User talk:RobSmith/Archive 04

About this deficit

[1]

• Reagan increased it 189%
• Bush Snr - 55%
• Clinton - 37%
• Bush Jnr - 86%
• Obama - 35%

Remind me again why the deficit is Obama's fault? --OompaLoompa (talk) 16:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Good source, Office of the Democratic Leader, with no explanation of methodology. As if I need that, but I won't refute what I beleve is their faulty methodology now. Let's use this orphaned img by Obama's own OMB (size doesn't matter, it's the percentage of GDP that matters); and the results of stimulus, keeping in mind the purpose of stimululating the economy is to obtain results in terms of higher employment, lower unemployment, which is the same way of saying higher growth in output. Phil Gramm does the post mortem on Obama economic failures:

• "three years after the four deepest previous recessions started, real GDP was 7.6% higher than the pre-recession level. During the Obama recovery, real GDP is up only 0.1%. Forty months after the start of the 1953, 1957, 1973 and 1981 recessions, total employment was on average 4.7% higher than the pre-recession peaks, while total employment today is still down 4.7%—that's a total employment gap of 13.9 million jobs." nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 16:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't see that image. And the 91/92 recession was far worse than any of those. A bit like this one - people who still have their jobs losing their houses. But since the entire Bush 2 administration's "gains" were based on debt creation, not wealth creation, the path forward is going to be far much harder. ħuman 06:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

There's quite a bit of Ben Steinery going on here. The first chart is worthless because it shows debt, not deficits, which are two different things. It's also fairly useless to compare debt levels over the full terms of former presidents vs. a sitting president. Second, looking at % of GDP is misleading because it can measure two things: Change in revenue and change in outlays. In other words, fractions have denominators. If you look at the net outlays (St. Louis Fed's FRED database is always handy), they actually tick down slightly in 2010 (recall that FY09 is Bush's budget). Now take a look at the plunge in tax receipts, which shows us where the bulk of the deficit is coming from. Also, it's nonsensical to compare recessions like 1953 that resulted from monetary tightening to fight off post-war inflation to a global financial crisis where the entire banking system was on the verge of meltdown in 2008, but I expect that sort of idiocy from Phil "Nation of Whiners" Gramm. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll give a short answer cause I' short on time but would like to continue this. Much of what you say his true, though a deficit is still a deficit whether its caused by increased outlays or fallng revenue. And of course having 10% of the workforce, or 10% unemployed would also significantly lead to falling revenue, not necessisarily because the "the rich" aren't paying enough taxes, as some may claim. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 03:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Unemployment was around 8.6% and climbing when Obama took office. I think he can be blamed for our stagnant pseudo-recovery, but he didn't just pull low employment and the deficit out of a hat. I've seen some rather scammy looking "tax the rich" schemes floating around lefty blogs. Rates on the top bracket could be raised, but it would only be a minor part of a larger fix. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Three nuns

I don't care what the haters say, I still like having you here. ħuman 06:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Good. So I can count on your vote for Moderator? nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 13:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I support your being a janitor, but that's about it. I also support your sense of humor. ħuman 03:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Yah but I'm an expert at bringing people together, seeing the other guys POV, promoting reconciliation etc., Kumbaya my Lord, Kumbaya.... nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 03:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll vote for you, I guess. Sure, you're a conservative and Conservapedian, but I believe an all-round decent chap.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 01:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I second that with "You can still be a nice guy even if you're an idiot". --ǓḤṂ^³ 12:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Lava/Lifeboy, you're on a roll! ħuman 03:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

$50

I decratted myself you fucking idiot. Ace ^{of Spades} 03:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Spin it anyway you want, the record speak for itself. [2] nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 02:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Armondikov decratted everyone, I was recratted, then I decratted myself. Rob wins! you fucking derelict. Ace ^{of Spades} 03:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Yah but when he decratted everyone, he did it alphabetically, so you were among the first, just as I said. Jeezuz Christ, do I have to write your spin talking points for you? Sheesh. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 03:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Surely you would want to be paid in a "real" currency? Or is that $NZ? ħuman 03:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Rob, you inspired me

