User talk:RobSmith/Archive 02

Help me understand.

Are conservatives for or against offshore drilling? I am serious because I cannot figure it out. Aceⁱ⁹ 02:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

For it, except for right now, when they have to pretend to be against it. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 02:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Tet, but I do want to hear from Rob as he is a conservative. Aceⁱ⁹ 02:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Conservatives oppose the senseless slaughter of innocent sea turtles, blue tuna, wind plover, brown pelican, shrimp, oyster, and menhaden for greed and profit, which obviously was a priority in the First 100 Days when on 6 April 2009 Obama granted BP an exclusion to the proper environmental impact assessment (EIA) required by law after taking more money from BP than any other candidate in 20 years.

P.S. Take off this goddam petty & vindictive vandalbin. nobs^{don't bother me} 02:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you are in the vandal bin. I'll check for you. Anyway - where were you saying the above when Palin was saying "Drill baby, Drill"? You will deride environmentalists, who take a stand to "oppose the senseless slaughter of innocent sea turtles, blue tuna, wind plover, brown pelican, shrimp, oyster, and menhaden for greed and profit". So you see my confusion? Aceⁱ⁹ 03:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

If a communist Muslim Kenyan is for it, Rob's against it? ħuman 03:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I think this was Barack Obama's first attempt to be Bill Clinton, and it blew up in his face. It's called "triangulation" (see Dick Morris). The problem is Obama's positioned himself so far outside the mainstream of America, the Democratic Party, and even African-Americans (Blacks for example, church going god-fearing people that many are, oppose gay marriage in greater numbers than the population as a whole, whereas Obama describes himself as a "fierce defender" of gay rights) he has no credibility when adopting the pose of a compromiser. So all the elements of a tragedy are in place. nobs^{don't bother me} 03:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, Obama's biggest mistake has been to give the GOP and their "ideas" the time of day. Complete waste of diplomatic skills. ħuman 04:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Hitler was into animal rights too, Rob, just like you. True Christians know that animals were put here for people to use or waste as they see fit, and a few here and there don't make much difference. Maybe you should think about where your loyalties really lie. --Kels (talk) 03:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Hitler was also fiercely anti-tobacco and we know Obama smokes cigarettes. But Obama & the Democrats also raised the cigarette tax on poor people whose one cheap enjoyment in an otherwise dismal existence was taken from them on day 15 of the Obama administration. It wouldn't be so bad if there were jobs to pay for the higher cigarette prices, but nobodies working now and nobody is likely to work in the foreseeable future.

Contrast that now with Bush & the Republicans; they controlled Congress & the White House exclusively for several years and made many mistakes. But not once was it ever even considered to oppress poor people by taking their sole consolation in this life away. Obama and the Democrats did it in 15 days. Why? Simple answer. People are too stupid to know what's good for them, so they need Obama and the Democrats of dictate how to live thier lives for them. The same thing happened again with fines for failing to have health insurance. And at some point somebody's child has to be taken away for child neglect -- failing to provide food, clothing and health insurance as required by law -- to prove the law is enforceable. nobs^{don't bother me} 04:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Cigarettes were far from cheap by the time Obama took power. Moving my camels from $50+/carton to $65/carton (combined national and NH state increase last year) was only a 30% jack up. When I quite smoking (hah!) back in the mid 80s cigs were $5 a carton. ħuman 04:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Okay Rob, what would your position be if Obama had taken the position from the left of his party and placed a moratorium on off-shore drilling in order to prevent there ever being the possibility of an oil spill causing the senseless slaughter of innocent sea turtles, blue tuna, wind plover, brown pelican, shrimp, oyster, and menhaden? - π 04:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The tobacco thing is a red herring. We are talking about the oil slick and how conservatives seem to be suddenly against it. I am curious of the response to Pi. Aceⁱ⁹ 04:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow Rob, that's a pretty sad indictment of American capitalism if smoking is the "sole consolation in this life" for the poor. And it is not being "taken away" is is being made more expensive, there is a difference but I don't expect the politically blind to see anything that they don't want too.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 06:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Apart from this, do you realize how strange it is for you to bring in Paul Krugman as the chief witness against Obama? If you're not familiar with his views, he wanted a bigger stimulus, stronger regulations of the financial industry, and single-payer health care. He opposed Obama's policies from the left, which means you guys are closer to Obama than to him on these matters. Röstigraben (talk) 06:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Also Rob, I see you are reiterating the lie that BP as a corporate entity gave Obama some money, when from your reference (if you follow it to the original source rather than cite a second hand blog post) those donations are those made by individual BP employees. Also a grand total of $77,000 is hardly likely to put Obama in hock to BP (no longer British Petroleum by the way but distorting the facts to cast aspersions on foreigners is probably CP policy). I'm sure Obama didn't even know where most of his contributions came from and surely didn't have the time to add up all the $2300 (is that a magic number?), $1000 & $500 contributions. If you bother to do some math you will find that Exxon employees gave even more.

As for the EIA I suspect that even if had been done it would have been identical to the others that were done for the dozens of deep water rigs in the Gulf of Mexico and wouldn't have made one iota of difference to what has happened. But keep on slinging the muck because some of it is bound to stick, isn't it?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 07:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's a nice link to Big Oil political donations from the same source that lists those individual BP donors. Historically the Republicans have received alnost 3 times the funding that the Dems have received. --Explorationist (talk) 09:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC) Also BP only ranks 9th in the list of poltical donors for 2008 and gave 61% to Republicans vs 39% to Democrats (for 2010 the're not even in the top 20). This Rob fellow sure knows how to cherry-pick his facts. Explorationist (talk) 09:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Facts have a commie bias. Bondurant (talk) 09:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

When gas at the pump hits $4 a gallon and people spend $600 to $1000 (more than housing costs) a month to get to work, Obama like Bush, will be blamed for floods, earthquakes, and hurricanes, too (here's my favorite of all time [1]) And $4 a gal is unavoidable -- if you ever wanna see Recovery again. The spill speeds up the timeframe of higher oil prices along with a different set of economic variables to retard Recovery and growth in employment. nobs^{don't bother me} 12:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. - π 12:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

If I interpret your confused comment in the most benign way, you seem to be arguing that the spill will result in higher oil prices, and that Obama should be blamed for this increase. Not only has this got nothing to do with the phony environmentalism you originally based your argument on, but it's not terribly convincing either. The loss of a single platform won't impact the supply of oil in any meaningful way in the short term, and in the long term, the only plausible effect would be a slower expansion of domestic oil production (resulting in higher prices) if Obama jettisons his plans for domestic offshore drilling due to concerns about similar catastrophes. Which, uh, is what you seem to want him to do. So could you please make up your mind about this issue? Are you concerned about the environment, or about the oil price? And if it's the latter, would you be opposed to measures designed to reduce oil consumption, which would also deflate the price? Röstigraben (talk) 14:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The shrimping industry may be gone for the rest of your's and my lifetime. Closure of the Port of New Orleans means truckers will go back to work, as everything has to be hauled to and from other major ports on the west coast or east coast. Ultimatley, the economic disaster in the works is a bigger problem than the environmental disaster. And the Recovery is so precarious at this point, the permanent loss of whole industries after temporary employment in cleanup is the real story. The US spent $350 billion to rebuild New Orleans after Katrina. The city is threatened again with becoming a ghost town since tourism & fishing may be gone for ever.

If that hole isn't plugged up soon, and the experts are quick to say they never did it before nor really know how, we're looking at something much bigger than a garden variety environmental catastrophe. nobs^{don't bother me} 20:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

So...your position on oil drilling? ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 20:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The opposite of whatever Obama's position is. --Kels (talk) 20:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Once again, you simply refuse to answer the question and drive off on some tangent instead. First the environment, then the oil price, now local fisheries. You never bother to defend your arguments, but discard them after one failed attempt at convincing others, and quickly jump to another one. Sorry, but this makes it impossible for me to believe you're actually sincere about any of your supposed concerns (some of which are valid, but stand in stark contrast to the Conservapedia party line). Instead, it simply looks like CP is a pure anti-Obama hate blog, and you'll latch onto anything that would let you criticise him, no matter if it contradicts the philosophies and policies you guys claim to uphold and promote. Well, at least you feel the need to justify your part in CP's ongoing hypocrisy, no matter how inept you are at doing so. Röstigraben (talk) 20:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind comments. In reality, I don't like having to take positions on contemporary issues; I'm much more interested in historical writing and historical questions. for some reason I always get dragged into these contemporary political discussions, but my role is really more as a chronicler of events. nobs^{don't bother me} 06:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Let me offer you a theory why you "always get dragged into these contemporary political discussions:" I suggest you read this page. How is it not a "contemporary political" comment to pretend that only Obama is responsible for the spill, as opposed to, I dunno, BP themselves, or the relaxation of regulations under the Bush administration? The reason is, you're a political hack and conspiracy theorist who poses at being a historian simply by including a bunch of footnotes in your screeds, many of which have been pointed out to you to say the opposite of what you claim them to (ahem, Krugman), while you ignore the constant challenges to their veracity. Junggai (talk) 07:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Rob, are you in favour of offshore drilling in US waters?

Please respond. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 20:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, so long as it's done in somebody else's backyard. My position is roughly the same as Obama & Obama supporters minus the environmentalists (including Environmentalist Against the War). The position being, when in the opposition to call anyone for drilling a fascist, when in power and reality sets do what is necessary for the good of the country. nobs^{don't bother me} 00:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Someone elses backyard? You mean not off the United States or just not off your part of the United States? Aceⁱ⁹ 01:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm all for Britain, Norway, Vietnam, Cuba and the Spratly Islands doing offshore, but the US has legitimate environmental concerns. If I had to bottomline this, basically weaning the US & the planet off fossil fuels & developing alternative energy sources is China's problem. The US is no longer in the leadership role. nobs^{don't bother me} 02:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

You are kinda all over the place Rob, firstly you say yes you are for offshore drilling off the coast of the US then you say no, only off the coast of other countries. You follow this up by claiming that the US has legitimate environment concerns as if to say other countries do not. Then you want to wean the world of oil but that is Chinas problem to develop new energy sources. Please try and make some sense. Aceⁱ⁹ 02:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Why does the US have "legitimate environmental concerns" but Britain, Norway et al do not? --Damo^Hi 03:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it was misstated. US reserves are finite, but its appetite seems infinite. Since 1973 with the first oil shock I've seen the US public waver back and forth between high priority to lessen dependence on foreign oil back to complacency, like during the Clinton era when SUVs were in vogue and gas at the pump was cheaper than bottled spring water. Bottomline, the public doesn't care, and neither does its elected leaders. So it's China's problem now. Chinese demand drives the prices, and Chinese demand will drive the technological improvement necessary to cheapen the cost of alternative fuels. The US is nolonger in the leadership position in this. nobs^{don't bother me} 05:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

@ Damo, because they have safety rules in place. @ Rob, thanks for trying to finally answer the question. I think. ħuman 04:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

What, Rob, would others - China, for example - be expected to reasonably make of America's complete abdication of responsibility towards its own gluttony under your proposal? Is that a policy of which you would approve were the US President to promote it? How does that practically anti-American attitude fit with conservative thinking? DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 05:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

While the US remains a formidable military power, and a largest economic power in terms of GDP, those days are numbered. The trade deficit, coupled with a looming federal default on its operating budget really spell the end of the United States post-1945 hegemonic Superpower status. And this all comes to a head c.2017.

This isn't a matter of policy, or ideology, it's just the economic realities. nobs^{don't bother me} 06:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, Rob, I agree. If LBJ and Reagan hadn't spent us into the ground with a dumb war and dumb tax cuts respectively, we might still have a hope to rule the world. Or at least have a domestic manufacturing base. And on the last, I know what I speak of. ħuman 06:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree both on this apocalyptic scenario and US responsibility for global energy policy, but you really should archive this page first before we switch to that discussion (if you'd like to debate these points). It's become a real mess. Röstigraben (talk) 06:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Human & I share some common experiences. The American people always were reluctant to lead the world post-1945, being isolationist by nature. As to China, it is the cost of conversion to alternative fuels that is prohibitive, for Americans at least. Barely 3% (maybe slightly more) of Chinese have automobiles now with their growing prosperity, but that was enough to push gas at the pump in the US to $4+ per gallon; then the recession hit. When global recovery resumes, Chinese demand will push price to $6, $9, $12. And there isn't a damn thing American can do about it by whining to their Congressmen. On the Chinese end, they just don't have all the jobs in auto manufacturing, part, parts distribution, transportation, repair, etc etc etc that the US has. So as demand for vehicles in China increases and costs for petroleum become prohibitive, they at least have the unencumbered and healthy economic resources to devote to R&D for alternative fuels that may become cheaper in the long run. And the US and the rest of the world will just be in a copy-cat position. nobs^{don't bother me} 07:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Now, first of all, you admit that that "US appetite for oil seems infinite", that US citizens carelessly purchased inefficient gas-guzzlers back in the day when oil prices were noticeably lower, and that US politicians showed little will to act on this problem by encouraging their citizens to reign in their energy consumption. Fine, I agree on all of these points. Second, you claim that the main reason for the enormous increase in oil prices that we saw from 2003 to 2008 (until the sharp drop at the onset of the recent global recession) is increased Chinese demand. It's true that Chinese energy consumption in general and oil consumption in particular has seen a massive increase during that period, due to China's rapidly expanding economy and rising standard of living (however, China is not the only rapidly developing country in the world, just the most prominent one). However, let's have a quick look at two numbers: total national oil consumption and oil consumption per capita. You can find them here. The US consumes about 2.5 times as much oil as China (which isn't surprising, given its overall larger economy), and appears to be more energy-efficient, a difference that would be even more pronounced if you looked at total energy consumption, and not just oil. However, remember that China has about four times as many people as the USA, and compare the per capita consumption of both countries. The figure for the US is about ten times higher, and still twice that of most other nations at comparable stages of economic development (see Japan and the Western European nations). Based on these figures, I'd conclude that the US has a huge untapped potential for energy savings, since equally developed nations appear to be able to make do with much less oil while still enjoying a comparable standard of living. Given China's rapid development, its consumption can be expected to increase in both total and per capita terms, though you'll probably agree that it's got a long way to go until it reaches US levels. So, that's the demand side of the equation, let's look at the supply side next. Predictions about future oil production are notoriously unreliable, but there seems to be a rough consensus that we're either at or at most a decade away from peak oil, so future increases in global consumption will inevitably drive the price further up, until a global economy dependent on oil becomes unsustainable. Now, who's responsible for this, and who should take the lead in reigning in consumption? Is it China, which is still a developing country no matter how you look at it, and is far behind the US in its technology? Is it Europe, still consuming much more energy than any developing nation, but about twice as efficient as the Northern American nations? Or is it the US, the world's largest economy (which it will still be in 2017, unless China triples its GDP in those seven years), with one of the highest rates of consumption worldwide, and which has enjoyed one of the highest living standards in the world for well over a century now? Eventually, all of these nations will have to make strides to increase their efficiency, but you'll probably agree that a country that is both the biggest consumer in absolute terms and one of the least efficient ones has the largest potential for savings, and stands to lose the most if they don't adapt quickly and prepare for the inevitable supply crunch. Now, if you agree that reducing US oil consumption would be a good thing simply in its own interest, let's have a look at how it could be done. Why is the individuaChinese demand drives the prices, and Chinese demand will drive the technological improvement necessary to cheapen the cost of alternative fuels. l oil consumption in Europe so much lower than in the US, and why do Europeans, on average, drive more efficient cars? Simple answer: fuel taxes are much higher in most European nations (Germany, for example, adds about 6 Dollars per gallon in taxes). Has it brought the European economies to its knees? No. Has it resulted in drastically lower standards of living? No. I'd even argue that the high share of taxes in the overall gas price has had another beneficial effect when the crude oil price went through the roof two years ago: the relative increase in the price you have to pay at the gas station was much less pronounced than in the US, resulting in a less acute pressure on the consumer to adapt his habits. So, if we can agree on these points, we'll have to conclude that government intervention in the market (by means of higher taxes) has resulted in increased economic efficiency and better adaption to inevitable future oil market developments. But if you tried to argue these points on Conservapedia, even a longtime editor and sysop such as yourself would quicly get the boot for disagreeing with Andy's insane orthodoxy. Apart from purely economic reasons, bemoaning the adverse environmental effects of fossile fuel consumption would get you branded a communist (unless you can somehow pin the blame on Obama). Pointing out that CP has advocated even more extreme versions of an energy policy that denies the need to reduce oil dependency would also result in a swift block. You're welcome to try and prove me wrong, though: just bring up any of these issues over at CP, don't relent if Andy or somebody else provides only evasive answers, and let's see where that gets you. Godspeed. Röstigraben (talk) 08:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

An excellent little essay, unfortunately you wasted it by giving it to Rob. You may as well have written it on paper and flushed it down the bog. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 08:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

We'll see, I haven't given up on him yet. I'd just like to find out how someone who at least claims to share so many of my concerns can draw the conclusion that propping up CP and its insane policy recommendations is a worthwhile endeavour. Röstigraben (talk) 09:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Momentqry digression: I get accused of non sequiters but you go from a well-reasoned argument for gas taxes to discourage consumption to an attack on CP and Andy whom you name by name twice; I'll just leave that alone.Let's begin with cite that shows US oil consumption is 2.5 times China's. Have you read the this CRS report f(the material your Congressman reads) from last fall, excerpted,

Annual vehicle output has increased from less than 2 million vehicles in the late 1990s to 9.5 million in 2008. In terms of production volume in 2008, China has surpassed Korea, France, Germany, and the United States, trailing only Japan. ... From January to October 2009, more than 10 million vehicles were sold in China. If such growth continues, China is on its way to becoming world’s largest auto market.

Where does the future lie? They build autos with probably less than $500 in labor and rolls off the assembly line for about $1500. If you can buy a franchise for these Chinese built cars, do it. The shipping cost from China to Long Beach California probably equals the production cost, then maybe another $1500 or $2000 to have it trucked to where you live. So for about a $5000 unit cost investment, you market it to the consumer with a competitive sales price of say $17,000-$22,000.

