|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
Fun talk:Really embarrassing conservatives/Archive1
Haggard[edit]
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. --H
jimachong 13:04, 10 August 2007 (CDT)
- You represent the typical CP user, extremely liberal. 4.152.24.36 13:10, 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)
- I think I'm going to refuse to answer questions that make me blush.
- Also, wouldn't it be your third and fourth pick? ollïegrïnd 13:09, 27 August 2007 (CDT)
- He may be talking about birds (wp:tit) ollïegrïnd 13:08, 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)
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'
Dreher[edit]
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. --67.102.192.7 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... --67.102.192.7 15:16, 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)
- 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. --67.102.192.7 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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. --67.102.192.7 15:16, 27 August 2007 (CDT) fnord
- 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)
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)
- And unlike wikipedia, edits/new pages must be without gossip. Godspeed! -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי שְׁלֹום!
- 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)