No kidding, you actually did. "The point being, how lost man is without God." in that latest "dicussion" on CP:WIGO talk (which I can't link to because it somehow doesn't work) actually made me think (which doesn't happen that often with CP kids comments). If man is lost without god, he may just pick up some tools to help himself. And maybe atheists like me have no problem being lost and helping themselves. The question if god actually exists becomes rather irrelevant in such sociological perspective. But what if the way we help ourselves would actually be favored over the old way? Then the old way would be abondend in a long period of change (right now?), to be replaced by the new and subjectively more beneficial idea of being independent. Although this makes the idea of a god look like an old shady car, it's nice to see people are trying to be independent rather they need it or not. --ǓḤṂ^³ 12:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The scripture addresses most of this stuff. Jeremiah says, "I know the way of man is not in himself;" (Jer.10:23), for example, not knowing proper sanitation methods until God instructed him. One of these tools you refer to is literacy. Benjamin Ginsberg has a good discussion of this in The Fatal Embrace. For example, "Jewish religious practice required male participants to read prayers and other texts, and hence Jewish men received a measure of education that made them considerably more literate and numerate than the people among whom they lived," hence they were able to transmit sanitary hygenic practices from generation to generation. Now, to attribute this to man, or logic, or the collected wisdom of the ages poses, all sorts of prolems, not the least of which is the natural rebellious tendecies of youth. The scripture addresses this problem in two ways, (1) prodigality and (2) pride of man. And prodigality is an outward manifestation of the pride of man, or simply put, the rejection of God by man who thinks he can make his own way the world. Pharoah in Eygpt for example, did not think he needed God to make himself live forever. He appointed himself the God-man, and through mummification tried to immortalize himself. Without God, however, it didn't quite work out. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 20:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually I have to confess the last time I read the Bible (the Luther one, off course as I was born a German Protestant) I was 10. Since I moved out of my parents flat I don't have access to a Bible anymore - off course I could buy one, but I don't support prodigality in regards to money. I tried to at least read the Bible again when I was 17 but I slept away 5 times even before Adam and Eve were thrown out of Garden Eden for eating an apple (Ok, when I say it like that, god really looks like a giant dick). What do I want to say with that is that "It's all in there!" doesn't really help all that much, so thanks for quoting.

I think what helped the Jews to get into the prejudice of being rich fat guys is that they were good merchants, which incidently goes rather well with being literate. By the way the same things apply to muslim merchants who became literates through Koran schooles and universities of the middle east - and they too were rather free thinking looking at the Christians at that time. I'm not an expert at Egyption mythology, but I think you got something wrong here: The Egyptians believed to life on in mirror world of their's, preperation to go to this world was common in all rich men. They also believed the Pharaoh to be a half god - sent from the gods to reign over them. A rather common belief, and a fine justification too rule over a country that ist greatly religious. I guess what I want to say is that the Abrahamic logic should not be applied to leaders of other faiths, because one ends up with the rethoric equivilant of a bloody nose. Which makes me think that another religion could say something like this about Jesus: "He said he was the son of the Lord, but his teachings were false and for his heresy the true Lord gave him the death on the cross. The sightings of him three days after his death were orchestrated by the devil, who gave the people wrong visions of him to fuel the disbelieve in the real true God." Actually that's a great escape hatch.

I find it kind of funny that you attribute "pride of men" as a problem men have with god. Through the "created in God's picture"-part, I always thought it was that which caused the problems we face today (climate change and denial of it, general problems of the environment, smog). How much better can one be then almost like god? The evolutionist perspective of "rather intelligent animal" seems to be rather downright insulting, especialy the "from apes" part. But once again Christian thinking makes no sense to me at all. I'll stop ranting like an old man now... --ǓḤṂ^³ 21:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The pride of man stuff is basically original sin, i.e., thinking you are something you're not. In most cases, it is the creature (i.e., created being) thinking he is the creator. None of this conflicts with science or reason because everyone agrees the human species had a point of origin. Likewise no one argues the human species willed itself into existence. When the created being thinks his purpose is to serve self, he fails to recognize the creator's rightful position. And the simple truth of the matter is, it is not smoke coming out of exhaust pipes or empty coke cans polluting the planet, it's the shit coming out of your asshole and the piss in your drinking water that as been, and will always be, a far more deadly man-made environmental hazard, both to the human species, and all living things, that the human species needs to be concerned with. All else (that is, all other environental concerns) is a mere fig leaf. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 02:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

What Eygptians believed and what is true can be two different things. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 02:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

How you found RW

Saw this in the RC and got a good chuckle out of it:

"Rationalwiki was so effective even then at limiting Conservapedia's user base, registration was shut off and I could not create an account."

Your first (currently visible) edit is from March 9, 2007. Which was in the same week pretty much tons of people registered in, including Trent (first visible edit March 7) and me (first visible edit March 8). Colin's first visible edit is from March 11.