Now the same car sells back in China for about $1500, which is the producers primary market. They don't have the infrastructure, roads, bridges, gas stations, repair shops, highway signs, stop lights, one-way streets, etc. So there's immense possibilities for growth. True as you say, China is not alone in driving global demand, and these countries like China, India and Indonesia also subsidize consumption. Its a cultural phenomenon, owning a private passenger vehicle is linked up with the idea of prosperity. Those governments are not about to discourage vehicle production, ownership, and oil consumption cause everyone believes it's the samething as prosperity.

The US by contrast is a mature economy. It's tough overcoming decades of mistakes, and chronic ailments. We can't afford to convert off oil, it's just impractical. But the growing economies, with large populations and uncommitted resources that could be used to develop an alternative cost efficient substitute to crude oil ultimately will do so. The reason being, it just impractical think these large populous countries can build enough single passenger vehicles to support 2 billion people that use petroleum products. If they want to be prosperous and avoid the pitfalls that snagged the West, they can begin committing the resources now to develop alternative fuels for their consumers. We can't. They must. nobs^{don't bother me} 01:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

What a load of tree-hugging environmentalist liberal communist bullshit. StarDelta (talk) 01:06, 1supports th3 May 2010 (UTC)

Drill, baby, drill! --Kels (talk) 02:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

(Unindent)Let me get this straight: because the US is a mature economy, it shouldn't be expected to decrease its dependence on oil, but the Chinese, Indians et al. are supposed to develop alternative cutting-edge technologies before they ever reach that level of overall economic development? You probably didn't follow the Copenhagen summit last year, but let me tell you that one huge issue during the negotiations (that didn't get anywhere) was the idea of technology transfers to the developing countries, because the patents for the most highly-developed technologies for renewables and increasing energy efficiency are held by Western and Japanese companies, and couldn't be introduced at market price into budding consumer markets with much, much lower average purchasing power. Next, you claim it's impossible for a highly developed nation to get off fossile fuel usage - well, why do you think I provided the European example, if not to show how countries that are very similar to the US could pull it off and provide a blueprint? By the way, I was surprised you called my argument "well-reasoned" (thanks), because the way I described is obviously one of these socialist/environmentalist schemes of strategic market distortion which you guys seem to hate so much. The only difference between Europe and the USA is - as you yourself admitted - the higher acceptance of such measures among Europeans and, consequently, a higher political will to carry them out. Now here's where we get back at CP: if you lament the fact that US politicians aren't willing to take a long-term view and do something similar to discourage oil consumption, why the hell are you involved in a propaganda effort that, among other things, tries to convince people that such action is not only unnecessary, but downright evil, if not deliberately designed to bring the US to its knees from within? Röstigraben (talk) 06:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not that China (say) will have to implement cutting edge tech - it's that it's easier for them, since they aren't as invested in the old stuff. Look at how developing nations have gone straight to cell phones - they never had the land line wires in place by the time cell tech was ubiquitous and easy to implement. The question is, though, whether they can invent and develop it, or just use the latest tech from the "West". ħuman 19:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, human. And very good analogy. nobs^{don't bother me} 01:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll stick to China as well, because I don't know much about the situation in other major developing countries. First of all, the stuff Rob posted about China "not having the infrastructure, roads, bridges etc..." is obviously nonsense. Outside of sparsely populated areas such as Xinjiang and Tibet, China has already built an extensive network of expressways, and its major metropolitan areas are flushed with privately-owned cars, buses and the ubiquitous taxi cabs. Believe me, you wouldn't want to experience one of Beijing's infamous traffic congestions. Also, Rob is right about the number of newly produced cars, and the vast majority of these are sold on the domestic market. So it's not like China is only just now entering the oil age, nor can they conveniently leapfrog it: hybrid vehicles (not to mention electric cars) are pretty sophisticated and expensive pieces of technology, and while they are being sold in China, only a small minority of consumers can afford them. China's domestic automobile companies are targetting newly emerging customer classes, with prices (and, accordingly, quality) tending towards the low end of the spectrum (by the way, Rob, your plan about selling Chinese cars in the US wouldn't work, because almost none of them meet Western safety standards). The Chinese car makers are simply working with the market they've got, and it's not one in which extensive investments into R&D in order to produce expensive high-tech cars would pay off. It's not unlike the situation in the US: GM, Chrysler and Ford used to reap huge profits on their line-up of gaz-guzzling SUVs, until that market evaporated after the oil price hike. And it's not like the sage Chinese government can simply mandate the adoption of more long-term strategieChinese demand drives the prices, and Chinese demand will drive the technological improvement necessary to cheapen the cost of alternative fuels. s overnight - they stake their legitimacy completely on their success in improving the living standard of their people, and they also have to walk a fine line between giving the Chinese the toys and jobs they want on the one hand, and gradually increasing fuel efficiency standards and investments into renewables on the other. Which is arguably more than the US has been doing, at least under the Bush government. And my point is simply that even if both the US and China have a similarly low threshold of popular acceptance for measures designed to discourage excessive energy consumption, the former can and should make bigger strides towards that goal because of their superior technology and much larger wealth. Röstigraben (talk) 21:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, the comments about Copenhagen and the patent royalties is just one component part of cost that developing nations must pay (or compensate) as they wrestle with the problem of delivering the consumer demand for passenger vehicles to roughly one third of the planet's population. It's their problem. All things being equal, if you wish to compare current crude consumption rates in China & elsewhere to the US, look at the ratio of registered vehicles on the road to population in the United States, which is roughly twice the number of workers in the US, or more than one and half times the adult population. If China alone were to set a goal one vehicle per adult, that would be approximately 600 million more vehicles, or roughly a doubling of existing vehicles worldwide. Then let's factor in India & Indonesia setting the same goals. Then let's imagine someday they reach the same maturity the US has of having one and half vehicles per adult, or two vehicles per worker. While in 50 or 60 years (maybe less) these goals may be obtainable, it's hard to imagine a scenario under which these passenger vehicles would consume fossil fuels with and average of 35 MPG. I've heard it said the next cheapest alternative fuel would cost in relative terms to petroleum about $80 per gallon (this would include the conversion cost of leasing or buying patent rights). It's just not up to the US, or for that matter EU, to figure out how to overcome these costs. It's the developing nations problem, and they are the only ones with the resources to develop alternatives. It's a simple choice on their part, pay the price or maintain a third world status. nobs^{don't bother me} 01:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'm tired of repeating myself, so let me just do a quick point-by-point refutation of your latest nonsense.

• If I want to compare current oil consumption rates between countries, I'll look at these statistics directly, as I have done, not at the number of vehicles. The latter might be marginally useful for measuring living standards and predicting future demand in developing countries, but obviously doesn't take efficiency into account.
• You obviously have no clue about international fuel efficiency laws. These are already more stringent in China, compared to the US, and well above 35 MPG - here's a helpful link to your favourite reliable source.
• I can't begin to imagine where you picked up that 80$ number. The cheapest renewable replacement for regular gasoline is ethanol, or biofuel, which is already extensively used in blends, without resulting in drastically higher prices. Its production is heavily subsidized, so I can't easily estimate its precise real cost, but it would be nowhere near the number you quoted. That said, I'm not too big a fan of burning food for transportation, but ethanol is the most realistic short-to-middle-term replacement.
• Your last paragraph almost reads like you believe that only the developing nations will have to bear higher prices when their demand increases; hence, it would be their problem. Rob, once again, global oil prices will steadily increase in the future, and each nation has a self-interest in adapting to this inevitable development as soon as possible and make the transition off fossile fuels go smoothly. Everyone will have to face the end of the oil age and prepare for it, and even discounting any moral obligations, the developed world is in a much better position to simply save its own ass, if its citizens would only wake up to reality.

So, by promoting complacency and arguing that the world's largest oil consumer can lean back and do nothing, you're effectively calling for running the US economy headlong into a wall. Some patriot you are. Röstigraben (talk) 07:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comparing consumption rates of a finite resource (oil) to the infinite demand of consumers for automobiles (assuming Jesus doesn't return) is apples and oranges.
• Fuel standards of a finite resource in theory stretch out the time before total depletion. Comparisons between the US & China has little impactsupports th on consumption rates, as China has only a fraction of vehicles on the roaqd that the US does. Again, the rate of growth of manufacturing demand for new vehicles is a much larger factor.
• $80 I think applies to hydrogen fuel cell.
• You last comment on global prices sounds like your beginning to agree with the points I've made. nobs^{don't bother me} 06:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Once more unto the breach, but this is going to be my final attempt to get you to realise the contradictions in your arguments. You seem to be pretty similar to Andy in that neither introducing evidence against your position nor pointing out the logical flaws in your arguments will make you rethink your conclusions, and this is getting tedious. Anyway, let's start with the points above:

• I never compared oil consumption rates in one country to the number of vehicles in another (that would indeed be an apples-and-oranges-mistake), I consistently used the former indicator. What I did above was try to tell you why the latter isn't as useful, because it's, at best, an unreliable approximation to a variable that can readily be measured directly.
• I quoted the NYT article in order to refute your notion that China has laxer efficiency laws than the US and wouldn't be able to push the average oil consumption of its car fleet under 35 MPG even after 50 years. Yes, Rob, even China is set to pull ahead of the US in efficiency. It's overall oil consumption will of course still increase in the future, as supports thChina's rapid economic growth will outweigh savings through increased efficiency for at least another decade or two. Still, that's no reason to ignore efficiency - on the contrary, an expected further increase in demand is all the more reason for everyone to think what he or she can do about reducing consumption. Are you still not getting this?
• I don't know about the price of using hydrogen fuel cells, but I doubt anyone would bother with them if their adoption would result in a twentyfold increase in costs for transportation. They may become a big thing somewhere down the line, and all efforts to improve this technology should be supported. Still, ethanol and conventional-battery-driven electric cars are both already available as well as rather cost-efficient (unless you use oil to produce the energy the latter consume, of course).
• I'm beginning to wonder if you even read my posts. I certainly never doubted that we'll see a steady decrease in oil production, coupled with still-rising demand in the near future. Hence, higher prices. That is the backbone of my whole argument, and since it's the assumption both of us apparently share, I wanted to get you around to realize that this inevitable development necessitates the adoption of a proactive energy policy designed to reduce demand and develop alternatives, or we're all done for.

So, let's revisit the glaring contradiction between accepting this fact and arguing that this development is of no concern to the US one last time. Global oil production decreases, the price rises, and everyone except the US behaves sensibly and tries to get its consumption in line with worsening market conditions. US companies and private citizens will still try to consume less fuel as the costs become prohibitive, but since their government hasn't been backing such behaviour up by trying to manage a gradual switch to the post-oil age, it's going to be more abrupt and painful. They'll have to look overseas to purchase efficiency-increasing technologies, something competitors like the Europeans developed and implemented in their home markets long ago. Not just gasoline, but consumer products in general become more expensive as these additional costs are factored into the price. US companies face a sudden make-or-break situation as their domestic market contracts and foreign competitors aggressively seize additional market shares, utilising their superior technology. Tariffs are no solution to this problem, since the products consumers now require can't be produced by domestic companies, and driving the cost of the new, efficient vehicles and other toys from abroad up even more would hurt consumers further. The already crappy US trade balance takes another hit, necessitating yet more borrowing from overseas. Private citizens, companies and the federal government, already deeply in debt, frantically compete for yet more credit that can only be supplied by creditors from abroad profiting from this huge trade imbalance. Interest rates rise sharply, inflation goes through the roof, the dollar depreciates. Consumers have to pay yet more for foreign products, while US companies can't even take advantage of this, since they're now totally unable to compete even in their home market, let alone sell stuff overseas. Finally, as the economy spins out of control and private citizens are unable to keep up their living standard, social unrest looms. Unfettered consumption means living on borrowed time, Rob, and the clock may well run out because propaganda outlets like Conservapedia (not CP itself, since it's irrelevant) stand in the way of realising this problem and acting on it. Andy would still be standing amidst the wreckage his shortsighted views have made impossible to avert, and hold out for the return of Jesus at the last minute. Unfortunately, betting on divine interference is, in the words of the most incompetent US politician of all time, not a strategy and not an option. Röstigraben (talk) 08:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• developing world subsidizes oil consumption; this political atmosphere would take decades to reverse. [2]
• US consumers will "have to look overseas to purchase efficiency-increasing technologies..." -- this is what I said early on, the US no longer is in the leadership role of developing more cost-efficient energy sources.
• "Not just gasoline, but consumer products in general..." -- if vehicles can be converted to use alterfnative sources, plastics, for example, will still most likely use crude oil based polymers, and conceivably could become cheaper since a more abundant supply would be available with the largest segment of demand-vehicle use, quantitatively reduced.
• "US companies face a sudden make-or-break situation as their domestic market contracts and foreign competitors aggressively seize additional market shares, utilising their superior technology....." -- this may already be happening. (Note:there's a somewhat Malthusian tone to much of these arguments).
• ...as the economy spins out of control ... social unrest looms...." -- and the workers rise up to de-re-un-Thatcherize British Petroleum and restore the Means of Destruction to its rightful owners.... nobs^{don't bother me} 01:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)Chinese demand drives the prices, and Chinese demand will drive the technological improvement necessary to cheapen the cost of alternative fuels.

OK, one last reply, just to clarify my stance. The scenario I outlined above describes the consequences of US inaction, not some inevitable development. I pointed out what can be done in my very first lengthy post. And yes, the US is still in a very good position to harness its wealth and knowledge and meet this challenge, if its citizens can reach a consensus on these measures. If they do not, because the right-wing propaganda machine convinces them that such policies are evil, socialist and unamerican, then it's lights out in the foreseeable future. I'm still optimistic about this, reason will prevail. But it will be due to the efforts of sincere politicians, scientists and educators, while Andy and his counterparts in more relevant propaganda outlets are simply trying to pull everyone down to their own level of ignorance and shortsighted greed. You want to keep siding with him, fine. But in doing so you're actively helping to bring about a catastrophe. Röstigraben (talk) 06:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Well that clears thing up: the imminent global catastrophe from crude oil depletion and lack of investment in alternative sources is Andy Schlafly and Conservapedia's fault. Obama's cp:Gulf oil spill is just a drop in the bucket compared to the impending doom right-wingers have in store for us. nobs^{don't bother me} 02:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you just read one out of every five words, or what? --Kels (talk) 04:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

No, it's just that he only understands one out of every five words - at best. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 05:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

CP's ability to aid in bringing about the anti-capitalist, socialist agenda to destroy big oil, the drilling, refining and distribution network, auto manufacturers and the attendant transport and sales network, parts manufacturers and parts sales, auto repair, body shops, customization, custom parts, vocational education feeder schools, etc., and millions upon million of jobs connected with these industries, is a little overrated. nobs^{don't bother me} 02:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Executive summary: "CP's ability ... is a little overrated." ħuman 02:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like Obama agrees with the basic factsI've outlined above; here's what he said at yesterday's press Conference:

It’s time to accelerate the competition with countries like China, who have already realized the future lies in renewable energy. [3] nobs^{don't bother me} 04:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The facts you outlined above? That's actually what I've been saying, you were the one who said "It's too hard! China must do it!". Seems like you're not even reading/remembering your own words anymore. And since when does Obama have any credibility, isn't he the evil communist who caused the oil spill? Röstigraben (talk) 06:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

No, you've discussed short term consumer education & consumption, me & Obama discussed longterm alternatives. Obama used the terms "renewable," whereas I've discussed "alternatives."

• Chinese demand drives the prices, and Chinese demand will drive the technological improvement necessary to cheapen the cost of alternative fuels. nobs^{don't bother me} 16:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Rob, do you support government regulation of drilling?

"Obama granted BP an exclusion to the proper environmental impact assessment (EIA) required by law" so you support government regulation of industry then? - π 04:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Definitely. And if there's a business that needs regulation, this would be it. Have you ever seen the IRS's Criminal Investigations Manual? Half the book is dedicated to one industry, oil and gas, and how to investigate of depletion allowances. And right now I'm consulting with a several individuals formerly employed in oil and gas drilling business, from engineers down to roughnecks on offshore rigs. ~~sup>— Unsigned, by: RobSmith / talk / contribs

I must say your position on this is surprisingly non-conservative for a guy that thinks communist still exist (outside the few hundred deluded college students, and they are all in it because they are hoping that it will get them laid somehow). - π 05:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick call to the last two Republican Presidents, and the former Republican Vice-President, should sort you out Rob. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 05:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, he answered, at least. Isn't that fair? ħuman 05:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

As Huw has said, thanks for answering this question Rob (and for trying to in-some-kind-of-round-about-way answer the last one too). So, given that you are in favour of regulation here, why was CP so anti about everything Obama did previously to restrict offshore exploration? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 07:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't aware Obama did anything to restrict offshore drilling. All I know is Obama's a trash talker who takes money from Goldman Sachs & British Petroleum. I don't waste a lot of time trying to decipher his latest posturing and pandering pitch or trying to make sense of his latest ruse, or trying to determine if he really means it. Frankly, I don't care. And I pity people who take any of his bullshit serious. nobs^{don't bother me} 01:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

So unrelenting distrust of a political figurehead is more important than any particular offshore drilling issue? ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 02:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Rob you idiot, haven't you followed up those links I posted above? BP (they haven't been Britsih Petroleum for over 10 years but we all know you're living in the past) actually gave even more money to the Republicans - as did all the other oil companies.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 17:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Well Lily has already addressed your second 'point' (again), so I will address your first one. You weren't aware that Obama did anything to restrict offshore drilling? Well, you're probably correct, but that didn't stop CP adorning its mainpage with shit like this? Just so I understand the CP view; it is wrong to restrict offshore drilling, especially for so-called "environmental" reasons, but when there's an environmental disaster due to offshore drilling, it's Obama's fault. Is that about right? CP has never bothered with consistency, but this one really does up the hypocrisy ante. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 19:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Krugman

The oil spill is Obama's fault

No, I haven’t lost my mind — that’s not what I believe.

