Information icon.svg Nominations and campaigning for the RationalWiki 2021 Moderator Election are completed. Voting is live now, until 17:00 UTC, 30 November!

Fun talk:Really embarrassing conservatives

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

I listened to a sermon by Haggard at my friend's church, two weeks before he was outed. What's really sad about it is that half of it was about how homosexuals will burn in hell. Creepy. --HVista-epiphany.pngjimachong 13:04, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

You represent the typical CP user, extremely liberal. 13:10, 10 August 2007 (CDT)
A Gay, baby-aborting, neopagan, anarcho-communist, Jesus-hating, Jew-loving liberal. Totally. --HVista-epiphany.pngjimachong 13:13, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

You forget that once a Conservative is convicted, or if he's too embarrassing to keep putting up with, he's not really a Conservative any more. --Kels 13:20, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

What about Jimmy Swaggart? MiddleMan 13:45, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

Added. If you can think of any others, add 'em on. --Gulik 14:08, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

The most embarassing conservatives are the pro-American morons who (tits) like to rant about kikes and say israel rocks and support the iraq war and have sex with the american flag. All they ever do is read the bible and do this shit they call "homeschooling". Truly pathetic inbreds. To them I say one word: TITS. James Taylor 10:59, 27 August 2007 (CDT)

"tits:" does this mean anything other than my second . . er . . third . . . no forth . . no it IS third favorite part of the female anatomy? -- ah-hem . . . behind, brains and personality of course. Exasperate me!Sheesh!I said what? 11:18, 27 August 2007 (CDT)
He may be talking about birds (wp:tit) ollïegrïnd 13:08, 27 August 2007 (CDT)
Also, wouldn't it be your third and fourth pick? ollïegrïnd 13:09, 27 August 2007 (CDT)
I think I'm going to refuse to answer questions that make me blush. Do goats have tits? Exasperate me!Sheesh!I said what? 13:51, 27 August 2007 (CDT)

In British English, "tit" is just moderate slang. Kind of like "twat" nothing offensive or sexist the way it seems to be in America.

Gotcha, I should point out that in 'merican English twat > tits on the offense scale. Tit is almost polite by comparison especially if you spell it 'teat'


I removed Rod Dreher because he is a liberal. James Taylor 11:02, 27 August 2007 (CDT)

Gee, that's funny, I put him back in because he's a conservative. humanbe in 15:18, 27 August 2007 (CDT)

Political Idiocy Beyond the Call of Duty[edit]

This section should be removed or renamed. Denying evolution is hardly political idiocy, in fact, it makes political sense. I keep hearing all these statistics that the vast vast majority of Americans do not believe in evolution, so it's hardly surprising that people running for President are in line with this majority (particularly candidates on he ideological right; I'm quite surprised that more Republican candidates didn't raise their hands). Whether or not denying evolution at all is idiocy is debatable as well; that would make the majority of the country idiots. While this might be true (I might be more inclined to use the word "misguided", though perhaps idiot is better for adherents to YEC), it hardly becomes noteworthy if it's so widespread. Quite frankly, the fact that only 3 out of about 20 candidates in both parties are denying evolution makes me question the statistics on how many Americans believe in it. If it really is less than 30%, I'm surprised candidates on either side are risking alienating 70% of the voting public. DickTurpis 12:05, 27 August 2007 (CDT)

Pandering to idiots with destructive beliefs to curry their favor my be a 'sensible' political move, but it HURTS THE COUNTRY. I'd say let it stay. -- 13:37, 27 August 2007 (CDT)
Ah, yes the good old slurs and attacks. Yeah, YEC is such a major destructive belief. You do realize that your statement could be applied to other groups, right? Bohdan 14:51, 27 August 2007 (CDT)
Science made America great, and these loonies want to KILL IT because it disagrees with their strained interpretation of a compilation of millennia-old fairy tales. That shounds pretty destructive to me... -- 15:16, 27 August 2007 (CDT)
I don't know. It does make political sense (which is what the heading is referring to), and pandering is so universal in politics that it makes no sense to single these three out. Besides, I don't think they are pandering; I think they honestly do not believe in evolution. Therefore they are being honest about their beliefs (though obviously us smarter people don't agree with them), and they are simultaneously being politically savvy, by appealing to their base and the majority of the population. At the very least the word "political" needs to be removed from the heading. We can argue that it is idiocy, but it is not political idiocy. Besides, I'm pretty sure the majority of the atheists on this site would consider the belief in that magical man in the sky somewhat of a "destructive belief", but we can't single out all Christians, can we. Unfortunately, I just don't think creationism is a fringe enough belief in this country to qualify as "really embarassing." DickTurpis 14:42, 27 August 2007 (CDT)
It's pretty embarassing to me, but I'm slowly getting used to the idea that half of all the people in this country are of below-average intelligence. -- 15:16, 27 August 2007 (CDT) fnord
I think "antics" would be a better word than "idiocy" in both headings where it occurs. And, do we have a liberal version of this article? humanbe in 15:21, 27 August 2007 (CDT)
I still don't think this is political antics, either, it's just them honestly stating their views when asked. Apparently they are the majority views in the country as well (sadly). I still think the real story is that of some 20 or so presidential candidates, only these 3 (apparently) are going with the majority view. It's quite interesting really, and makes me wonder exactly how many people really do hold creationist ideas, and to what extent. Besides, all these folks have said some pretty batshit crazy stuff (particularly Tancredo, if memory serves), so focusing on this really doesn't seem embarrassing, as the title suggests. Particularly compared to Foley, Haggard, et el. I think it should be removed from here, though certainly mentioned in another article. DickTurpis 16:00, 27 August 2007 (CDT)
This is a great line: "I'm slowly getting used to the idea that half of all the people in this country are of below-average intelligence." I don't really have more to say, just had to comment on it's genius. ollïegrïnd 07:03, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

