting a lot of blank pages (completly empty) returned from CP this morning. A refresh usually gets the content. Is it just me or is she not well again? StarFish 05:10, 7 November 2008 (EST)

CP has been on the blink the last 4 months. Either Andy does all his own tech work, and hence why every update makes it unstable or CPWebmaster has a lot of better thing to do and unless Andy wants to pay him much of money to do a complete re-installation of the software he only ever does patch work. - User $\scriptstyle -i\ln(-1)$ 05:15, 7 November 2008 (EST)

Volume of Vandalism

Credit where it's due. I have never seen so much vandalism! I know recently they have been getting a fair bit but look at the history of the Obama article (for example) every edit is a very obvious vandalism of the page. Most aren't that funny but there are one or two amusing ones. StarFish 10:33, 7 November 2008 (EST)

Unfunny vandalism is boring, but it does provide one upside for Operation Cheesesteak: the higher their search engine standings, the more of the unwashed masses they have to deal with. (or, the more cities they have to entirely block) --Toiretni 10:40, 7 November 2008 (EST)

It's hard for me to even browse CP. There's nothing but parodists and wandals, and if that weren't enough, tons of blank page errors and slow page loads. The funny thing is that some of the people doing the blocking don't revert the wandal's work (Jpatt and Bugler, specifically), so you see the wandalism stay. If it can pass the 50 mark in Recent Changes, chances are it will be there indefinitely. I personally like Ace's image-mocking installments. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 10:44, 7 November 2008 (EST)

I just looked though Bugler's block log; I didn't see any vandalism that didn't get reverted, but HOLY COW did I see a lot of inappropriate blocks. JazzMan 11:51, 7 November 2008 (EST)

Ahh, seems he did get most of it eventually, but he did miss a few still. Inappropriate blocks? Using Schlafly statistics, how much? 90%? Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 15:03, 7 November 2008 (EST)

If I were to include people who were blocked for too long based on the actions they actually performed, not based on whether or not they would likely every contribute anything useful, I would say a good 50% were blocked for too long. This is just in the last couple days. If I were to give Bugler the benefit of the doubt and assume that no person ever changes their ways, I would say closer to 20% were innappropriately blocked, but 20% of a large number is itself a large number. JazzMan 01:57, 8 November 2008 (EST)

I have to agree - vandalism that just replaces content with insults is unimaginative and lame. Vandalism that cleverly makes fun of the inanity on CP can be amusing (Hitler pics, giving the "Conservative" picture treatment to a page), because it points out just how ridiculous these things are in the "approved" context on CP. Even that can get overdone, though. The incidents of wandalism that I thought was funniest were the legitimate entries that spelled out messages when viewed as edit histories, like the one PJR responded to in kind. No actual damage is done to CP, but the payload is delivered nonetheless. These take imagination and cleverness, just as good parody does. --SpinyNorman 11:30, 7 November 2008 (EST)

I was amused at the way that CP's very site is groaning under the traffic. Some of my own wandalism attempts last night were actually brought to a standstill not by blocks, but by the sheer slow-loading, connection dropping nature of the site. --|||

Ken's gotta lie awake at night worrying about that. What if a search engine bot came around, and CP was "having a problem"? Why, it would sink all his hard work. Clearly, he can't trust Andy with such a valuable resource. --Kels 15:20, 7 November 2008 (EST)

Love those Sycophants

So, apparantly andy's moral guardian has decide that sycophantic asskissing on the main talk page is the best way to not so subtly ask for a promotion. -CP's EternalCritic

Lemme see if I can get a link for you. BetsyNewson, or Known Parodist? Probably the latter. The way it's going, if Saxplayer contributes more, he just might get favored. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 10:57, 7 November 2008 (EST)

I treat everything as pretty much serious there. Playing it straight results in more lulz. For me at least. -CP's EternalCritic

Log In Message

It's funny, haven't logged into CP in a looooong time, but I hovered my cursor over it and it reads: "You are encouraged to log in, it is not mandatory however." Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 10:57, 7 November 2008 (EST)

Well, it's true - to my knowledge, no law mandates that anyone log in at conservapedia. Obviously if you don't you can't wandal parod editize it, but that's a different issue. --Just passing by 12:25, 7 November 2008 (EST)

It's not like you can actually edit when you're logged in, either. Unless you're a parodist or restrict your editing to articles no sysop or parodist is interested in. --Sid 12:51, 7 November 2008 (EST)