What does this tell us about what Paul Krugman believes? EddyP (talk) 09:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Good luck, mate, Rob is on a strange one with this. No one understands why he thinks what he thinks usually, but usually we have a good guess. In this case, personally, I am just embarrassed for my old friend's "logic". ħuman 09:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

It says it in the NYT. Wikipedia considers it a reliable source, therefore it is true. QED. - π 11:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Apparently he's trying to prove a point [4] -- Nx / talk 11:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

...by vandalising his own wiki? EddyP (talk) 11:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't be the first time. Remember that he claims that New Ordeal had deliberately false information designed to draw out educated people enemy vandals, even it still stands in mainspace as fact today. --Kels (talk) 17:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

(undent) When you search krugman on whitehouse.gov you get all sorts of interesting things, like this answer, for example....

Q In a rare alignment, MoveOn.org, Paul Krugman and Bill Kristol all agreed the President was wrong when he said he does not begrudge Wall Street bonuses.

MR. GIBBS: The President didn't say that, Major.

Q I'm saying what they're saying he said. He said "success" -- "I don't begrudge success, I don't begrudge --

MR. GIBBS: Let's not play hypothetical.

Q All right. He said, "I don't begrudge their success, I don't begrudge their wealth."

MR. GIBBS: No, no, no, no, no. “I, like most of the American people, don't begrudge people's success or wealth.”

Q Well, read the question, too, because the question was about -- the question was about the bonuses.

MR. GIBBS: No, no, I read the questions. You and I talked about this like four times the other --

Q I know, but the question was about --

MR. GIBBS: I understand. I understand the question was about bonuses. The question -- and the President on five different occasions -- just as I emailed you yesterday, causing you to reexamine what you'd written based off of the interview -- that the President was talking in that sentence, as he's done many times, about -- he does not believe the federal government should be setting salaries for business in America. He still believes that.

Q Does he still remain comfortable with the analogy he made with Major League Baseball players many have pointed out -- yes, Major League Baseball players make a lot of money -- no, many of them will make the World Series, but none of them had anything to do with the financial crisis or bad --

MR. GIBBS: Well, I don't think the President would argue that not many baseball players had anything to do with the financial crisis. I don't think that's -- the point he was trying to make was that there are obscene and shocking salaries, and obscene and shocking compensation that don't match what happens with your performance.

Q Does Blankfein and Dimon count?

MR. GIBBS: Hold on, hold on, let me -- can I just -- let me finish my answer -- that the President has said that there ought to be -- these ought to be based on performance, not on risk-taking, okay?

Q And some of these new ones are.

MR. GIBBS: No, that -- right, in the sense that yes, they're in stock rather than in --

Q Long-term health.

MR. GIBBS: There should be a say on pay. Shareholders ought to be able to weigh in on this. And he said that salaries like you were talking about with baseball and these bonuses are extraordinary and shocking.

Q Blankfein and Dimon -- are those obscene bonuses, Blankfein’s and Dimon’s?

MR. GIBBS: The President has spoken repeatedly on these bonuses, and finds them, as he did in here, extraordinary and shocking.

Q Has he been asked specifically about Blankfein and Dimon?

MR. GIBBS: And he said extraordinary and shocking, specifically.

Q Are they obscene, are they an offense, are they a violation of our moral principles?

MR. GIBBS: The President doesn't have any different view on bonuses yesterday than he had 10 days ago or 10 months ago.

Q Are these more palatable because these are different in type from the ones that were not linked to long-term health stock?

MR. GIBBS: Ensuring the bonuses are paid in that way is a movement in the right direction, right? Does that justify the level of these bonuses when, through only -- only through the taxpayers' assistance, would these banks still even exist? Of course not.

So, can anyone tell us how the White House Press Office responded to Krugman's statement the President was wrong? nobs^{don't bother me} 02:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Not relevant, please stay on topic Rob. Answer the question, what do you think Krugman actually believes regarding the oil spill and Obama? Aceⁱ⁹ 02:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

(EC) What on earth are you on about, Rob? Do you even know anymore? I have no idea who this Krugman chap is, but the script here seems to be that you cited Krugman as having claimed the oil spill to be Obama's fault - which he clearly didn't - you have now been called-out on this basic error/astonishing deceit, and in response you post that. Eh? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 02:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's see... Krugman is a fellow Nobel Lauarette who was award the Nobel Prize in economics...in 2008...let's see...2008...the same year (a) of the economic crash and (b) Obama was elected. Krugman also writes a column called Conscience of a Liberal in the msm source NYT But Krugman & Obama have been in a caqge match for several years. [5] You'd think in the worst economic crisis in since the Great Depression the President would listen to the advice of the most widely respected economist on the planet, but Obama & Gibbs are more intent on trashing his credibility. So to hear Gibbs & Obama talk, anything Krugman has to say is bullshit. [6] I can't understand the Obama people being so upset about this. nobs^{don't bother me} 03:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Err what? We're testing your reading comprehension, not getting upset about anything, Rob. Nutty Roux (talk) 03:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, this is all irrelevant to the question posed to you. What do you think Krugman believes about the oil spill based on his column. Does he, or does he not, blame Obama? Its a simple question. Aceⁱ⁹ 03:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm with Obama, Krugman's full of shit, per CBS News. [7] nobs^{don't bother me} 03:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

So do you believe that Krugman thinks Obama is at fault? Aceⁱ⁹ 03:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Krugman lacks credibility, as the Obama team has said for years (forget his Nobel Prize, or the fact Krugman was dead on correct in trashing Bush). nobs^{don't bother me} 03:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

So does Krugman believe the oil spill to be Obamas fault? Aceⁱ⁹ 03:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

All I know is Obama doesn't believe what Krugman thinks or says and makes public his sentiments about a fellow Nobel Lauarette. That should be enough for any heel clicking, mind numbed cultic zombie to ignore what Krugman thinks and/or has to say. Trying to give Krugman credibility now as if he has something useful or worthwhile to say is a bit inconsistent, isn't it? nobs^{don't bother me} 03:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

So why have you the title of Krugmans page on your oil spill article? Krugman does not believe Obama to be at fault and, if you find Krugman so lacking in credibility why have you bothered mentioning him? Aceⁱ⁹ 03:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You don't get it, Ace. Krugman says Obama is not at fault. Krugman has no credibility. Therefore Obama is at fault. Deny this and lose all credibility. DickTurpis (talk) 03:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Look at this criticism here, "Krugman Then, Krugman Now."[barackobama.com] Obama is saying that Krugman said one thing a few months ago and another now, but to what end? That's left unsaid, but the implication must be that Krugman's either a complete idiot who forgot what he said or that he's changed his words due to some sort of unethical or under-handed motive. So you tell me what Krugman said, and if it has any credibility? nobs^{don't bother me} 04:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe Krugman's words were (and I am paraphrasing here) take your fucking meds. DickTurpis (talk) 04:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

In all honesty now Dick, you have to admit the most amazing thing about these blind Obama defenders is they never heard of Paul Krugman. This Politic review of the Newsweek article is pretty good. [8] nobs^{don't bother me} 04:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Jesus you're a fucking nitwit Rob. You have proven the full truth of this. Aceⁱ⁹ 05:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

If that's true, Obama Press Secretary Robert Gibbs has been a good student of the nobsian method, as witness above. Look at any reference to Krugman on whitehouse.gov. [9] nobs^{don't bother me} 05:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Word of advise everyone. I learned this lesson many times some years back, but I keep falling into the trap too. Give up trying to have a reasonable discussion with Rob. It's a combination trying to talk to a retarded 3 year old who only wants to talk about his favorite new toy and banging your head into a brick wall. Forever. It isn't worth it. Give up. DickTurpis (talk) 03:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Nice one Dick. Also, Nobbies, I presume that whenever I'd like to quote Paul Krugman on any issue in the future - the Nobel Prize-winning Paul Krugman, I might add - you'll be happy to bow to his views? Oh yes I'm sure. ħuman 09:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

(EC)No, of course not! Krugman suddenly lost all credibility a few comments above! From now on, Rob will bow to Obama's views and turn CP into a pro-Obama blog. Röstigraben (talk) 09:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Krugman has also published a paper in 1978 that cited a work from 1987 (also by Krugman, as it happens). Krugman rocks. 68.147.139.21 (talk) 09:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Remotion

You've been given back your cool sysop powers. Use them wisely. Gooniepunk2010 ^{Oi! Oi! Oi!} 05:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Damn, I've been demoted. nobs^{don't bother me} 05:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

yeah sorry about that. Never mind though. Aceⁱ⁹ 09:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

A quote to consider

“”He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you. - Friedrich Nietzsche.

EddyP (talk) 10:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

"God is dead." - Nietzshe

"Nietzsche is dead." - God ^{[citation needed]}

"I miss Richard Nixon." - Paul Krugman

"Nobel Lorette Leaurate Prize-winning-guy Paul Krugman is the most widely respected economist on the planet" - RobSmith

"Krugman is full of shit" - RobSmith, 16 minutes later. Röstigraben (talk) 13:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

"It is Obama's fault that God is dead" - P. Krugman (as Translated by R. Smitch) DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 13:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

In Soviet Russia, Obama is the oil spill's fault! Junggai (talk) 22:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

"God is dead. Long live General Motors!" - Barack Obama nobs^{don't bother me} 01:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

"I would not have saved the American motor industry, and would instead buy foreign everything" - Rob Smith. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 05:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

GM is dead! Long Live God! ħuman 05:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I have just read your oil spill essay

And you are either (or perhaps both):

• An idiot.
• So overwhelmed with out-and-out hatred of Obama, that you manage to steer nearly every fucking paragraph in to an attack on him.

Terrible writing, either way. You appear to have read one non-technical article, and then think you are an expert on deepwater drilling. For anyone with even the slightest knowledge of this industry, your writing is embarrassing. Keep up the good work. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 16:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I still don't understand why Obama killed all those people in the Haitian Earthquake, they don't vote anyway. nobs^{don't bother me} 01:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)still don't understand

Hey! Look at you! Developing a sense of humor and shit. Howdaya like that! Is there perhaps hope for you yet? DickTurpis (talk) 01:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I congratulate you, Rob. That was the funniest thing I saw all day, and I spent the day watching Lewis black videos at the airport. I'm very impressed. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 01:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Rob's always been a funny guy, the trick is figuring out how to get him to make a joke. ħuman 02:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

A joke that's completely off topic at the expense of a couple hundred thousand recently deceased Haitian people...hilarious. PACODOG^{woof, bitches} 03:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Nah, it's common knowledge now president's are responsible for Acts of God. Katrina deaths were 1300. "Bush responsible for Katrina" googles 2.3 million hits, including the German Minister, Democratic Underground, and Paul Krugman in the top ten. [10] So I agree, it is no joke. nobs^{don't bother me} 04:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, don't be a moron. Bush was not the "cause" of Katrina. Bush was responsible for the appalling federal reponse the the disaster we all saw coming. "Heckuva job, Brownie". If anything, Obama will be responsible for any failings of the feds to address BP's fucking disaster. Drill baby, drill. ħuman 04:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

PS, you can have Obama. His politics are closer to your than to mine. ħuman 04:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Your inability to read

""The oil spill is Obama's fault" in his regular New York Times opinion column, Conscience of a Liberal,, although there is some question whether he actually believes it." Some question? How is there some question of his belief when he says, in the first sentence "that’s not what I believe". You're a simpleton aren't you? Aceⁱ⁹ 02:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Ace. Why are you continuing to humour this guy? His willingness to use dishonest arguments to further a cause he believes in has been documented well enough by now. --Damo^Hi 02:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I am waiting to see what gibberish he comes up with next. Aceⁱ⁹ 02:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Acording to barackobama.com "the implication must be that Krugman's either a complete idiot who forgot what he said or that he's changed his words due to some sort of unethical or under-handed motive." [11] " nobs^{don't bother me} 03:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Please don't link random words here Rob. Or string random words in a row that looks like a sentence but says nothing... Or link to shit that has nothing to do with what you are talking about. Once again, why do you lie about what Krugman says? ħuman 03:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

There is some question whether Krugman says what he thinks, according to Obama and company. So the current version tilts toward the Obama POV. nobs^{don't bother me} 03:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Absolute bollocks Rob. Krugman has made himself perfectly clear - he doesn't think that Obama was at fault. Any insistence by you at the margins is petty, dishonest and quite frankly pathetic. --Damo^Hi 04:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

He does say that dishonest people will blame it on Obama. Nice of Rob to be so obliging. --Kels (talk) 04:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The end justifies the means. I trying to save the planet. Think of the children.... nobs^{don't bother me} 16:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you Actually read the words?

Or do you just browse headlines and photos? I bet you do really well with "Where's Waldo" books. SirChuckB^{That is all} 06:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

It was on this talk page I was pursueded Krugman's an apologist for Obama and not a critic. Look what he says, " the truth is that policy makers aren’t doing too much; they’re doing too little....that Obama administration economists would very much like to see another stimulus plan... Maybe the economic measures already taken will end up doing the trick...But hope is not a plan.

Key word is hope. So, is Krugman supportive of the Obama agenda of hope & change, or does he think its BS? nobs^{don't bother me} 02:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, he "thinks" rather than "toes the line". He agrees with or supports Obama on some things, and criticizes him on others. Yeah, there's actually no "party line" on the left, surprised? ħuman 02:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, when Krugman agrees with Obama, this is evidence that he is a communist. When he disagrees with Obama, he is just doing it to cover up the fact that he is a communist. QED. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 02:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

That's actually a pretty interesting article of Krugman's. He seems oblivious to what caused the Greek debt crisis, and incapable of analyzing or understanding investor sentiment. And statement's like this:

Hey, worrying about the unemployed is just so 2009.

What’s behind this new pessimism?

Can you say "out of touch liberal elitism," or maybe the pain and suffering of 16 million unemployed has not been extenuated by crackpot ideas propounded by the likes of Krugman & Obama? nobs^{don't bother me} 02:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah Nutty Roux (talk) 03:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I only noticed your latest mangling of Krugman's words just now. Once again, you spectacularly fail at reading comprehension, and thereby provide a nice implicit answer to the question asked above. Rob, Krugman's using that line to criticize inaction in the face of terrible unemployment. And while I already pointed Krugman's views out to you a few weeks ago, here they are once again, just for you, in a nutshell: he's an independent economist with rather left-leaning, Keynesian views, and while he frequently criticizes Obama's policies, he does so because he thinks Obama has steered too much to the right and has succumbed to Chicago-school-economics. If Krugman could've had his way, the US would have nationalized large parts of its financial industry instead of handing out bailouts, would have put together a much larger stimulus package, and would have enacted single-payer health care or at least a very robust public option. It's your decision whether you want to side with Krugman or Obama on these issues, but Conservapedia resorting to Krugman to bash Obama would be like me quoting Dick Cheney when criticizing him for not following through on his promises to close Guantanamo and put and end to detention practices outside of the normal juridical system. Röstigraben (talk) 10:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Huh? okeee....Newsweek carries a cover pic w/Krugman & bold headline, "Obama is Wrong." Now the Obamazombies say, "Krugman is Right." ....eeookay....Ever hear of the 12-12-12 Rule? What does the average 12 year old, 12th grader, and average adult all have in common? They all have a 12,000 word vocabulary. So if you can wexplain this BS in 12,000 words or less to the average 12 year old -- and have it make sense -- please do so. Right now, I'm sticking with the tried & tested Wiki axiom, "verifable - not true." nobs^{don't bother me} 03:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you respond to what was said rather than bringing up extraneous arguments. Damo^Hi 03:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

No kidding. Rob, having a discussion with you is like playing Whac-A-Mole. You line up your shot, you wait for it, and then you strike, only to have the little rodent scurry back down and pop up in a completely different part of the board. SirChuckB^{I brake for Schukky} 05:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Let me get this straight, now. Krugman said, "the oil spill is Obama's fault." Yesterday Obama took responsibility for it, but Krugman doesn't really believe that. Does that about cover it? nobs^{don't bother me} 03:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

So the answer to the above question is "no", then? --Kels (talk) 03:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually his answer is "nnn... hey look over there, is that some kind of red fish?". - π 03:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Obama took responsibility for the government's response to it. He sure as hell didn't cause it, you moron. ħuman 04:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

au contraire

Question from Chip Reid... you knew as soon as you came in, ... about this cozy relationship, but you continued to give permits -- some of them under questionable circumstances. Is it fair to blame the Bush administration? Don't you deserve some of that?