I'm honestly curious (because with you, pretty much anything goes) - was that just a bit of poking fun or did/do you honestly believe that the disabled registration was the work of some sort of "RW 0.1" and not the result of, oh, I don't know, the blogosphere noticing a project that lacked the technical and logistical capabilities to deal with a sudden rush of hundreds of people? --Sid (talk) 19:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Also some epic fridge logic: March 2007 had been the absolute high point of actual editors on CP. And you call that limiting CP's user base? Seriously, if you even half meant what you wrote, you have issues. I know you love to blame RW for everything, but if you think that CP's user base being limited is the fault of RW, somebody has to have a long talk with you. XD --Sid (talk) 19:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikien-1 from February & March of 2007 has several threads on CP, including Vandalism and Conservapedia. Here is where I first heard of CP from a regular poster at Wikien-1 dated February 23 [bolden added];

I'd been reluctant to mention it here because I didn't want to attract vandals, but Conservapedia has been mentioned in some liberal blogs and Conservapedia in the last couple of days has become inundated by a flood of vandalism. This is a pity, because Andrew Schlafly, who is sort of the Jimbo Wales of Wikipedia, is for the most part civil, and open to intellectually honest changes to articles. Yes, he has some bees in his bonnet, and Wikipedia is one of them. He is not going to ever believe that the Wikipedia article on Conservapedia was deleted because of non-notability, not because of liberal bias:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ Conservapedia

But I've actually enjoyed working on a Wiki-based encyclopedia that is so undeveloped that I can easily improve and add articles.

The current crop of vandals is pretty unpleasant. I have the feeling that here is a parochial school whose doors are open, and bullies from a nearby public school are coming in and writing obscenities on the blackboards and throwing books off the shelves. As I say, Conservapedia brought it on themselves by delusions of grandeur, but just because someone says their sandcastle is Washington Cathedral is no reason to kick it down.

If anyone reading this is so hostile toward conservative Christian creationists as to be unable to keep a commitment to NPOV, please don't come and vandalize Conservapedia, they're getting all the vandalism they need.

But I really think it would be nice if a few experienced Wikipedians would drop in, understanding that Conservapedia _is not Wikipedia_, --the same practices and policies don't automatically apply--and help ward off vandals and give this little project, which has its pleasant aspects, a boost.

And please note, the dates Sid cites above only apply to the user names given, whereas and all those user names have admitted to sockpuppetry & vandalism. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 00:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Lol, I was trying to add books to the shelves. PS, I am still 403'd dude. Please ask Andy to fix. ħuman 02:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Word came down from on high about two days ago to begin undoing range blocks. So far only me, DMorris, and Andy have discussed it or shown interest in doing he footwork necessary. And I'm limited in time available. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 15:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I emailed Andy about a week ago as you suggested (good thing it's in my address book, since I can't go to CP to get it). he has ignored me. He is a distasteful, dishonest, anti-intellectual midget of a man, really. What it says above about him is just window dressing. ħuman 05:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Problem is Rob you still have not connected the vandalism Wikien-1 mentions, with the organised vandalism you claim was caused by RationalWiki. Also as far as I know RW1.0 was not set up until April anyway, so the claim that "RationalWiki" was causing it is chronologcially false. You do realise that people who have never heard of RationalWiki have vandalised Conservapedia? - π 03:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

ħuman 08:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

RW's history says March 2007,[3] and the timeline specificaly says March 28,[4] but I have evidence (speaking from memory momentarily) ColinLR was active on the RW 1.0 server about Februry 27 or 28. There are also recruitment postings on Wikipedia editors talk pages for RW 1.0 prior to March 28, I believe. And other editors were active in RW 1.0 between February 28 and March 28. And "the current crop of vandals" the Wikien-1 poster refers to is corroborated in context by a peek CP User talk Aschlafly's page. [5] nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 15:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Rob, you are making random (incorrect) claims without bothering to provide any evidence. WP talk pages - links please. Cp links are no longer considered valid "references" due to the actions of the powers that be there to prevent some from viewing the site. ħuman 05:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I first found out about CP from Andy being interviewed on Radio 4 in the UK. I edited there because you could create stuff and think 'I did that' whereas on Wikipedia all you could really do is tweak around the edges. So I may have added stuff which had a British aspect, what was wrong with that? Where were all the US editors adding similar stuff about the US - conspicuously absent. The fact that so much has been deleted or was not welcomed shows that CP's intent of being an educational resource rather than a religiopolitical attack blog very soon fell by the wayside as soon as the reactionary middle-aged men got footholds and marginalised Andy's homeschoolers. Rob is just as much to blame for the shortcomings of CP as Ken, TK, Ed or Karajou. Trying to blame RW for CP's ills is like trying to blame your spouse for your lousy childhood.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 12:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