Did you add the Brokeback Bathroom guy?[edit]

Now we know why Congress mandated those ADA railings in the public restrooms. Quick Comment 11:13, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

Cute quick comment, Quick Comment. I, personally, do not favor exulting in other people's peccadilloes. It creates (or sustains) the gotcha! attitude that keeps this country in shame over all matters sexual. MOO CЯacke® 11:39, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

Cracker, I guess you're right, but as long as the pot-kettle-black effect is applicable, anyone from the "Family Values" party who gets caught *pleads guilty while under an oath to God* to doing God-knows-what in a men's room is fair game, I think. PFoster 12:17, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

While if true this scenario would fall under hypocrisy, we should at least hold off until there is some sort of conviction. I say this especially because it looks like the arrest itself might be bogus or a mistake. Anyway, convictions are a much higher standard than accusations, arrest, or salacious gossip. humanbe in 14:29, 28 August 2007 (CDT)
And unlike wikipedia, edits/new pages must be without gossip. Godspeed! -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי שְׁלֹום!
Hmmm, see the article and tlak at Larry Craig. Anyway, I have been over-weighing the silliness of the arrest conditions versus the real issue which is that he was willing to plead guilty to try to "make it go away". There is certainly something here to write about. I just hope/wish that we can be as tough on libs who make fools of themselves, too. humanbe in 16:45, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

Teh Macaca Thing[edit]

What is teh Macaca thing? I think I was not full of win when that was a meme. Wazza (Not Wazzock, Wazza)Approach the Presence 10:05, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

A staffer for Allen's opponent was following all his campaign stops. Allen singled him out, something like "that guy videotaping us, he's working for my opponent. Let's give a big welcome to Macaca there, or whatever your name is. Welcome to America." The staffer was born in Virginia and macaca is an old racial slur. Secret Squirrel 10:18, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

Duplication / Overlap[edit]

We've got Really embarrassing liberals & Really embarrassing conservatives, but also Left Wing Bastards & Right Wing Bastards. There is a difference between left/right wing & liberal/conservative, & between being "really embarrassing" & a bastard, but there still seems like quite a big thematic overlap between these lists. Should they be merged? ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 10:25, 16 February 2009 (EST)

Well, obviously they're different definitions. But we should watch the overlap. I think they're getting a bit big, there's been a lot of adding but not much expanding or citing examples over the past few hours so we should try and cut it down to what it's supposed to be; really embarassing wingnuts/moonbats. ArmondikoVmoral 10:27, 16 February 2009 (EST)
For now I've see-alsoed them so that they at least all link to each other. But we don't want to end up with too many similar listy articles. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 10:42, 16 February 2009 (EST)
They're really different lists - the Bastards lists seem to be celebratory, the Really Embarassing lists are those whose actions deserve condemnation in one way or another. Secret Squirrel 11:24, 16 February 2009 (EST)


Does Phelps belong on this list, or any other list beyond just plain batshit insane? I seriuosly don't think he has the mental capacity to be conservative (or liberal, or libertarian, or....) - Ravenhull (talk) 13:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


Good. Leave in the unverified claim that Nixon plotted the Watergate breakin; it's only proof positive of sloppy RW research, disregard of facts, liberal bias and cp:liberal deceit. nobsdon't bother me 23:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

RobSmith Aceword up 23:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Seriously, stop breaking the fourth wall. Blue Talk 23:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Good stuff Knobs! You must like RW:Fun, as it is directly comparable in terms of accuracy of statements and lack of honesty with CP:Mainspace. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 00:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Rob is correct, Nixon did not "plan" (was not "behind") the break-in. His mistake was getting involved in the cover-up. Thanks Rob, I fixed it. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Now hold on, we don't KNOW he didn't plan it. I mean does anyone KNOW what was on that tape that was "accedently" ruined?--Thunderstruck (talk) 14:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, presumably Nixon did, but he's dead.
I did note at his funeral that they buried him at the house were he was born. In other words... his native earth. He's coming back, I tells ya. Yeah, he'll be a blood-sucking monster, but except for not casting a reflection in a mirror and an extreme aversion to sunlight, will anyone be able to tell the difference? MDB (talk) 14:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
It's a little known fact that Nobby Nobs has a copy of the missing 16 minutes in his copious files. Along with a video of the Kennedy assassination... shot from an angle nobody's ever seen before. --Ψ GremlinParla! 14:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
He also has the only key to the warehouse in Arizona where the moon landing was filmed. ħumanUser talk:Human 16:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


Whatever happens with those people that not only think that George W. Bush is a blemish on Earth, but also that the USA isn't the greatest country on Earth? --RationalSpanish Sí, soy español, ¿y qué? 9:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC+1)

They are shot for heresy. (talk) Meshakhad 02:19, 1 March 2015 (UTC)