So your position is now that the government should oversee such projects? ħuman 06:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

THE PRESIDENT:Well, let me just make the point that I made earlier, which is Salazar came in and started cleaning house, but the culture had not fully changed in MMS. And absolutely I take responsibility for that. [12]

And the Deepwater Horizons was one of the rigs granted a permit without the Environmental Impact Assessment required by federal law. [13] nobs^{don't bother me}

Hey Rob, can you say "out of touch conservative elitism" because the condition is much more prevalent amongst the rich and powerful than liberal.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 09:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

regulation

So, anyway, Rob, you now agree that the government should be heavily involved in regulation of oil/gas companies? Because I think they should be. ħuman 09:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes & no; the product that comes to the surface still has to be competitive in price. How difficult would it be for a joint Iranian-Venezuelan-Cuban conglomerate oil consortium to set up a deep water drilling rig 13 miles off the US coast with absolutely no environmental or safety regulations (hell, they could staff the rig with wp:shahids and get a twofer: oil revenues to fund wmd, and and martyrs in case of a mishap). nobs^{don't bother me} 16:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of which, where does Cuba get their energy from? ħuman 02:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

This rig was 125 miles offshore - Cuba has as much of a right to drill the same reserve as anyone else. All they lack is the capital investment & knowhow. See these two recent articles, for examle. [14][15] nobs^{don't bother me} 02:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, ok, so they have ready access to offshore fields? I realize their economy operates at a much lower energy intensity than our, I was just curious where they were getting whatever they use. I suppose that back in the good old days (pre-1991?) the USSR supplied them with oil. But that was a long time ago. ħuman 02:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's an article from 2006 about a joint Cuban-Chinese venture 45 miles off Florida. [16] Cuba has low consumption, so most would be for export. They can outsource the knowhow from ferneigners, like most of the Arab states do. They're in a similar position as Vietnam, which also potentially could become an oil-rich nation. They don't have many vehicles on the road after 50 years of retarded economic development, and agriculture is done with the ox. nobs^{don't bother me} 03:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Ironically, while your typing is sane and makes sense, thcone people who typed at your link lost me with "...and provide compelling evidence oil is a plentiful deep-earth product made naturally on a continuous basis." Then I noticed it was World Nut Daily. Oh well. ħuman 03:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

That article metions jerome Corsi of Obamanation and Unfit for Command fame. I was looking for a Popular Mechanics from about two years ago but can't find it. This one's got some good technical stuff. [17]

I've been consulting with an ex-oil engineer; he said that top kill wouldn't work cause the first mile beneath the seabed floor is "fish turds and sea shells;" they have to drill down farther to hit something solid. Because of the pressure, the oil will just squirt sideways into the sediments and force back up elsewhere from where the pipe broke off, nobs^{don't bother me} 04:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

A mile of loose sediment I really doubt. Anyway, they line the bore with steel pipe as they drill. Hence the long-term strategy of drilling into the well from the side and plugging it. Best of luck with that, I hope it works. This gusher is killing business. ħuman 05:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Two to three thousand feet of shifting sediment due to ocean currents, what scientists call "sea shells and fish turds." The pipe can't be stabilized or plugged with concrete until you drill into rock beneath the sediment. Remaining option: drill pressure relief wells and attach a sleeve to the well head and eventually funnel the flow back to the surface. nobs^{don't bother me} 13:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Rob, you clearly don't have a clue about offshore drilling, so please stop embarrassing yourself. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 21:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Exclusive economic zones stretch out to 200 nm, don't they? The U.S. could kibosh drilling if they wanted to except for those areas within Cuba or Mexico's EEZ.68.147.139.21 (talk) 09:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Certain nations may have agreements like Iceland and England not to fish in each others waters within 200 nm, but it's not a universal agreement. The link above says a joint Cuban/Chinese rig pumps crude 45 miles off Florida, which would not be subject to US regulations. So they could produce crude much cheaper than a company that sells the product in the US, unless of course the Cuban/Chinese oil is sold to Mexican refineries through front organizations and its origins become untraceable. Then Congressmen can still pretend to be for protecting the environment and punishing big oil polluters without upsetting the price and supply too much. nobs^{don't bother me} 13:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you actually read the words? part II

I hardly think it is fair to blame Obama for a report relating to activity 2000 - 2008. Bit of hate shining through eh Rob? --Damo^Hi 09:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Such an irrational emotion, I'm ashamed of you Rob. --Kels (talk) 01:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

My condolences

It seems that you've now become the go-to guy for Ken's crazy project ideas after you made the mistake of responding to him. Does he just expect you to come up with silly article names, or actually write them? Anyway, please make sure to appropriately question the machismo of anyone even superficially involved with this philosophy. Godspeed! Röstigraben (talk) 08:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm proud to take this on. One problem, though; the godless commies got in bed with the greedy multinational corporate conglomerate oil polluters. Good thing we updated thecp:Barack_Hussein_Obama#Maoism section -- it'll be easier to connect the dots to explain how a Maoist becomes a greedy corporate capitalist on the Chinese model. nobs^{don't bother me} 02:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow... just wow, Rob. ħuman 02:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Expanding the Obama article is a start, but hardly sufficient. You should add the information about "greedy multinational corporate conglomerate oil polluters" to the Anti-Socialism project as well, comrade. It would be an eternal testament to your mastery of dialectic synthesis, as well as provide epic lulz and might just make Andy's head explode. Röstigraben (talk) 06:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

C'mon Rob, do us and yourselves a favour and add a Hitwin or Stalbama to the Obama article. It'll help, honest. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 07:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd like a Obamao please. — Pietrow ☏ 17:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Political realities.....

"This is the real world, Obama and Company, and you idiots just don't have clue about political realities." - *Cough* Political Science Degree *Cough* Aceⁱ⁹ 20:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Petty vindictive puke for taking my sysop powers who can't hold his own in a discussion *fart* nobs^{don't bother me} 21:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

That's fucking rich coming from a proven liar. Go back to jerking off over Kara's yellow dress, you lying swine. I'd walk all over you in a debate. Aceⁱ⁹ 01:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

(Does secret handshake) Mind you that experts will never be able to stand up to the wisdom of the BotP, though. Röstigraben (talk) 21:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

So my years of study (and ongoing study) have been for nothing? To think of all the time and money I could have saved by lying and making things up like Rob. Aceⁱ⁹ 21:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Should've kept your job at the carwash, it has more of a future. nobs^{don't bother me} 21:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

In NZ we have auto-carwashers. Aceⁱ⁹ 21:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Yah, you fuck sheep too, from what I hear. nobs^{don't bother me} 21:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Not where I am from. Aceⁱ⁹ 21:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey Rob. Guess what? Nutty Roux (talk) 21:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll just tell you since I have no intention of coming back here anytime soon. I was going to say that you're doing a heck of a job trolling RW. Almost as good as TK even. My only recommendation if you want to juice your game to his level is to keep writing about the sheep fucking, but heap on more personalized messages of hate followed by strange locutions like "eh?" at the ends of sentences asking nasty and pointless rhetorical questions. And for sure keep skipping around from topic to topic and failing to answer direct questions, but make sure your responses convey that the reason you're not answering is because the questioner doesn't deserve it and is a "hater" or something similar. You're doing great. Nutty Roux (talk) 22:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Ace came to my talk page. After that little puke took my sysop powers away, then wants a rational discussion? He's a vindicitv e little puke. And tell me, what is the difference between what Ace did, and what TK is constantly accused of? Huh? nobs^{don't bother me} 01:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, the first and most obvious answer is "you can still edit here". Are you gonna unblock me on CP now? ħuman 01:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I've argued for open editing, but my influence is limited. nobs^{don't bother me} 02:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Rob, not having sysop powers in no way limits your ability to edit RW and secondly you lost them because of your threatening behavior. I fail to see how this is my fault or has anything to do with TK. Oh, and I didn't come here for rational discussion as such discussion is impossible with you. Aceⁱ⁹ 01:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Get screwed. I'm a grown man with life's experience, you're an over-impressed-with-yourself intolerant, little puke who can't win an argument on the merits and thinks he can force me into rehab. You didn't stop to think before you desysoped me, how can your actions be undone? Either overridden by another, or you have to admit your were wrong. Good luck, asshole. nobs^{don't bother me} 02:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Your rant is confusing and doesn't make any sense. Aceⁱ⁹ 02:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Get fucked. Does that make sense? nobs^{don't bother me} 02:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Why so aggressive? Because I took away your rights? Aceⁱ⁹ 02:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Lot sat in the gate in Sodom. Who made you a judge over me and thee? You think you can affect my views, and my ability to articulate those views, with a petty and vindictive power play? What is the differnece between your actions, and what you accuse TK of daily? All you've proven is yourself being intolerant of diverse views. Think your fellow Ratwikians support your actions? It wouldn't reflect well on them if they did. You've become abusive and power mad. But I don't give a shit, you're kind are a dime a dozen. nobs^{don't bother me} 02:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Why do you care about sysop rights? Your own abusive behaviour caused you to lose them, wasn't my fault you were being a threatening cunt. TK blocks on site, IP blocks, oversights and email blocks. You can still post your views here, you are not blocked or in the vandal bin. So I ask, what seems to be the problem? No one has stopped you articulating your lies views.Aceⁱ⁹ 02:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I never performed one sysop action in three years as a member here, longer than you my friend. You never considered that. I earned my trust not to abuse sysop rights or vandalize the site, but that means nothing to you. We had a serious disagreement--me and the site owners--and it all was handled the proper way both at WP & RW. This is how the system is supposed to work. But you didn't respect that. You intervened with no knowledge of the facts and performed a petty & vindictive act. It's your problem now to undo the damage to your credibility as a rational thinker, trusted bureaucrat, and problem solver when disagreements arise between users in an online community. nobs^{don't bother me} 03:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Why is it so important to you to have sysop rights? Oh yeah, while we are at it - I didn't desysop you in the first place. Only after Goonie resysoped you out of the blue. Aceⁱ⁹ 03:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Without cause. As I said, I earned my trust, and have a proven record. nobs^{don't bother me} 03:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Whatever Rob, I don't care for your bluster. I have never done anything expect desysop you after Goonie sysopped you without discussion. Why don't you appeal your case and let the community decide instead of deriding me for senseless purposes in an impotent rage. Aceⁱ⁹ 03:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

While you are at it, can you unblock CP user DamianJohn. I made many constructive edits and did not vandal the site in any way. --Damo^Hi 01:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually yes, and while you are at that, can you unblock my socks? You can find a list of them at my userpage. Not all of them were vandals, I promise. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 01:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm for open editing, and some of you guys could be valuable contributors. But unfortunately your all too well known, won't give up sockpuppetry, and it's not worth it to me to argue somebody's case when an unfavorable outcome is foreseeable. nobs^{don't bother me} 02:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Am I really "well known" by the CP community? What evidence do you have to suggest that I participate in sockpuppetry? Personally I find your insinuation somewhat offensive. --Damo^Hi 02:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Well duh. Whaddya just post above? nobs^{don't bother me} 02:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

English is not your first language is it Rob. Damo had an account on CP as Damien. That's not sockpuppertry you nitwit! Aceⁱ⁹ 02:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Who gives a shit what the name is? It's the substance of the edits that matter. nobs^{don't bother me} 02:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

So you are saying that I make bad edits? --Damo^Hi 02:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

In any case, above you said that the reason you won't unblock me is because of sockpuppetry, now you seem to be saying its not sockpuppetry but my edits. Which is it? Damo^Hi 02:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

What I can't figure out are the folks who actually try to engage him and expect a straight answer. It's as bad as the people who think TK will do more than fling feces in response to any question. Much more fun to openly call him and idiot, and wait for him to prove you right. Again. --Kels (talk) 23:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It's really our own fault for studying something that will not lead to the inevitable conclusion that a right-wing theocracy is the best thing since sliced bread. But hey, some of us have still managed to embrace the Way of the Rob and got somewhere in life. Röstigraben (talk) 21:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

If I wanted to believe right-wing theocracy was the way to go I would have got a job at a car wash. Aceⁱ⁹ 21:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Rob, for a 'grown man with life's experience' you seem awfully upset about losing some minor powers on a minor wiki. EddyP (talk) 18:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Look at the subsection below, posted by a RW Bureaucrat. Tell me that's not trolling. Tell me Ace is not guilty of precisely what TK is accused of here daily? nobs^{don't bother me} 19:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not. He's not. -- Nx / talk 19:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Ace is not guilty of precisely what TK is accused of here daily. --Kels (talk) 19:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course, coming from an all white jury and lynch mob, those kind of comments are to be expected. nobs^{don't bother me} 19:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Likening yourself to a black man in the deep South being tried before an all white jury. Pure class, asshole. Ace doesn't threaten to sue people and turn editors into their licensing authorities. Ace doesn't block tens of thousands of IP addresses based on the pretense that there's a low likelihood a productive editor would use them. Ace doesn't take known parodists with a stated agenda of terrorizing well-meaning editors under his wing. Ace doesn't tell bald-faced lies about any number of things TK's been caught openly lying about. Ace doesn't infinitely block users for disagreeing with whoever you think is in power, like TK blocks any comer for arguing with Andy Schlafly about the hateful diarrhea that issues forth from his fingertips. I could go on. But you only asked for "Ace is not guilty of precisely what TK is accused of here daily." Nutty Roux (talk) 21:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

So what the hell does any of that have to do with me, other than Ace making me ride the back of the bus? nobs^{don't bother me} 02:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Fun's fun, but you've crossed about a dozen lines here. Walk it back. --Kels (talk) 02:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

If this is the deep south where blacks are tried by all-white juries then CP is the land where blacks have been eradicated. Rob, take five minutes to breathe, go and look at that girl in her pretty yellow dress, and try to calm down. EddyP (talk) 21:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Ace is not guilty of precisely what TK is accused of here daily. Please unblock Human at CP and rename the account HuwP. If you check you find no wandalism in my entire history (I assume you can see edits in deleted and recreated pages, and also see that I was never oversighted). ħuman 03:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

You're legendary; in the Conservapedia:Great_Purge#The_Great_Purge you are number 3 on the list (from bottom up; also note, I blocked only one user in that whole event). I never labelled you as a user in dispute, [18] and thought you behaved admirably throughout the whole affair, but this probably isn't the forum to discuss old business. For a long time I thought you were a sock of User:AmesG, but I been told by other CP sysops it's not true. nobs^{don't bother me} 04:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

You're forgetting the First Rule of Conservapedia: everyone is a sock of AmesG. DickTurpis (talk) 05:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Figured it out....

Aceⁱ⁹ 01:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Call to comment

If you think I have treated you unfairly then comment here. Aceⁱ⁹ 03:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Stop this harassment, please. nobs^{don't bother me} 18:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Really Rob? You bitch and whine about how poorly you've been treated and then when given the opportunity to comment on the process to fix your complaints, you claim harrassment and ask that it be stopped? Amazing. SirChuckB^{DMorris for new Jinx!} 18:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Why should my time be impinged on in an effort for Ace to cover his ass? Look what larron just posted on the WIGO page, Wikipedia is the logical standard by which anyone should judge wiki policies elsewhere - you don't have to follow wikipedia's lead, but you will always measured against it - it's the biggest player around. [19] so let's compare Ace's beaucratorship to WP standard for bureaucrats. Are WP bureaucrats uninformed, petty, vindictive, power mad control freaks? Some editors might think so, but I've personally dealt with several who were able to separate the issues of concern to the project apart from their ideological prejudices influenced by a mob. nobs^{don't bother me} 18:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

"Are WP bureaucrats uninformed, petty, vindictive, power mad control freaks?" said the CP sysop. EddyP (talk) 18:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

HE’S A HUMAN! All you people want is MORE! MORE, MORE, MORE, MORE! LEAVE HIM ALONE! You are lucky he even comes around for you BASTARDS! LEAVE ROB ALONE!…..Please. Anyone that has a problem with him you deal with me, because he is not well right now. LEAVE HIM ALONE!^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 19:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Have you been taking Ken's meds, Rob? --Kels (talk) 19:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Compare RW standards for Bureacratorship to WP's. [20] nobs^{don't bother me} 19:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Is that the link you wanted, Rob? Doesn't have to do with crats. Anyway, I don't think anyone is saying our standards for becoming a bureaucrat are anything like Wikipedia's, and just by saying that I am measuring our standards against theirs. In fact, it would be difficult to identify what our standards are, other than a pretty long history of positive involvement here. We probably could use something more specific, as well as an actual process for promotion. But so far we're getting by as we are. Now, are you really actually sore about not being an RW sysop? DickTurpis (talk) 19:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The reality is, I've had a much longer history of positive involvement in RW than Ace. There is no record anywhere of me ever abusing my sysop privileges or vandalizing this site. If RW is someday to pretend to be an open and diverse community, or adopt some kind of NPOV, they'd need me. But Ace's ideological bigotry makes it impossible for him to discern User:RobSmith and User:TK are actually two different individuals who happen to have user accounts at CP, RW, and WP. He keeps blaming me for everything TK does, and frankly, TK & I rarely even edit the same pages. We really don't even perform similar functions; I write articles, he oversees the site.

So, your correct. I've highlighted two things RW needs to consider as it grows in to a more diverse community: (1) need to more established dispute resolution procedures (other than mob rule), and (2) need for better selection processes for fiduciary functions. nobs^{don't bother me} 20:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

"I've had a much longer history of positive involvement in RW than Ace." You have a longer history, but not of "positive involvement". ħuman 03:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

A CP sysop lecturing us about openness, how ironic -- Nx / talk 20:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for quoting me, Rob! Your problems with parsing sentences are remarkable: I don't expect everyone to use wikipedia's standards everywhere - but every wiki will be measured against it. Kind of the role of the U.S. in the world, really: envied by most, often copied - but there are places which chose to follow other paths . Some do so with remarkable success, but while they may be ignored by the U.S., they can't ignore the U.S. themselves.

BTW, in the analogy CP wants to take the place of North Korea (or the Iran), but has only achieved to become something like a rogue Andorra...

(and RW is a kind of pre-1990 Netherlands...)