ħuman 07:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

See footnote 56 here; I bet this is the same interview. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 15:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't, you moron. PS, Andy has yet to reply to my polite email about why I can't read his blog. ħuman 07:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Good God, Rob, you managed to be far beyond wrong here. I'm sorry, but in my Hotmail inbox is a RW invite dated March 28, 2007 - and trust me, the place I joined that day had definitely not been a month old. A few people were just setting up their user pages, and aside from that, there had been pretty much nothing. You need to remember one simple fact: RW had been created as a reaction to CP treating dissenting voices like shit in the two to three weeks we had been around.

Why don't you give links to the evidence you "remember", Rob? Where are the recruitment posts from February or early March? What posts had been made on RW then? Please, do show us this evidence! It would indeed be quite revolutionary to see RW existing before any of us had even heard of CP!

And while you're around, please elaborate on how the vandal waves in early March were a result of this time-traveling RW and not, say, of tons of blogs linking to CP and laughing!

Seriously, go ask Karajou. He's the one who had live access to RW longer than any other CP sysop, and I believe he's the one who made the IC3 package. Ask him about those "late February, early March" posts. I assure you, even Kara will admit that the early-March waves were not the result of RW. You know. Because RW hadn't actually existed back then. --Sid (talk) 16:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

PS:

WHOIS information for rationalwiki.com : Creation Date: 28-mar-2007

So please also elaborate on how this fits into your narrative of RW existing before March 28. --Sid (talk) 16:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Karajou gives most of the relevent links at Conservleaks, EmersonWhite, Karajou, Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 7:07 AM, for the March 28 date, including this in Wikipedia, "Richard came out as a disinformation plant", implying some knowledge of and cooperation between users prior to March 28. Then we this alteration four years after the fact of a ratikonalwiki chronicler changing his own narratvie from what was written contemporaneoulsy to the events in question. But I will also find the February 2007 screen cap from RW 1.0 and make it available to you, if you'd like. Thank you. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 17:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

So you got Human correcting an honest mistake in a wiki and Karajou, who hadn't found anything that confirms your story. Also, Richard wasn't RW - he came out on his own blog while he was a sysop, and that's how he got banned. But surely you knew that, right? And yes, I'm eagerly anticipating that screencap! --Sid (talk) 18:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Yup, that was me correcting a mistake I made. RobS, got any "facts" to back up your strange assertions? ħuman 07:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Richard definitely wasn't at RW 1.0. I love that we're still discussing this though. I need popcorn. (PS: Are you going to get rid of the infinite blocks? A lot of other people have a five year block, which would be up next year. I also still fail to see how I'm a sock/vandal. Who am I a sock of? Where did I vandalize?) sterile^talk 11:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

"some knowledge of and cooperation between users prior to March 28" no kidding. On their CP talk pages, chump. ħuman 05:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course it did. We were collaborating on cp:cheese and not collaborating on cp:donuts (which always have holes). sterile^talk 23:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

== How do you feel about Ken

? ==

I would just like to know, I never see you talk about him. Have you explained how you feel to Andy? Opcn (talk) 07:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I will now answer your question. I didn't really know him back in June when you asked this question, nor read much of any of his work. But I was asked by another (I think DickTurpis) if I thought he was mentally ill. I could not answer then. User:Conservative first asked me for phone contact back in 2007 (under the name David Jensen, and it should be noted, this same user accuses others of lies, deceit, and parody). I refused then. After questions from several users, I accepted maybe 4 or 5 calls from him.

IMO, (since I've already been accused of saying nasty things about fellow CP sysops) I do believe the man to have deep-seated mental or spiritual problems. He prays to God for other members to get kicked out of he church he attends. He wants to do harm to User:Human's business by a cybervandal attack on its website. As a Christian, and a small business owner, I find people like this revolting and appalling, if not dangerous. RobSmith^{I have been defamed by anonymous CP trolls} 01:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

He prays to God for other members to get kicked out of he church he attends. He wants to do harm to User:Human's business by a cybervandal attack on its website. That's pretty revolting. Ace^{of Spades} 01:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