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 19:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Andorra? How about Communist Albania. Even the people who suppsedly agree with them don't want anything to do with them - David Gerard (talk) 20:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Rationalwikians worship at the altar of science; look what those brilliant geological engineers did to the Gulf of Mexico, and look how those brilliant engineers are powerless to undo their own mistakes. nobs^{don't bother me} 20:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Science =/= engineering. By the way, have you seen what they are currently doing to repair the damage a greedy multinational corporation combined with lax regulation by the US government caused? 'Tis fascinating indeed. ħuman 03:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)ts ate

Oh, so the geo-engineers schooled in Texas public schools are Creationists who think dead dinosaur guts are only 4600 years old. As to the regs, here's the plan: BP move it's North American headquarters to Havana, set up a series of front business who purchase the crude and transport to Mexican refineries where it's mixed in with Mexican crude; from there import into the US under NAFTA. Meanwhile, Congressmen running for re-election tell the public they're going to get tuff with big greedy oil polluters and idiot voters who buy onto this bullshit get to pay higher prices at the pump for increased costs due to regulatory compliance. Fortunately, big greedy oil companies are able to lessen the shock in price to consumers by circumventing US law. nobs^{don't bother me} 04:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow, you are officially insane. ħuman 11:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I'm sacrificing a goat at the altar of science to stop the oil spill just this moment. And I promise to abjure all the offerings of the other organized religions... But I hope, that you won't try to profit from the work of the geological engineers yourself: sell your car, go by foot! larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 20:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I only drive a car for one reason: it's my civic duty to keep all the United Auto Workers employed. nobs^{don't bother me} 20:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I only drive a car for one reason: to go sell plasma so I can buy more booze. Sup. Nutty Roux (talk) 21:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

"Drill, Baby, OH SHIT!!!1" ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 20:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

That is what Obama said to BP. nobs^{don't bother me} 20:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

If only we had listened to people like you, Rob. If only I cared enough to look for a diff of you seething for American-drilled oil... ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 20:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Can't find one, but my views, which are fully articluated in above subheads, are remarkably similiar to Barack Obama's per last weeks press conference. nobs^{don't bother me} 20:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

. Aceⁱ⁹ 20:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Nah, Rob is fun. He's so fucking angry, but he's also a good sport. I'd probably by Rob a beer if it wouldn't lead him to suspect that I'm a commie. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 20:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if that's it, really. His misinformation and outright lies passed off as truth are so old-school Soviet style because somewhere in his heart of hearts, he wants a Real Man like Joe McCarthy to come "interrogate" him. I bet he spends many a night, thinking what a glorious pursuit it would be. --Kels (talk) 20:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

A challenge

I've observed something of late. While once upon a time you used to connect a discussion on any- and everything to Communism with a mere one degree of separation, I later noticed Berlet/Brandt replaced Communism as the focus of your monomania. Now it seems to be the oil spill that is somehow relevant to everything you or anyone else ever mentions (although am I starting to notice that is starting to be eclipsed by your whining about not being an RW sysop, even though you claim never to have used sysop powers when you had them, and seem to have no plans to use them in the future). Since all roads must lead to some topic, and this week that destination is the oil spill, can you please, in a single sentence or two, connect the following topics to the spill?

1. The development of the 4-slice toaster
2. Toni Basil's hit single "Mickey"
3. Alger Hiss
4. The McDLT
5. Aged Roquefort cheese
6. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle
7. Howdy Doody's twin brother Double Doody

Hopefully you will find this exercise somewhat challenging, but I think it will really help you hone your fine debating skills. Oh, and on a personal note, I just want to say I hope you haven't given up trying to tie every discussion to Communism. These new topics are a little more pathetic in their desperation, and hence more amusing, but I am a sucker for the classics. God's peed. DickTurpis (talk) 13:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It could be summed up this way: a joint venture between Iran and that commie bastard Hugo Chavez sabotaged the rig with a minisub. The purpose wasn't so much to create havoc or an environmental nightmare, but rather so Obama & the Dems will outlaw domestic production once and for all and foster eternal dependency on our enemies, who intern use oil revenues to support the terrorist organization FARC in Columbia and to build nukes in Iran. nobs^{don't bother me} 13:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

What about the McDLT? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 13:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Pathetic. F-. You didn't mention a single requisite topic. Try again. DickTurpis (talk) 13:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, that commie bastard Hugo Chavez has a penchant for McDLT's, which obviously is how he got so overweight. So in addition to funding terrorist organizations like FARC, he plans to buy exclusive rights to McDonald's franchises throughout South America with increased oil revenues after the Democrats outlaw domestic oil drilling. This explains how die-hard communist ideologues like Hugo Chavez and Barack Obama get involved with greedy multinational capitalists like BP.

How's that for a start? nobs^{don't bother me} 14:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Still pretty poor. You only managed to tie one of the examples, and you did so in a shoddy manner. McDonald's hasn't offered the McDLT since the 1980's, so they couldn't account for Chavez's girth (which isn't all that impressive anyway; he's no Limbaugh or Rove, or even Frank). I have to say, though, I do wonder how much of that diatribe you believe. DickTurpis (talk) 14:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

"While a youth in Latin America, Hugo Chavez was a victim of a child obesity having grown up on foods processed by imperialist American multinational agri-conglomerates and loved McDLT's topped off with aged Roquefort cheese. While studying Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle at the University of Heidelberg, Chavez became familiar with the glorious service of Alger Hiss to the Revolution...."

You can't be serious. Roquefort on a McDonald product. Horrible. We ought to ban you. — Pietrow ☏ 17:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, McDonald's products are horrible by definition, so the crime is cruelty to Roquefort. Punishable, of course, by death, and burial in secret so no one desecrates the grave. --Kels (talk) 01:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

That's what I meant, of course. I certainly wasn't suggesting McDonalds' products could be made any worse. — Pietrow ☏ 12:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

You know Rob, I just noticed that whether you're joking or being serious the resulting rants are indistiguishable from one another. Junggai (talk) 21:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

On a more serious note

Could I please ask you to stop using not only the environmental disaster and it's crushing effects on Louisiana, but also the deaths of Deepwater Horizon crewmembers and military personnel as basis for your continual and ever-more pathetic attacks on Obama. It really is in very bad taste. Thanks. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 15:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It's historical reporting. The Obama administration approved BP's Deepwater Horizon's drilling rig without proper compliance to environmental protection, safety requirements, and worse case cleanup scenarios mandated by law. The Obama administration inspected the rig just two weeks prior to the blast that killed 11 people and destroyed thousands of jobs and wildlife. Simple facts. nobs^{don't bother me} 16:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

That'll be a "no" then. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 16:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Rob, you do realize that an environmental impact study has nothing to do with the likelihood of an oil spill-causing explosion on the rig, right? That's a red herring. Now, what's your source stating that the administration gave BP a pass on safety requirements? That would at least be relevant. As for worst case cleanup scenarios, well, it's pretty clear there hasn't been any real plan there since we started offshore drilling decades ago. Why this is suddenly Obama's fault and not that of any of his predecessors is beyond me. It seems to me that since we know this could happen on any one of hundred of similar platforms, and we have no real plan to fight another such disaster, we should shut down all offshore drilling. Is that what you're saying? DickTurpis (talk) 16:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Q. what's your source stating that the administration gave BP a pass on safety requirements?
• A. "BP submitted its drilling plan to the MMS on March 10, 2009. Rather than subject the plan to a detailed environmental review before approving it as required by the National Environmental Policy Act, the agency declared the plan to be “categorically excluded” from environmental analysis because it posed virtually no chance of harming the environment. As BP itself pointed out in its April 9, 2010, letter to the Council on Environmental Quality, categorical exclusions are only to be used when a project will have “minimal or nonexistent” environmental impacts. " [21]
• Q. As for worst case cleanup scenarios, well, it's pretty clear there hasn't been any real plan there since we started offshore drilling decades ago. Why this is suddenly Obama's fault...
• A. Obama admitted as much "Where I was wrong was in my belief that the oil companies had their act together when it came to worst-case scenarios. [22] This is the president acceding to direct knowledge and consent to waiving of the National Environmental Policy Act, and granting the categorical exclusion to big oil polluters. nobs^{don't bother me} 16:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

That implies that Bush et al. didn't realise either, together with the Drill, Baby, Drill crowd. Which also implies the only ones who got it right were the green types who were opposed to offshore drilling precisely because of Exxon Valdez, Prestige, Ixtoc I and similar disasters. Is this really what you wish to argue? — Pietrow ☏ 17:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Rob an environmental impact study is not a safety issue; they are two separate things. An environmental study tells what the environmental impact of the proposal would be. In such cases, it is generally going to be minimal, unless there is a major leak. Whether or not there is a leak is an issue concerning the safety precautions BP takes. Did Obama give them a pass on that? If so, please provide a reliable source. If you want to blame Obama for the spill because he did not order an environmental impact study, then you'd have to come up with a convincing argument that the lack of such a study led to the explosion on the rig. I seriously doubt you can. Every environmental impact study on any offshore drilling rig is going to say in the event of an uncontrolled spill there will be an environmental disaster. We know that, yet somehow we still maintain hundred of such platforms through the gulf and beyond. The issue here is that BP apparently was lax on safety and failsafes on the Deepwater Horizon, which you so far haven't been able to pin on Obama. The lack of a worst case scenario plan you can give Obama a little blame for, but you have to blame every administration in the past 50 years as well as every petroleum company. DickTurpis (talk) 17:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Q. Whether or not there is a leak is an issue concerning the safety precautions BP takes. Did Obama give them a pass on that? If so, please provide a reliable source.
• A. "this particular rig started drilling in this location in January of [2010]. Under the regulations, it’s subject to monthly inspections. It had monthly inspections, in fact, with the last inspection being less than two weeks before the incident." [23] nobs^{don't bother me} 17:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Rob, every man and his dog get a "categorical exclusion" from the EIA as required by federal law - I got that from one of your own bloody sources not so long ago. It wasn't because some employee of BP gave Obama $70k. This is because the US oil industry has been in bed with the government for many many years. For fuck's sake, didn't your man Bush like a bit of oil? Oh, and your other man Cheney's lot, Haliburton, it was them who fucked the cement job up that caused this blowout in the first place (on top of the American gung-ho attitude that led to early displacement of the riser to seawater) [/Xenophobia] DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 17:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Yep. Just found out Al & Tipper's separation is George Bush's fault, too. [24] nobs^{don't bother me} 17:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, Rob...you are so far from reality. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 17:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

In top form there, as always, Rob. When you can't come up with an answer to a question, bring up something completely irrelevant (and untrue in this case, saying that losing the Presidential race put a strain on their relationship is not saying "it's Bush's fault!"), but that's called subtlety and it's something you can't exactly comprehend. But I'll ask you this question once again, and I'll use really small words so I know you'll understand it how no study by oil guys make big boom? DickTurpis (talk) 17:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's go back to the original source linked above (Center for Biological Diversity):

"In a January 29, 2009 press release on the scandal, Salazar stated:

“President Obama's and my goal is to restore the public's trust, to enact meaningful reform…to uphold the law, and to ensure that all of us -- career public servants and political appointees -- do our jobs with the highest level of integrity."

"Yet just three months later, Secretary Salazar allowed the MMS to approve — with no environmental review — the BP drilling operation that exploded on April 20, 2010, killing 11 workers ...." nobs^{don't bother me} 18:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I've told you Rob, those exemptions are par for the course, every fucker gets them. Now I'm certainly not say that's right and proper, but it sure ain't an Obama thing. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 18:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

What's the point of having a rational discussion? They only remaining believers in the messiah are the brainwashed Hitler Youth who can't see it's a lost cause. nobs^{don't bother me} 18:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

What are you on about, Rob? I am neither up nor down over Obama, I just find it hilarious (yet also slightly creepy) how you try to turn absolutely everything to an Obama bashing session. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 18:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

"the brainwashed Hitler Youth..." That's right, Rob. People who support the policies of the President of the United States are JUST LIKE the people who supported Hitler. They want to take over Poland for Lebensraum and kill off all the Jews. There's no difference at all. Fuck you, Rob. Fuck you in the ass. You're a sniveling, pathetic excuse for a human being. P-Foster (talk) 19:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm for annexing Poland.... I would be against killing jews though... I suppose I could go either way on that cool goose step they used to do though. SirChuckB^{One of those deceitful Liberals Schlafly warned you about} 20:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Look what a recent article says,

. The theme of the complaints is consistent, and shocking, said multiple leaders, who all spoke on background, and reflect the subterranean rumblings about the president heard during the campaign: His sympathy lies with the Muslims, he doesn't care about Israel, he's an anti-Semite....[Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League] added that despite promises to learn from past mistakes, the administration’s handling of Israel-related issues is “going from bad to worse.” [25] nobs^{don't bother me} 20:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's try this one more time Rob. HOW WOULD AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY HAVE PREVENTED AN EXPLOSION ON THE DEEPWATER HORIZON? Can you answer that? Without posting relelvant quotes that do not address the topic? Just a simple cause and effect. DickTurpis (talk) 20:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

No one said that. The evidence is the Obama administration was in the backpocket of BP, and bent over backwards to kiss BP's ass from day one the Obama administration took office, continued up and through waivers of statutory law, regulations governing inspections, approval of toxic dispersants, and reliance on BP to mitigate environmental damage after the catastrophic event. nobs^{don't bother me} 20:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I think this is conclusive.... Rob does not understand simple cause and effect. Rob, you are an idiot. SirChuckB^{A product of Affirmative Action} 20:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The voters do, Obama takes cash, big oil pollutes the Gulf. nobs^{don't bother me} 21:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

We realize that, Chuck.

Rob, by saying Obama is responsible you have to somehow be able to establish that something he did or didn't do caused the spill. Since we all agree that the explosion caused the spill, we need to draw a connection between that and Obama. So far all you've done is point to the waived environmental impact study, which has nothing to do with the explosion (you agreed with this just now), and then made a bunch of unsubstantiated claims that waived all sorts of law, regulations regarding inspection, and whatnot. You've basically said this socialist oversaw the biggest deregulation of an industry in living memory. Can you back anything you said up, or are you talkign out of your ass? Nevermind, I know the answer. DickTurpis (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Obama said where he made an error was to believe BP was capable of mitigating the damage in a worst case catastrophic blowout. This means he accepted BP's assurances that the law governing compliance with a full blown EIA should be waived, nobs^{don't bother me} 21:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. The evidence is the Obama administration was in the backpocket of BP, and bent over backwards to kiss BP's ass... And where is the evidence for that? You know that it was totally normal for these 'categorical exclusions' to be given out to pretty much anyone who applied for a drilling permit. There was nothing unusual in BP being allowed to drill this well (whether they should have been or not is a different issue), and it certainly wasn't anything to do with Obama. I thought you posted that Hitler Youth (of which your buddy, the Pope, was a member) crap as a joke (as even you realised it had nothing to do with this topic), but I stand corrected. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 21:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you're right. There's nothing unusual about the Chicago and Mexican mafia profiting off methamphetamine sales to federal rig inspectors. No wonder these abuses took place. nobs^{don't bother me} 21:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Did you glean that from the 2000-2008 report in to the Obama MMS? Are you really this much of an idiot, or are you just giving us what we expect, in some bizarre trolling escapade? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 21:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The report referenced two inspectors who confessed to using meth and multiple sources now cite Obama's admitted failure to reform the agency. nobs^{don't bother me} 21:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

So who bears the blame for letting the industry get like that in the first place? Hmm...couldn't have been the people who were in charge for the previous eight years, so it must have been Clinton's fault. --Kels (talk) 01:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Yep, a report that covers the year 2000 would the administration of William Jefferson Clinton, would it not? nobs^{don't bother me} 01:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

"His sympathy lies with the Muslims," Is that why he's bombing the Muslims in Pakistan and sending more troops to kill Muslims in Afghanistan, Roobert? "[Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League] added that despite promises to learn from past mistakes, the administration’s handling of Israel-related issues is “going from bad to worse.” " Yes, Robert, a Zionist spokesman criticizing Obama's approach to a complicated issue like Israel is enough to justify comparing his supporters to Hitler Youth. Go crawl back under your rock. P-Foster (talk) 03:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

A Suggestion

Rob, remember when you disappeared from Conservapedia for about a year and a half, making no edits at all because you were in an institution for the colossally insane? Well, it's time to check yourself back in. The cure didn't take. DickTurpis (talk) 21:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually I did make one edit in an attempt to save the planet from Obama bin Biden [26] but now we see the consequences of that failure. nobs^{don't bother me} 22:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Shit or get off the pot.

I am not going to debate you anything further Rob. You can either drag this to the admin abuse page, keep whining on about it, take it to the LJ or quit bitching. Aceⁱ⁹ 02:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The precedent is set. Ace McWicked, a Rationalwiki bureaucrat, at first advocated the LJ be used to handle disputes and problems, and later bowed to mob action as cover to justify his petty prejudices. nobs^{don't bother me} 03:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Then take me to the admin abuse or POST TO THE FUCKING LOYA JIRGA! Aceⁱ⁹ 03:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The policy problem of trusted bureaucrats venting personal prejudice is obviously a bigger issue for Rationalwiki than the personal grievances of an unpopular user, but you seem incapable of seeing that. nobs^{don't bother me} 03:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Then take it admin abuse and present your case or if policy raise it to the LJ or start a thread. Aceⁱ⁹ 03:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Why did you raise it in a Forum thread, then, only to back down?

We'd have to prove a pattern of abuse, so stop trolling me and harassing me, please. We have nothing further to talk about. nobs^{don't bother me} 03:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no policy problem, and in fact no problem at all except Rob is bored/butthurt and wants to troll. Not worth the LJ's or anyone else's time. --Kels (talk) 03:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

A peace offering...

I'm sorry, Rob

Rob, I'm sorry that I called you a snivelling, pathetic excuse for a human being and told you to go back into your hole. Really. Please accept this as a symbol of my apology to you... P-Foster (talk) 17:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Aceⁱ⁹ 06:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

No no NO! It has to be Kara in her yellow dress - you've just fanned the flames here Ace.

No dress for preference, eh Rob? EddyP (talk) 18:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

hi robbie

if i promised to be nice will you unblock "Cheerleader" on cp? or if i make another account would a be welcome back? i want a 2nd chance. please? ♥ 74.63.112.154 (talk) 03:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
PLEASE ANSWER ME ROBBIE :( 74.63.112.154 (talk) 03:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
you are a dick licking faggot for not answering!!!!!!!!!! 74.63.112.154 (talk) 03:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Way to make friends and influence people, there. ħuman 03:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

but i was serious wanting an unblock for cp. 67.159.36.23 (talk) 03:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

you're an actual editor

Are you an actual editor on Conservapedia or just a parodist? Honestly with some of the things RobSmith says there, I don't want to believe that you're actually sincere. Pythonscript (talk) 14:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Huh? I don't "say" much anything there on talk pages. I do contribute content cited to reliable sources. I've been accused of original research a few times, but what editor hasn't. nobs^{don't bother me} 15:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Erm, you do contribute content, and you do cite reliable sources. The only (minor) problem is that the sources you cite don't support the content you contribute. I don't think you are a parodist, just a dishonest tinfoil hat wearing nutter, who hates Obama. On a different note, if you seriously fancy yourself as a bit of a journo and "seeker of truth", why do you waste your time contributing to a blog that no-one uses as an resource? (Or do you actually think that people go "Hmmm, I need to find some info on _____, I'll head to conservapedia!"?) DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 15:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Yep, like Conservapedia: As accurate as a catatonic drunkard's stream of urine, which I got removed not just from the intro from WP's CP entry, but from the whole article. Odd, that piece of well-researched scholarship WP carried for two years was placed by a RW editor--and cited contributions made by RW editors in CP. nobs^{don't bother me} 17:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that was truly a great achievement in your campaign to whitewash the CP article. Unfortunately, all you did was get someone to replace the source with a better one. Nothing in the article changed. -- Nx / talk 18:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Quick factcheck, Rob: Which RW editor first inserted the link and when? Since you know it was a RW editor, I'm sure you have the diff link handy. Or simply tell us which editor did it. RW and WP names if they differ. --Sid (talk) 18:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

From what I see, it was added by Andrewlp1991, who later went on to become a Conservapedia editor and who is currently not banned. From what I see, nobody here seems to self-identify as "Andrewlp1991" or links to his WP user page the way the guy does on CP. Please, Rob, some evidence for your assertion? --Sid (talk) 18:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Now, what about the assertion Maloney (author of said piece) was inspired by RW parodists editing CP? nobs^{don't bother me} 19:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Who made the assertion and where? Or was that just your way of saying "Let me make up another claim since you just proved that I lied"? Lemme take a quick look at the article... Maloney brings up a quote(mine) from the Evolution article, which has been Conservative's pet article pretty much the entire time. The quote in question is still in the article. Next up is the Abortion entry, which Andy has always had interest in. The "father of medicine" part is still in the article. Needless to add, the same goes for the Abortion/Breastcancer link that Maloney touches next. Please elaborate which part of Maloney's article were inspired by parodists. And if parody was involved, why are those parts still in the articles? --Sid (talk) 20:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

(1) So you confess to inserting parodic content intended to defame an institution or organization which WP cited as a reliable source for several years; (2) the abotion/breast cancer controversy is a valid controversy among professionals and professional organizations, and not merely "crank science," in RW's view.^{— Unsigned, by: RobSmith / talk / contribs}

It's not the lying that bothers me, but rather the fact that your lies transparently make no sense:

• Andy adds "father of medicine" bit^img
• Andy adds "The overwhelming majority of scientific studies have shown that abortion causes an increase in breast cancer"^img (later changed to "vast" by Andy^img)
• Evolution quotemine added by Conservative^img

In other words, unless Conservative or Andy are parodists, you're once again simply making shit up in the hope that nobody calls you out: Maloney's article criticizes things added to CP by a Senior Administrator and the Site Owner. --Sid (talk) 21:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Got a link to the article? nobs^{don't bother me} 23:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

*facepalm* The apparent fact that you didn't even bother to look at the article before making your implications and accusations explains a lot... But hey, better late than never! And I provided you a WP diff link a few posts above. The URL is (obviously) in there. Besides, you know the author name and keywords of the title - googling for Maloney urine Conservapedia would've given you the article as the first result. --Sid (talk) 23:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Rob, commenting on the accuracy/inaccuracy/vandalism of the WP article doesn't answer the question you just dodged: if you seriously fancy yourself as a bit of a journo and "seeker of truth", why do you waste your time contributing to a blog that no-one uses as an resource? (Or do you actually think that people go "Hmmm, I need to find some info on _____, I'll head to conservapedia!"?) Try again. P-Foster (talk) 18:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I see Obama is inviting families of the 11 workers killed in the rig explosion 6 weeks after the event, 3 weeks after Carville criticized him for ignoring them, and only days after I posted an image from the memorial service alongside Carville's statement. Yes, whitehouse.gov gets more traffic than CP does, but we may have influential readers visiting our site. nobs^{don't bother me} 19:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea how you can look in the mirror without retching, Rob. Your morning shave must be an ordeal. --Kels (talk) 20:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

i used conservapedia in a research paper about george washington but got a c for too many references to wikipedia and its varients. Cheerleader Not Troll (talk) 20:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I am quite frankly shocked at this. I know using Wikipedia is penalized in academia, but surely the stellar level of scholarship at Conservapedia is welcomed, if not actively encouraged. Did you tell your teacher that because of Conservapedia our President invited families of those killed on the Deepwater Horizon to the White House? DickTurpis (talk) 20:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

he thought conservapedia was part of wikipedia. Cheerleader Not Troll (talk) 20:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The Obama administration should be lauded for once keeping its ear close to grassroots, mainstream perceptions. nobs^{don't bother me} 21:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that the Obama Administration was inspired by the CP article, or is this a simple case of you going all post hoc ergo propter hoc on us? And is that tghe only answer you have for the question of why you personally believe that CP is the best possible forum for your journalistic aspirations, your role as a "seeker of truth," and whether or not actually think that people go "Hmmm, I need to find some info on _____, I'll head to conservapedia!"? P-Foster (talk) 00:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

-- Aceⁱ⁹ 00:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Carville had his rant on a Friday, the following Friday Obama responded with a press conference; I posted the imgs next to Carville's statement two days later on Sunday, [27] the WH finally invited the families up to Washington the following Friday. [28] So, where Carville failed to get the President focused, the record shows CP may have been more effective. nobs^{don't bother me} 00:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Rob, you are beyond fucking delusional. DickTurpis (talk) 01:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

(EC) No it doesn't. It only shows that you don't know what post hoc ergo propter hoc means. Of course, given your penchant for weaving conspiracy theories from degrees of separation, I can see why you might think this. ħuman 01:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

It was disclaimed properly; where is any of the above posting factually in error? And yes, CP and James Carville are more attuned to what average people are thinking than the White House. Even Hillary's team is saying Democratic voters may have chosed the wrong guy. nobs^{don't bother me} 01:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course. Nowhere, and I knew that. The word "may" rendered your claim content-free. You know what weasel words are, obviously. ħuman 01:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

"Mr President, Phyllis Schlafly's least-successful son has something on his blog about you not doing something. No, not the homo, the other one. I think you may have gone to law school with him or something." P-Foster (talk) 01:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Now I'm really lost. Rob, are you actually implying that conservapedia had some bearings on Obama's actions? Or is it just a Gish Gallop to avoid having to respond above where Sid has absolutely banged you to fucking rights over your lies relating to Maloney's comments? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 02:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm reviewing the Maloney piece (of crap) for context right now. It appears to have been written beforfe the LA Times piece. nobs^{don't bother me} 02:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

post hoc ergo hoc

Ok, Human, I'll take the bait. Review the subsection, First order logic on link you provided ,[29] then review what another poster states here in a discussion on the "Hit List," "The so-called hit-list was also completely consistent with CP ideology." [30] Care to support or condemn that kind of logic? nobs^{don't bother me} 01:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Kindly give me the executive summary. That is, tell me what P,Q, and x are supposed to be and whose logic you are complaining about. ħuman 01:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's use wp:Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc#First-order_form

• Fascists support a strong military.
• John Q. Warhawk supports a strong military.
• Therefore, John Q. Warhawk is a fascist.

Let's set the proposition:

• Crazed killers want to murder US Senators.
• CP is full of crazed killers.
• The so-called hit-list is completely consistent with CP ideology. Nutty Roux never18:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC) nobs^{don't bother me} 01:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

What what what? Who mentioned the CP 'hitlist'? Please Rob, try to stay in the same discussion (or two) as the rest of us. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 02:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Actually, Rob, the "hit list" was consistent with CP ideology because, first of all, it wasn't really a hit list. It never really advocated killing anyone, though you could read that into it. Also, for a site that reverts and bans anyone and anything that strays from the owner's ideal vision of what CP is, the "hit list" was condoned. Señor admins even edited it. DickTurpis (talk) 02:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Lets use this format to put your claim into focus Rob......

• CP criticized President Obama's lack of meeting with the Deepwater Horizon families.
• Shortly thereafter, Obama invited said families to Washington
• Therefore, CP's criticism forced Presidential action.

My god, it sounds crazier when typed out in short form... SirChuckB^{I brake for Schukky} 07:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Lenski 2.0

Just want to hint you to Sid's comment. So, what do you think:

1. Writing to Douglas Moo is a brillant idea! or
2. Such a letter can only be drafted by a parodist!

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 10:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, when will you finally ban Andy? That guy's obviously up to no good. Röstigraben (talk) 21:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

No guys, Rob isn't going to do or say a thing. Why? Because a) it's Andy and nobody dares speak up against anything Andy does or says, because Andy is Brother Leader and you edit there at his (and by default TK's) pleasure and b) it falls outside of Rob's area of expertise (bashing Obama) and thus he could not possibly comment on it. That's the reason why all the other sysops cleverly ignored his letter to Lenski, and let the parodists run amok. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 13:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Ssshhh...you're exposing the myth of the Conservapedia monolith... nobs^{don't bother me} 23:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Already posted, but it made me think of you

Happy 4th of July Rob, have a present.

here you go

SirChuckB^{One of those deceitful Liberals Schlafly warned you about} 18:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The question that conservapedians most fear

Can you or any of your CP buddies (preferably Ken

) refute the findings of Essay:Do conservatives have small penises? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 16:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

ground zero mosque

Do I need to bring up the many logical fallacies inherent in your comments about the "terrorist suicide killers" on the WIGO page? Would it make a difference? Because I will do so happily. Although I'm no longer a Muslim, by anyone's standards, I "look like one" to many people (since I am Arabic) and therefore, I find it hard not to be at least a little bothered by such comments. My talk page is open, take it or leave it. Thanks. ghazi alizm, ^comments? 04:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't waste your time, Ghazia. Having a discussion with RobS is like having a discussion with a retarded urinal, if there is such a thing. No coherent statement ever emitted from the brain of this one. DickTurpis (talk) 04:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I would classify RobS's statement as a pastiche of lies and bullshit rather than any employment of logical fallacies. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

That assessment can be used on pretty much anything Rob's ever posted. --Kels (talk) 21:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

DanielPulido

Hi Rob. I would like to know why you, as director of counter-intelligence over at CP, have allowed obvious parodist DanielPulido to carry on shitting on CP. It simply baffles me that you can be so blind. Are you an TK in cahoots with each other to destroy CP? ^{ONE / TALK} 17:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, speaking of TK being in cahoots, I'd like to direct you to this post he made, whilst taunting the erstwhile JessicaT: "Actually you gave your most successful one away on RW a few weeks ago, Genghis, but I am not outing it: it is too good to be outed. Jessica was obvious from the start, but this new one will really surprise many people, both in Conservapedia and in Rationalwiki."

Now there is lots interesting in that comment: 1) He knows of a hidden sock, but isn't going to reveal it; 2) He claims he knew Jess was a sock, and yet worked alongside her for a year, and did nothing to sway Andy's choice to promote her; 3) he once again alludes to a hidden sock he's not going to expose.

Now, as CP's self-proclaimed Director of Counter Intelligence, I strongly suggest you start joining the dots and find the pansy amongst the roses.

Now I'll sit back and wait for some long ramble on how it's all Obama's fault. --PsyGremlinParla! 17:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, call it open editing; now you have to rewrite a obamaload of anti-CP hysteria on this and other websites. nobs^{don't bother me} 19:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Haha, you said "open editing" - did you mean to say that regarding CP??? ħuman 21:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow, Rob, you managed to string a whole bunch of words together, and yet didn't quit get round to answering a single point I raised. How do you do that magic? (although I was right about the Obama ramble) --PsyGremlinTala! 09:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The Stones

Hi Rob, I saw this a month ago and thought of you. Генгис^{Gum disease} 19:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Lol, but isn't that a "Q"? ħuman 20:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Bushville

Hey Rob, after our last chat, and all those helpful links I provided to "Bushville" I still haven't seen you write anything about them on CP? Or for that matter, list the location and numbers of the Obamavilles. Or are you helping Ken with his "3 year project" before you answer? --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 09:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Got a full plate, as usual. But, you know, being the Republican I am, I'm busy creating jobs and starting an employment placement business to match people without computer skills to jobs. What, praytell, are you doing to serve humanity, improve the planet, promote economic recovery, or help those less fortunate than yourself? nobs^{don't bother me} 19:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, full marks for answering a question with snide comments. Expected nothing less, of course. Still, it will be interesting to see just how this new job of yours keeps you away from CP. Like Ken and his Aug 2013 project.

But, since you ask, let's see: Firstly, thanks to some sane fiscal policy, my country managed to escape the ravages of Republican-inspired greed. (isn't it funny how the Savings &n Loan crash happened on Ronnies watch and the Credit Crunch - not to mention Enron, et al, on Bush's. Coincidence?) so no problem there. As I have my own company, I'm also involved in job creation - although you wouldn't approve, because I focus on hiring the previously disadvantaged; I contribute to Greenpeace, WWF (that's got nothing to do with wrestling) and have adopted an animal at our zoo (again, something you won't understand, because apparently God put humans here to rape the planet) and I work three nights a month at a soup kitchen. Oh yes, and as a Mason (Gold Fields Lodge 2478EC) my charitable contributions are above board.

So, now will you answer the question? --PsyGremlinRunāt! 11:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It ain't what people don't know. It's what people know that ain't so.

(a) S&L deregulation began under President James Earl Carter & legislation passed by a Democratic House & Senate (of which Clinton financial backer Jim MacDougal was one of the most famous offenders; MacDougal & Clinton close confident Webster Hubbell both served prison time for raping S&L's)^{[citation needed]}. (b) Enron was a Clinton era scandal^{[citation needed]}; all the California rolling blackouts (wp:California electricity crisis) happened under the nose of Clinton & California Democratis regulators (Ken Ley in fact supported Ma Richards against George W. Bush for Governor of TX in 1994^{[citation needed]}). (c) Greenpeace is a commie front. [31] (d) I eat animals^{[citation needed]} (although my vegetarian Jewish girlfriend thinks it's abominable). (e) I visit the jail weekly^{[citation needed]} & help provide food, clothing, prayer & counseling for homeless drug addicts, thieves, ex-cons, special needs persons, the mentally imparied, and other assorted cp:lumpenproletariat, weekly^{[citation needed]}. Add to that, a now for profit business entity to help them find work (which they are happy to compensate me^{[citation needed]} for cause they love me^{[citation needed]}, despite the fact my clients know I'm a Republican, hate communism, and think Obama is trash. And, oh yah, probably 25%^{[citation needed]} of my clients a are African-America^{[citation needed]}n; the rest Hispanic^{[citation needed]}, Native American^{[citation needed]}, Veterans^{[citation needed]}, women^{[citation needed]}, and a smatterring of Southern good 'ol boys, and few Yankee northerns). nobs^{don't bother me} 19:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC

I added that fact tags... Be a good boy and work on that would you? SirChuckB^{Leave Death Threats Here} 20:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

First, are you gonna answer the question? Psy answered yours. Hmmmm? ħuman 00:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought you guys would have learned the rules of this game already. Of course you're not going to get a straight answer. Though I have to admit it's quite a clever routine, twist it round, put Psy on the defensive straight away and switch topics to a bunch of bullshit politics that is totally beside the point. ^{d hominem} 01:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Rob doesn't give answers because he doesn't have any. It's all about the content-free smear, and obsession with Reds (they're hiding in your cupboards!), so the only rebuttal to criticism is to deflect. Either with deflection like above, or outright stupidity (also like above), if it gets you off his case or at least provides him with a thin excuse to leave the smears in place, that's enough. Very much like Ken's responses to criticism of his pet articles, actually. --Kels (talk) 14:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

A quick google search finds Obamaville's in CO, SAcramento, Hawaii, and Las Vegas, [32] Last year when researching this I found Obamaville's in Maryland, New York state and elsewhere in the East. wp:Hooverville External links to Obamaville. nobs^{don't bother me} 19:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Very interesting, Rob. Even the conspiracy-theorist excuse for a source you give slips up their argument by saying that the shanty towns started appearing in 2008. Junggai (talk) 23:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I started laughing already, at "this story comes to us from President Obama’s reported birth state of Hawaii" (emph added), well, at least they rose above saying "alleged" or "claimed". ħuman 00:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

"said to be born in Hawaii;" reminds me how the Texas Dems held thier 1990 Election night rally in Geo. H.W. Bush's living room, some Hotel Banquet facility he used to register to vote absentee. nobs^{don't bother me} 20:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

A random question for you, Rob. When you sit down to write a post, do you give any thought to organizing your thoughts so that at least your readers can understand what the fuck you're trying to say? Your last reply was so incoherent, I'm pissed for wasting 40-60 seconds reading it over four times. I'm convinced that not even you know what point you were trying to make. Junggai (talk) 08:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey

Rob, I have a question on the whole you have to email in order to have an account thing. Was this an all Sysop decision, or just Andy/TK? Thanks, Tyrannis^{An Iron, but caring, fist} 19:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

First I heard of it, really. nobs^{don't bother me} 19:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I did not know. Perhaps you should discuss this with them. Please let us know what happened if you do. Thank you, Tyrannis^{An Iron, but caring, fist} 19:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Not really much to discuss; if an editor wants to contribute, it's no problem. If a troll wants to troll, they get screened out. nobs^{don't bother me} 19:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't trolls email you for an account and, uh, lie? – Nick Heer 19:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh. So you guys are following a variation of what Citizendium tried to do. That did not work out so well for them over there. Also, the fact that they did not consult you in this is odd, as you are seem to be one of their top people. Still though, nice talking to you. Have a good day. Tyrannis^{An Iron, but caring, fist} 19:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Really?