He lied to me about his own name when we first collaborated on cp:Homosexuality#Homosexual_Couples_and_Domestic_Violence in 2007 (claiming it was David Jensen); his accusations about me "pesterfesting" him about User:BobSherman were based on his claim BobSherman was a liar, and Andy backed him up. That singularity was the issue. A liar, someone who claimed they were someone they were not, could not have a user account on Conservapedia. RobSmith^{I have been defamed by anonymous CP trolls} 02:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

You're a fucking disgrace Rob. A fucking disgrace. It's no spouting this shit now, you actively cooperated for over four years with this utter cretin - someone you knew to be a pathological liar and nasty sociopath - just because you had somewhere to post your ridiculous cold war-style shite. You are a fucking disgrace. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 06:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

B♭maj7 Define "talk." Define "page." 13:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Bullshit. I barely knew the guy. He was never part of the CP sysop cabal til recently, and doesn't really contribute anything of substance there (few do). He & my paths probably did not cross in CP a half dozen times since 2008, maybe a dozen times in 2007, and virtually never in Conservaleaks. It is all a matter of record. RobSmith^{I am a victim of anonymous CP trolls} 19:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

So you never noticed the Flying Kitty on the front page, or the fatatheistatheistfatfatfatatheist stuff, and that's why you let that material ride for so long? B♭maj7 You know that nervous feeling you have before you're about to take an exam you don't feel ready for? That's pretty much how I feel all the time. 19:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Didn't care either. Still don't. Bit by bit, more and more, Rationalwiki editors have somewhat piqued my interest in this "flykitty" whatever. One even put some on this talk page. Someday, I may actually investigate. But right now I'm de-KenDemeyering the Josef Stalin article and a few others at Ameriwiki, so I'm not really interested in absorbing any new information. RobSmith^{I am a victim of anonymous CP trolls} 20:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

So ... there's this wiki project that you're looking to save from itself ... but you have no real knowledge of one of its most prolific contributors ... and the epic lolwut? / facepalm nature of his contributions...

Shit. I'm convinced. That's totally plausible. --Robledo (talk) 21:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Never read his stuff, didn't care to, no reason to. I guessed the guy was a little strange based on my extremely limited contact with him for four years. Conservaleaks bares me out -- there are virtually no exchanges anywhere I can recollect (User:Consertvative evidently followed the Spring 2010 WP dispute peripherally, and made several postings that I couldn't decipher the meaning under threads he created, but there was no dicussion between him/her me, TK & Karajou). And longtime observers of WIGO know User:Conservative & my interaction on Conserpedia discussion or mainspace has been non-existence since at least June of 2007. Even before then, it was sparse. RobSmith^{I am a victim of anonymous CP trolls} 22:02, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

An aide-mémoire: behold The Day Conservapedia Flew The Kitty. No need for time-consuming "investigations" and the laborious absorption of "new" information, when in just a couple of seconds a simple picture says it all. --Xyr (talk) 23:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

So that link leads in to a picture of an allegedly obese PZMyers holding a beer; pardon me for asking (and I know I'm going to regret this), but just what does an evolutionary cartoon creature have to do with an allegedly obese blogger drinking a beer? You may be able to make more sense of this than the original author, I hope. RobSmith^{I am a victim of anonymous CP trolls} 01:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I dunno Rob. YOU were a senior administrator of that webpage for almost as long as anybody else; why don't YOU explain to us how the project took such a tun under your oversight. B♭maj7 You know that nervous feeling you have before you're about to take an exam you don't feel ready for? That's pretty much how I feel all the time. 01:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

We're gonna do a Compendium of private emails & chats with TK; that, along with Conservaleaks, and my contribs (not to mention my history of blocking), tell the story. RobSmith^{I am a victim of anonymous CP trolls} 01:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's the story as I saw it; with the exception of the usual wikibreaks that we all take (you had one lengthy one, IIRC), you edited Conservapedia on a regular basis for about four years, blocked vandals, participated on talk pages, and did everything else a sysop does, but claim that you paid no attention to the edits made by a guy who regularly monopolized Recent Changes, and had no idea that the MAIN PAGE of the wiki, the public face of the project, had, at different times while you were administering it, an animated gig of a flying cat wearing goggles or stories about obese atheist scienctists drinking a pint at the pub. Where exactly do I have it wrong there? B♭maj7 You know that nervous feeling you have before you're about to take an exam you don't feel ready for? That's pretty much how I feel all the time. 01:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