Harry Reid proved his ignorance when he said "I don't know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican, OK."
Yeah, Sharron Angle couldn't even identify one. Ace^{word up} 23:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The tentative theory I am hearing on my lib talk radio is that our hackers are now as good as theirs. Ole! Ole! Ole! By the way, "stuffing a ballot box" now contains 3 redundant words. Nowadays no paper, or boxes, or "ballots" (what a quaint term!) are involved, just hacking Diebold voting machines. ħuman 00:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Did you like my new catch phrase, "ballot stuffing initiatives"? nobs^{don't bother me} 20:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Replace "Ballot" with "bottom" and I am all yours. Ace^{word up} 20:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't doubt it. In the Saloon Bar, can I push in your stool? nobs^{don't bother me} 18:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh you are so kinky. In a bar, too? *blush* Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 22:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Stupid Question

The "good" "people" at Conservapedia have a bad habbit (among others) of banning users for fairly ludacris reasons. Among them is being members of a liberal vandel site. My question to you is, why are you, TK, and Conservative still stalking Conservapedia? --Thunderstruck (talk) 15:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget "call me uncle" Ed. --Kels (talk) 16:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Wait, he's here to? If only "Andy Pants" was as welcoming to those with different view points--Thunderstruck (talk) 17:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Party Invite

Hello Nobs. I am having a big Communist themed party next month. I am dressing as the brutal atheist dictator Stalin. Wouldn't be the same without you so would you like to attend? Ace^{word up} 03:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Ooh ooh, can I come as some prole who got killed by "accident"? ħuman 05:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll come as Khrushchev; if the rumors are true, Khrushchev was in on the assassination of Stalin as well as Beria [33] (hey, what do you know about the Clinton-Talbot-Khrushchev-KGB connection that stems from the days Clinton was a Vietnam draft dodger and tool of Soviet foreign policy who travelled to Moscow? [34]) nobs^{don't bother me} 20:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Jesus you are a strange little man. You'd fit right in with other crazies I know. Ace^{word up} 20:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

He travelled to Moscow! Communist! Vietnam draft dodger! Just like Bush eh? Soviet tool! What, they made him governor of Arkansas? Ha ha ha, tell us another! Totnesmartin (talk) 21:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

GWB served in uniform, Clinton served the KGB. Big difference, FYI. nobs^{don't bother me} 21:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Clinton was a KGB operative? Ace^{word up} 21:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

GWB dodged in uniform, there is a difference. Clinton was actually paying attention in class when he was in college, not just "dodging" the draft. ħuman 04:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Then what the hell was he doing in Moscow other than courriering Khrushchev's Memoirs for the CIA or KGB so his roommie Strobe Talbot could translate? Jeezuz, whatthefuck, Bill Clinton's CIA and/or KGB connections date back farther that George Herbert Walker Bush, not that it matters anymore at this point.... nobs^{don't bother me} 21:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I'LL tell you what he was doing. Trolling for chubby russian women. And "Big Macs". Because Hill is a bitch who wont let him eat the Big Mac. And in W's case, is it really dodging if daddy gets you out?--Thunderstruck (talk) 22:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking of visiting Moscow one day, does that also make me a commie? Ace^{word up} 22:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I'll come to your party Ace, only on the condition that I can go dressed as Hitler, as a tribute to the brave Conservapedia users who revealed that he was also a socialist, and that fascism is actually a left-wing philosophy. Nazi uniforms aren't that hard to come by in England. Hell, if Prince Harry can get a hold of one, I can too. SJ ^Debaser 22:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Dont forget he's a racist, an evolutionist, an atheist, a muslim, black, and from kenya. Wait, thats Barack Obama. DIBS ON BEING OBAMA.--Thunderstruck (talk) 23:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey, it's that former ex-commie rag Pravda responsible for spreading lies about the Birther Conspiracy. [35] nobs^{don't bother me} 19:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Colour me surprised, Rob actually told the truth about something. It is an article full of lies in Pravda, linked from an article full of lies on CP, which in turn is a site full of lies. --Kels (talk) 20:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Yah bububut waitaminute, the democratic free speech capitalist version of Pravda must be the truth since the demise of the commie infested Soviet version in 1992. nobs^{don't bother me} 21:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Must have been taken over by conservatives, I suppose. --Kels (talk) 05:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe. Can they go two or three pages without a picture of Hitler?--Thunderstruck (talk) 21:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Just so you know

You are aware of this aren't you? (I do however insist on the correct spelling, see item 3 on the link) I must thank you on behalf of myself and all the other Brits on here for giving us a cheap laugh every time you post on here. Nice one Dick! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 00:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the humor is intentional. Rob is a funny guy when he wants to be. ħuman 01:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I think "no BS" is much funnier when applied to Rob. The same way "impartial and fair" is funny applied to Ed, or "sane" applied to Ken. --Kels (talk) 11:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

cp:Presidential Election 2012

Hi Rob - I'm having trouble figuring this page out. Are these people ranked in order of most-likely to least-likely? If so, most/least likely to run, or to win the nomination? No matter how I try to figure out the criteria, the ordering and potential candidates don't make a lot of sense to me. --Leotardo (talk) 18:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Interesting rankings; Rand Paul & Bachmann are beating Palin at the moment; I think Thune has a better shot than indicated. nobs^{don't bother me} 20:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Is that because Thune is "taller than Obama"? Bachmann couldn't even get a Republican leadership position, so her placement is odd. It doesn't seem like the ranking follows the news, and ignores some useful Republican polls. --Leotardo (talk) 21:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Conservapedia

Bad things are said of it. What is the explanation? Pointed moment (talk) 22:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

No use talking to Rob, he'll just tell you it's Obama's fault. Ace^{word up} 22:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Is the obvious hypocrisy of the site not enough? --Leotardo (talk) 22:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a victim of a Soros funded conspiracy; Ratvandals may not have made the list yet (see, "Organizations directly funded by Soros and his Open Society Institute" – a comprehensive list and description of over 150 groups, each more cp:subversive than the last"), but they're striving. nobs^{don't bother me} 18:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Soros should save himself some money. If he wants conservatives to look bad, he should be promoting CP everywhere he can. Much cheaper and easier than a conspiracy, but I guess everyone needs a hobby. --Kels (talk) 23:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

US Economy

Wow, that's some pretty good numbers coming out of the US. Retail sales up, unemployment down, better-than-expected pending home sales, stock market back up around credit crunch levels (you know, the one that happened on Bush's watch). Can't wait to see the updated numbers on CP. Or for your non-sequitur (and nonsensical reply) --Ψ Gremlin말하십시오 14:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Good to see you're watching. No denying a US & global recovery underway, however much is attributatbel to Federal Reserve QE2 (cp:quantitative easing). So now we have several tasks, among them are, (1) educate the American people in budget terminolgy; (2) pay more attention to both real & nominal GDP. nobs^{don't bother me} 18:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

CP will have a hard time educating people in terminology when its own entry for QE is just a redirect to a quasi-stub about inflation... Röstigraben (talk) 18:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Rob! Rob!

CP is quoting wanting fugitive rapists as a reliable source!! Stop them! --Ψ Gremlin講話 13:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Bush tax cuts

Wow Rob - if I'm reading this right it looks like 8,000 jobs were created by Bush tax cuts! Makes the 225,000 green jobs Obama created seem ridiculous, doesn't it? --Leotardo (talk) 21:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, that's fucking amazing! Ace^{word up} 21:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

It went from 130 million workers to 138 million; here's the same data matrix & chart from the BLS. [36] Oh, and fuck you, Ace. nobs^{don't bother me} 21:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Rob, servlets don't work that way.. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, gotcha. Just check Total non-farm, Seasonally adjusted and take it from there. [37]

Mea culpa - but perhaps you should check out the Wall Street Journal about Bush's job creation record. --Leotardo (talk) 22:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, the question is on sustainability. There is no question (a) the taxcuts worked to create jobs; (b) the "rich" used taxcuts to create jobs. The question is on sustained growth. On balance, if those jobs created during the boom cycle wash out in the bust cycle, then it is not sustained growth. Why those jobs washed out, is another question. nobs^{don't bother me} 20:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I will respond tomorrow. User:AcecWicked has caused me three times to loose my response in EC with his trolling, and I' have tyo get back to work now. TY. nobs^{don't bother me} 22:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Fuck me? No no, wouldn't rather fuck ? Ace^{word up} 22:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Stay the fuck off my talk page you prick if you can't behave RATIONALLY or contribute to a RATIONAL discussion. ^{— Unsigned, by: RobSmith / talk / contribs}

Hey, what did I do? What is the matter, petal? Ace^{word up} 22:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh noes! You angered little Robbie!! Backed up into a corner there, Rob? δ_ij$^{i.broke.it.}$ 22:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh-oh! Looks like somebody must have gotten banned from his favourite Nubile Young Lady site. Don't worry Rob, we still love you for who you are. --Kels (talk) 00:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Wait wait wait... Did Rob just accuse someone of not being Rational? SirChuckB^{BATHE THE WHALES!!!!} 02:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Lost a million and a half in 2008, too. Not such a good showing. A million a year barely keeps up with the growth of employable population. Losing that 1.5M is not a "good thing". Diamond (talk) 05:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't bother me

Sorry, only just noticed your signature said "don't bother me". OK, I wont. Ace^{word up} 22:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

John Thune

So it's come out that John Thune (who you like for President) and John Cornyn put earmarks in the omnibus spending bill that they knew would pass, but were going to vote against. Does this liberal hypocrisy and liberal deceit bother you? --Leotardo (talk) 22:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Hypocrisy? they voted against thier own earmarks. Takes courage to do that. Can't help it thier colleages in the opposition decided to reward them and thier constituents for a job well done. Such is politics (and spin). nobs^{don't bother me} 18:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and above, I still want top get back to the issue of "sustainability" or "sustained economic growth", but that troll Ace keeps disrupting my posts. nobs^{don't bother me} 18:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not a troll. I am a respected member of this website. Like TK is at CP. 7^thchamber 01:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

You're a worthless piece of shit. Let's see if the mobocracy writes that qualification for a Bureaucrat into the by laws. nobs^{don't bother me} 17:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Worthless piece of shit! WORTHLESS!!! SHIT!! PIECE!!! My god man! . 7^thchamber 18:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

You two are like Joan Collins and Linda Evans. --Leotardo (talk) 18:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Is this the same Linda Evans behind a Soros funded terrorist group? [38]

Heh - is this your way of saying that you're the Alexis to Ace's Krystle? --Leotardo (talk) 19:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you a communist?

--Idiot number 59 (talk) 19:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

All Hail Comrade Obama!

Republicans are about the only friends Obama has these days. Witness,

Peggy Noonan (Reagan's ghost): Obama should startle everyone right now.... by bowing to the spirit of 2010 and accepting the Bush tax cuts, top to bottom. It would be electrifying. It would seem responsive, and impress the center. And it would help Mr. Obama seem credible, not ideological or partisan but reasonable and moderate... [39]

Charles Krauthammer: Remember the question after Election Day: Can Obama move to the center... Answer - Republicans clearing his path and sprinkling it with rose petals. [40] nobs^{don't bother me} 20:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Was it an answer to my question? --Idiot number 59 (talk) 20:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if you are aware, Progressive Republican's existed long before commies infiltrated the Democratic Party. nobs^{don't bother me}

"The Center"...isn't that what the right calls "Extreme Left Wing Socialist" these days? --Kels (talk) 20:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

As Krauthammer says, "For the left, Obama is as good as it gets in a country that is barely 20 percent liberal." nobs^{don't bother me} 21:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Which doesn't bother this leftist. History is always on the side of progressivism. Stances that in their day considered 'conservative' and 'traditional' - slavery, women can't vote, anti-miscegenation (with the Bible used to support all of that), etc. -- are considered abhorrent today, and history has never painted in a favorable light those who stuck to their 'traditional' guns over human rights issues. Poor John McCain, to die with nobody liking him and history unlikely to treat him kindly. --Leotardo (talk) 21:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Jezuz Gawd. If you think things like slavery, women can't vote, or miscegenation are pro-conservative, to say it politely, I think your're mistaken. You're a victim of commie agitprop, if anything. Facts are, libs are outnumbered by conservatives two-to-one in the United States, and have been so for at least the past 80 years, or however long polls like that have been taken. And that overwhelming number of people of a similiar mindset includes blacks, women, gays, vegetarians, greenie weenies, ex-cons, etc. etc. etc. nobs^{don't bother me} 22:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations! You have completely missed the point Leotardo was making, and instead responded to a point he didn't make. Damo^Hi 22:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

ARE YOU A COMMUNIST OR ARE YOU NOT??? Aww... --Idiot number 59 (talk) 21:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I like how Rob can't answer a simple question like that. -- Nx / talk 21:54, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Please stop calling us up to rob mr. Smith!

We here are progressive and ethical and we do not tolerate such things! --Idiot number 59 (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Refreshing honesty

Rob, kudos on being honest about engaging in ethical violations and slander. Nina Totenberg deserves better from you, but I know it's hard to be decent to others when you're a "conservative." User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 19:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Heh - liberal hate speech against one of the biggest conservative haters of the last century. --Leotardo (talk) 19:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Yep. He should die & his grandchildren get AIDS. Class act. Your tax dollars at work. Oh, and if a progressive liberal mistakenly speaks his conscience, and is quoted out of context, he needs to be slandered, smeared, and fired. Liberal tolerance on display for all to see. nobs^{don't bother me} 20:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I was being facetious, but why don't you help me understand if I'm not following completely. Where are the ethics violations? Was it an ethics violation for Nina Totenberg to accept leaked materials? Should she have been investigated and charged with something by the senate? Do you believe it has that authority? Finally, where is the slander? Is it defamatory to wish Jesse Helms to die and that his family get AIDS? User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 21:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

You know when conservatives defend a "progressive" so vehemently, that progressive ain't so liberal. Juan Williams gets more defense than Lisa Murkowski or Mike Castle! lol. --Leotardo (talk) 23:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Murkowski's win at the ballotbox & in court is a refudiation of Palin and the Tea Party movement in Palin's home state of Alaska. Scott whatever his name was was Palin's boy. nobs^{don't bother me} 22:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Refudiation isn't a word. What do you mean? Convertible (talk) 07:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Back on topic

Back on topic - what about Nina Totenberg? User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 22:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Journalistic ethics. Disclosure of classified information is a jailable offense, reciept may not be, but posession of stolen & leaked documents I assume is. Reporting slander & innuendo on a mainstream, taxpayer supported propaganda mouthpiuece, with the intent to cause damage to a person's reputation, may be cause for a civil action under some circumstances. nobs^{don't bother me} 23:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

How sure are you that you're right any point you tried making? Have a look at the Society of Professional Journalists' code of ethics and tell me if you still think publishing details from the FBI file of a Supreme Court nominee doesn't pass muster. Also, have a look at 18 USC 798 and tell me if you still think it's a criminal offense. It's not under that statute, but you were likely aware of another before you accused Nina Totenberg of criminal misconduct or otherwise it would be defamatory per se, weren't you? Regarding the "hope he dies and his family gets AIDS" comment - that's not defamatory at all because it doesn't make any representation of fact about Jesse Helms. It makes a representation about Nina Totenberg because Nino Totenberg is expressing Nina Totenberg's opinion. If she said "Jesse Helms has AIDS" and he actually didn't then that would be defamatory per se like your claim that she engaged in criminal misconduct or was unethical. See? Imputing criminal misconduct, lack of ethics in one's profession, and a "loathsome" (that's the word in the caselaw, don't blame me) communicable disease is defamatory per se - that is it is presumed to have caused the plaintiff injury rather than the plaintiff otherwise being required to prove an injury in fact. Punitive damages too. Had Totenberg said "Jesse Helms had a child with a black woman" Helms could have argued that the slander so damaged his reputation in the community of Klansmen, Baptists, and other hatemongers that he's due reputational damages, but then Nina Totenberg could assert truth as a defense. Neat, huh? Because Helms actually did have a daughter with a black woman. But he doesn't have AIDS. And Totenberg didn't break any criminal law you were aware of. Or engage in legitimately unethical conduct. So it doesn't matter if Nina Totenberg uttered her opinion about wanting Helms to get AIDS and die with the intent to damage anyone. It does matter that you just accused her of criminal and professional misconduct. Of course, if I'm wrong about there being a statute that expressly prohibits publishing details from an FBI file under these circumstances I'd love to know about it so I can reconsider calling NPR. Same goes if you've got a real argument for why Totenberg breached her journalistic ethics. Citations appreciated if you care to rebut. And your new title for this section was an absolutely fucking disgusting thing to call a Jewish woman. You creep. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 00:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Helms had a child with a black woman? I think you're confusing Helms w/Strom Thurmond. No problem, same as you're confusing Clarence Thomas w/Bret Farve. nobs^{don't bother me} 06:46, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh I get it - you're claiming that airing details from the FBI file was the defamation and the Jesse Helms stuff was just a completely unrelated shit-stirring slam on Totenberg. ROFL. You cunt. You going to prove anything in the FBI's file was false, or even defamatory, with anything but Clarence Thomas' denials? User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 01:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Government controls?

I believe we need greater government regulation and controls Sounds like Commie Rot to me. Ace Mc^fuckingAwesome 21:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

This is what democracy is all about. Note the threat of violence comes from the pro-abortion advocates. Some gun-toting pro-choice nutcase threatened a couple Catholic ladies who stand outside the clinic on the sidewalk praying the rosary everyday. I know these ladies, I walk past them daily on my way to work and say good morning. The real threat to democracy comes from the crazed lunatics inside the building who perform abortion for profit and threaten to shoot people who dissent from thier fucked up view of morality. [41] nobs^{don't bother me} 22:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I heard some gun-toting pro-life nutcase killed a doctor once. Ace Mc^fuckingAwesome 22:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Rachel Madcow did an expose on the case (The Assassination of Dr. Tiller). That's when this punk-ass piece of shit decided to move to my neighborhood and pick up all the business. Greed knows no bounds. [42]

And those two things are connected how? DickTurpis (talk) 23:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

"Boyd decided to fill in the void left by the closure of Tiller’s Wichita late-term abortion clinic last year, he set up shop in New Mexico, where there are no legal gestational age limits on abortions," et seqq. [43] Here's an img of the guy; bares a striking resemblance to this guy after a haircut & beard trim. nobs^{don't bother me} 15:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

And if he cleaned up a bit more, he'd look a bit like this guy. --Kels (talk) 16:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me though - Govt. control is fine and dandy in your opinion...so long as it supports your view. Ace Mc^fuckingAwesome 22:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

No, civilized society organizes itself into government precisely to regulate these kinds of behavior and questions. Otherwise the killers & thieves would have free and unfettered reign to screw the rest of us. Should killers, and people who threaten deadly violence, be punished by the government? Absolutely. The remaining question is, are abortionists killers, and abortion advocates apologists for legalized murder? Only the politcal process can work out these differences (short of everybody killing each other). nobs^{don't bother me} 22:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

But Obama has already ratified an appeal of DADT. And after all this oil spill stuff don't you think its time the commies stopped "blaming bush" and lay down with their communist leanings? Ace Mc^fuckingAwesome 22:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I'm an Obama man now. He's a great leader. Hell, he even convinced Bill Clinton that 'greed is good', got Clinton to endorse cp:Geaorge W. Bush's trickle down tax cuts, and repudiate Bill Clinton's own tax increases which allegedly brought prosperity. [44] Obama has finally shown leadership, cooperation, a spirit of bi-partisanship, and compromise. And his actions to effectively marginalize the progressive liberal commie left are unforgetable.

I suspect Obama is more concerned with his career and legacy than an ideology or agenda. In that, he's become more like Clinton. nobs^{don't bother me} 22:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. I'm sure the RW Cabal has already emailed their funder, George Soros, to tell him that their initial target has been subverted. Now we move on. Bwa ha ha ha! –SuspectedReplicant retire me 01:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Healthcare

Rob, help me out here. If "socialised medicine" is evil, according to that Palin bitch, what are your feelings towards that two-faced wolf slaughterer slipping into evil Canada to make use of their socialised medicine? Sounds like a damning indictment of the US medical system by your next prez (sorry, had to stop and laugh there) and it highlights your bubble-headed bimbo goddess as a two-faced lying sack of shit (like most conservatives I know). Also, how do feel about "socialised postal services?" Oh, and try and answer by sticking to the salient point - Palin is a lying bitch - and has nothing to do with Obama. --Ψ GremlinFale! 10:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

First I heard about any of this. Why, only a sexist racist homophobic bigotted anti-Semite would be afraid of a strong woman being president, I think. nobs^{don't bother me} 18:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

What's that got to do with the Quitbull? --Kels (talk) 18:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Wait a sec, strong? Wasn't this the chick who just walked away as governor when things got to tough, and now works as an over paid motivational speaker for conservitives?--Thunderstruck (talk) 13:53, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Please stay on topic. The discussion is about Healthcare & commie medicine, and we're straying off into anti-Palin rants. nobs^{don't bother me} 02:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

They are great and you are anti-Palin if you disagree. --93.106.121.194 (talk) 02:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Very well robby, you have YET to attempt to defend palins painful hypocrisy. I mean, you would think someone who makes as much a her wouldn't need more affordable health care. Isn't she affraid the canadian death pannels will kill her son? Or is she finaly realizing that the burecratic death pannels of the current insurance set up will deny her son health care when he can no longer be on mom and dads insurance, and can't get his own because he has a pre exsisting condition.--Thunderstruck (talk) 03:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

"only a sexist racist homophobic bigotted (sic) anti-Semite would be afraid of a strong woman being president" As far as non sequiturs go, you've really outdone yourself with this one. Although it does give a fascinating insight into why you hate Hillary Clinton so much... And you were almost there Rob, the discussion is actually about Palin using commie medicine when it suits her? Do try and keep up. How do you feel about being in love with a hypocrite? --Ψ Gremlin話しなさい 11:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

SO its been a few days. Are you gonna answer me or are you going to prove the cowardice of conservatives in refusing to debate?.--Thunderstruck^{You've Been...}

What is there to debate? Where do you get your information, the National Inquirer? Why, next you're gonna be claiming Palin was actually born in Canada, and that's why she goes there's for healthcare, she's entitled to it. nobs^{don't bother me} 15:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey, if Obama was born in Kenya based on a birth cirtificate from Australia, then Palin could be born in canada based on nothing. Can you prove she wasn't?

As for where the information comes from, try this. Now I know it isn't the end all be all of information that is Andy's Ass, but I buy it.--Thunderstruck^{You've Been...}

Yah but yoiu keep talking about Palin as if she's a counterpart to Obama. AFAIK she's the mother of a fat kid who can't dance. nobs^{don't bother me} 16:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Rob, I think I love you. --Ψ Gremlin말하십시오 16:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Touché. I only brought up Obama as a shot at Birthers. But considering there was a time when she crossed a border to get commie health care (during the 60's for cryin out loud), you would think she would be sympathetic to illegal immigrants who cross our borders, and people who cant afford to be turned down for insurance and wind up bankrupt by medical bills.--Thunderstruck^{You've Been...}

In the 60s, maybe she was planted bombs with Obama & the Weather underground. nobs^{don't bother me} 03:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Can we get back to the orginal topic? You know, Sarah Palins Hypocrasy, which according to a less the reliable source is a liberal trait. Does this mean Palins a liberal? Then why does she hate commie health care?--Thunderstruck^{You've Been...}

"60s, maybe she was planted (sic) bombs with Obama & the Weather underground" Which would make Obama the toddler from hell. --Ψ GremlinTal! 14:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

As a respected conservapedian

What is your opinion on good faith editors (and sysops) objecting to Ken's essays? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 04:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations!

You have won the "Worst criticism of RationalWiki " award for 2010!

--Idiot number 59 (talk) 18:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Parody at CP

Just out of curiosity, what is the policy for parody at CP? Okay, like everything at CP I know there is no policy; it's the whim of whatever admin is on duty at the time, but how do you view it? You have your laughable claim that you left the Soetoro edit because you wanted to give RationalWiki its say or something like that, but come on, we all know that's bullshit. If you had said that you didn't revert it because you didn't notice it I might have believed that, but it's too late to make that claim now. I'll admit it's possible it was added in good faith by Solarguy who wasn't aware of the source of that name, and perhaps the same goes for DerekE, who reinserted it later, but no one can say for sure. Solarguy was banned, but his edit was not reverted. I ask this now because I notice DouglasA has been deleting articles solely because they were the work of an alleged parodist. I can't see the articles in question, but I have a feeling articles such as cp:Treasure Island were probably not works of parody in themselves, but were collateral damage in the removal of other parody. So why are accurate articles deleted for being done by a parodist, but demonstrably false parody edits (Soetoro) allowed to stay? Please don't try to feed me your "NPOV" or "allegations of totalitarianism" shit; we both know I'm smarter than that. And why haven't you banned DerekE for being from RW? You've said multiple times that he is. Shall I name some other obvious parodists? (I tried to warn you about Bugler many times. I replaced his user page with PARODIST in something like 72 pt. font on a few occasions. Of course, no one listened.) DickTurpis (talk) 20:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe I've discussed DerekE with anyone, here, at CP, or in private mailing lists. Generally, I don't carry on with idle speculation about which sock is who, or what is so and so's real intentions, cause it's just an enormous waste of time -- and that's been precisely one Ratvandal strategy since RW's founding. But let's look at the Soetero incident momentarilly; the question is over the source, not the editor who placed the sourcing. Simply because a ratvandal sock placed information, in my estimation, isn't grounds to revert. The first priority is to the vet the information and its sourcing; if I extended good faith errantly, I apologize. But my priority is not to vet the editor, rather the substance of the edit. Claiming Soetero is Obama's birthname is in keeping with RW's habits, practices, and overall mission. The question is, who is the sock, but as I said earlier, that is not first priority. Some RW editors have zero credibility, as far as good faith intentions go, so thier routine vandalism is reverted on sight once they are identified. But let's not be cynical toward RW's younger recruits. Let's give them the full opportunity to expose themselves for the worthless pieces of shit and lying trolls they are, if that's the path in life they have chosen for themselves. Only problem is, sorting through thier bullshit is a low priority for me. nobs^{don't bother me} 21:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

You did, indirectly, say DerekE was an RW parodist, as you said the edit was inserted by an RW parodist, and he inserted it, QED. Doesn't matter to me. If you want to talk about sources, well, the statement that Obama's birth name is Soetoro wasn't sourced at all, so that's a non-starter. I realize the list of things you don't understand is astounding, but I like to think the general concept of time is not on it, therefore you must have known that for Obama to have been born with the name of the man who would be his stepfather many years later is not possible. So you knew the edit, regardless of sources, inserted a lie into the article, correct? The simple question, putting aside who made it and why, is "why did it stand for so long?" I assume that because it was a subtle way to make Obama look bad it was welcome in his article. I guess at this point I don't really care. I've convinced myself long ago that trying to get a straightforward and honest answer out of you is an exercise in futility. I don't really see what this has to do with RW in any case. I only bring it up because you insisted it was an RW parodist, so I'm playing along with you on that for argument's sake and wondering how that possibly makes a difference (it's very counter-intuitive that being made by RW would be a reason not to revert it, and I wanted to explore that avenue. As you seem to have backed away from that line of reasoning, no doubt seeing how untenable it was, I won't press it anymore). DickTurpis (talk) 22:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, now we're in the realm of vetting historical sources, which is where I excell. So, what possible source would we have to support a claim such as, "for Obama to have been born with the name of the man who would be his stepfather many years later is not possible", other than Stanley Ann Dunham. nobs^{don't bother me} 23:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

What? Damn, I might have to take back my statement that time is one of the few things you understand. Perhaps you can explain to me how Barack Obama could have been born with the name Soetoro? He was born in 1961, while his mother was married to Barack Obama, Senior. Lolo Soetoro would not even arrive in Hawaii for another year, and Ann Dunham would not marry him until 1965. So how could he possibly have been born with the name Soetoro? I guess you could argue that all this is made up, but you'd need some extraordinary sources to contradict this, and you've offered none. Are you arguing that Soetoro is actually Obama's father? DickTurpis (talk) 00:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

What, no reply? Are you saying that it is possible (and I mean "possible" not in the sense of "not contradicting the laws of physics" but "not completely out of the question") that Obma was born with the last name Soetoro? I'm curious about this. DickTurpis (talk) 18:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to find the nudie pics of Ann Dunham Soetero. Her credibility may be in question. nobs^{don't bother me} 18:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you stop trolling for just a few minutes and try to answer questions honestly? DickTurpis (talk) 18:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Apparently not. DickTurpis (talk) 02:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

cp:Presidential Election 2012

Hi Rob - Happy New Year. Do you know why "Did not seek Sarah Palin endorsement" for Marco Rubio is under Fox News exposure and not as a con (or a pro)? --Leotardo (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, wow. This must be some inside baseball scoop or somethin. No, I haven't a clue. My guess is it's way of not promoting or offending tea parties. nobs^{don't bother me} 22:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Since you are around and answering questions, what is your opinion of the "fat atheist" and other essays that now appear regularly on CP. Cheers. --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 22:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Only glanced at it; but I did scroll through the photos of the American Atheist Assoc. Board, and noticed there may be a few (although not outside the norm of the general population) obese persons and gluttons. But hell, even Jesus got charged with the sin of gluttony. As to PZ Myers, it looks like a case of mild "middle aged spread", has they call. The condemning factor was the (imported) beer in his hand, I assume. Then again, Jesus was charged as a winebibber, as well. nobs^{don't bother me} 22:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Cool. You might want to read the actual "essay" but thanks for responding.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 22:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow. That's the best and most to-the-point response I've heard Rob give on anything ever. Maybe there's hope for you yet. I'm still not sure what the beer has to do with being obese, but it still cracks me up that Ken attacks PZ's machismo for drinking beer instead of Slim Fast. DickTurpis (talk) 22:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

That rvert

Minor apologies for that but I was reverting the massive move you made to the forum and that contribution got caught up in it. Oldusgitus (talk) 08:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I was trying to move a portion of that discussion for contiguity here (Forum:Manic progressives and the tax cut) before it got Archived cause I suspect we'll be discussing budget, tax & economic matters for the next several months with the new GOP congress. The discussion was going good til the unfortunate Arizona events of yesterday. nobs^{don't bother me} 15:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia

Rob, your (and your buddy Terry's) biggest whinge at WP is that CP stuff shouldn't be discussed there. So why on earth are you bleating on WP about being blocked here - for all of 2 minutes. WP isn't interested and it has no relevance to the CP article. --Ψ GremlinSprich! 16:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Huh? (a) How does TK figure in this discussion? Am I my brothers keeper? (b) The block was more than 2 minutes. Trent finally unblocked me. Thanks, tmt. (c) A very recent discussion in WP claimed CP sysops were murderers. A revert didn't occur until it escalated to Jimbo's page. (d) An RW bureaucrat, without discussion, evidence, or cause, cited the shooting of Congresswoman Gifford as a reason to block me. A federal judge was murdered in that shooting, and 5 others. No apology has been forthcoming as of yet, nor oversight of the slander. (e) Want me to continue? nobs^{don't bother me} 16:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

No, Rob, your point c is wrong. I removed the discussion upon becoming aware of it, before it was brought up on Jimbo's talk page. Then your buddy Karajou came along and reverted my removal of the message, and then complained to Jimbo on his talk page about how "A murder/suicide accusation that is not true at all is called libel and slander, and It's not going to be tolerated." Pretty interesting how the message was in fact not tolerated, but Karajou reversed it and complained about it being there. ~SuperHamster Talk 17:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Yep. Well you're going to have to take that up with Karajou.

As an aside, Nobs, aka Rob Smith, is not TK, Andy Schlafly, Karajou, Sarah Palin, George W. Bush, Glenn Beck, or FOX News. For persons with three digit IQs, this shouldn't be too difficult a concept to bear. nobs^{don't bother me} 18:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

And yet, he tacitly supports the positions of Shlafly, Karajou, et al by failing to speak out against them when given ample opportunity. --Kels (talk) 18:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Non sequitur. You must support indefinite detention at Gitmo, tax cuts for the rich, the public option sellout, probably think Obama is a Muslim and are a closet racist for for failing to speek out against these betrayals. Why, I bet you eat aborted fetuses for breakast, too. nobs^{don't bother me} 18:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Er...I do speak out against those things and support those that do. The fetus thing is correct though, but I'm Canadian. DON'T STEP ON MY CULTURE! --Kels (talk) 18:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

That's a shame

You sure you don't wanna dance? I am sitting in the office, all alone listening to Talking Heads and lacking a dance partner. Its a beautiful day today also, might go out a catch a beer in a little while. You are welcome to join me of course. I'll even wear my Stalin outfit. Ace Mc^fuckingAwesome 00:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Your block

You have been blocked for 24 hours. PARTY DOWN!. Ace Mc^fuckingAwesome 21:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Questions

Aside from "editing" CP, searching for communists and bitching about RW... What the hell do you do with your life? SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 22:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I work the mission fields for Christ. nobs^{don't bother me} 23:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I, for one, hope you're just as successful promoting Christ as you have been promoting conservatism. The world needs more atheists. --Kels (talk) 03:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Nothing personal Rob, but if your online postings are really representative of you, you probably do a shitty job converting folks. SirChuckB^{I have very poor judgement} 07:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Rob, I have probably said this before, but if you are serious about opposing communism, you ought to stop with the McCarthy-style fingering of any number of mere pinkos for orthodox Marxist subversives; that is what got anti-communists discredited in the first place and allowed the aforementioned pinkos to operate fully in the open. You might instead focus on pointing out the extent to which Marxism has influenced various political philosophies and academic disciplines; this is something that very few people have taken the bother of finding out. ListenerX^TalkerX 07:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

That's good advice; personally I prefer historical subjects but keep getting dragged in to contemporary events. As to doing God's work, I am all things to all people that by the grace of God I may promote the salvtion of some; all things ar lawful, but all things are not expedient. And as Jesus would say, Don't hide your light under a bushel...but if the salt looses it's savor, it ain't fit for the shit pile (his words, not mine). nobs^{don't bother me} 21:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Re:

You'er right. My mistake.

* 19:38, January 8, 2011 Gooniepunk2010 (Talk | contribs) blocked RobSmith (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 31416 seconds (about 9 hours) (account creation disabled) ‎ (This one's for Congresswoman Giffords. It's no wonder, in my book, why shit like this happens with the current sociopathic rhetoric coming out of the mouths of nutters like yourself.)

At a mimimum, an apology is in order. nobsdon't bother me 5:37 pm, Today (UTC−6)

You know something, Rob: you are right. It was a moment of irrationality on my part, and you just happened to be a convenient punching bag at the time. I didn't mean for what I said to taken personally by you. But my thought process at the time had actually less to do with Rep. Giffords and more to do with that 9 year old girl that was murdered. When the shooting happened, I was babysitting my cousin's 6 year old daughter at the time, and when I found out what had happened, I immediately thought of my cousin's daughter and lost broke down. Seconds later, I saw you in recent changes, and decided (against my better judgment) to stir shit. For that, I do apologize. Punky ^{Your mental puke relief} 00:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Kudus to you for apologising Goonie, but now you've taken all the wind out of Rob's "woe is me, I'm such a martyr" sails. --Ψ GremlinPrata! 10:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Well thank you, Goonie. I do believe you sound sincere. Any of us could have reacted the same way. President Obama's statement at the memorial service were very very appropriate and on point. Let's hope this is the beginning of a new era. nobs^{don't bother me} 21:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

A couple questions

Rob, since unlike just about everyone else at CP, you seem to occasionally be able to engage in limited critical thinking, can I get a few honest answers out of you on a few things?

1. Do you honestly believe that Conservapedia is a valuable education resource? Something approaching the level of a true encyclopedia, even one as questionable as Wikipedia?
2. Do you honestly think Ken (AKA "conservative") is mentally well, and does not have some sort of mental deficiency?

Feel free to speak openly here. DickTurpis (talk) 14:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Vandal Bin

“”There is something in MediaWiki called "throttling" that lets us limit new users to a certain number of edits per hour.

—Ed Poor

“”Yes, this is the same program RW has that they call "vandal bin" or "vandal binning," i.e., limiting an editor to X amount of edits per hour. They did it to me several times, allowing only one edit every 30 minutes. It's very effective -- and frustrating. We need this MW program.

—Rob Smith, CP/181-210/12ed2b93fe75e05a.htm

No it's not the same thing, Rob, but sorry you find it so frustrating. I'd blame it on the commies. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 18:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)