That's about it. I made some postings to MPR, TK & I collaborated well on that, TK could dress them up with imgs that looked nice. MPL was usually crazy Ken crap that I ignored, cause complaining about it risked being unceremoniously desysoped and blocked. At some point in the summer of 2010, Ken mentioned somewhere (I think on the open wiki) he was burning out and didn't have any ideas for MPL and could someone take over. I stepped in and largely shaped what became cp:Recovery Summer. User:Conservative noted the revamp here in Conservaleaks, and readers of Conservaleaks would find little, if any discussion (I can recall), about me taking over MPL during that election cycle. RobSmith^{I am a victim of anonymous CP trolls} 02:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

So basically, then, you're admitting that you were a really, really, really incompetent sysop. A GIANT ANIMATED FLYING CAT RIGHT BESIDE YOUR MPR MATERIAL, and you never even noticed it? Wait, maybe if it was "The transitional animal the flying Kara Duhe", maybe that would have caught your eye more than the cat? B♭maj7 You know that nervous feeling you have before you're about to take an exam you don't feel ready for? That's pretty much how I feel all the time. 02:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

How did it differ from any other bullshit he regularly posted? What was I supposed to do, revert it? How long do you think that would last? RobSmith^{I am a victim of anonymous CP trolls} 02:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

How does it feel when someone has your balls in their purse like that, son? B♭maj7 You know that nervous feeling you have before you're about to take an exam you don't feel ready for? That's pretty much how I feel all the time. 02:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

We'll see. Ken & Andy may want me back for next years election cycle for MPL. It did make cp:Human Events, after all, Ronald Reagan's favorite publication. RobSmith^{I am a victim of anonymous CP trolls} 02:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

So are you saying that you didn't give a shit about how ridiculous CP looked as it gave you somewhere to post your tripe? Or if we assume good faith here and say that you genuinely thought CP was a respected resource for American conservatives; you didn't feel it necessary to speak up about Ken ensuring that CP was nothing but a laughing stock to people right across the political spectrum? You can't have it both ways Rob. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 07:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

No matter the outcome someone will complain about RobSmith not doing what they wanted him to do soon enough and then make fun of him, call him obscene names, swear at him and attack him for even trying. Some of you guys are are very eager to say nasty things to someone who looks like he's very frustrated about the same kinds of things you were frustrated about and is trying to be friendly and helpful to you, but you are not very critical of your own behavior and mindset. If your everyday goals are not fellowship, charity, and learning you might ask yourself why you are wasting your time on energy on anything else. The question is especially important to those who believe this life is all there is. Nate Nate Keaton (talk) 18:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Rationalwiki, as Conservapedia, is indeed a mission field. On another matter: I recently recalled User:Conservative & myself also had telephone contact last summer, about June or July. I don't recall if it was once or twice we spoke. It was in connection with User:Conservative's Project Socialism, which he announced on MPL (as I learned from WIGO) that I'd be participating. When he first asked I said "yah sure", thinking I could incorporate some old material into whatever he had in mind, but he soon had a list of 20 or 30 articles he wanted me do to. In our phone contact he pressured me closely as he seemed to think I'd be the driving force. It wasn't a bad idea, but I explained at the time I was just beginning a new business that month, and my time was pretty well committed for the immediate foreseeable future for taking on another large project. He wasn't happy with being put off and his ambitions thwarted, but ever since then, and you see it repeatedly, User:Conservative recycles that excuse he learned from me about how he can't fit things into his schedule, and time demands are too pressing to be involved in the immediate future, etc etc. But if you're listening, Conservative, I think you use that tired excuse a little too much, it's overkill. If you need anymore business management consulting on public relations, time management, or dealing with underlings, my consulting fee is $60 an hour. RobSmith^{I am a victim of anonymous CP trolls} 01:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Common ground

Hi Rob. I think there is so much emphasis on the disagreements between conservatives and liberals, between RW and CP, etc. I have always been the kind of person who wants to find the common ground—is there any? Is there anything both sides could agree on? Where are the potentials for greater agreement? — areas where there is disagreement, but the positions are not so far apart and maybe could be bridged? Answer either for liberals/conservatives in general, or just for you personally. I'd be interested to hear your opinions on this issue. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:10, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

According to RW it's "Incest is a bad idea". Maybe also that the holocaust should not be denied, but that is pretty much a no-brainer. --ǓḤṂ^³ 11:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think that's a good start. But a good question, is not just what you agree on now, but what might you have a reasonable prospect of coming to agree on in the future? Obviously, one should not be excessively optimistic here—but that doesn't mean one's answer need be nothing either. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, but I take your question quite seriously, and have been thinking on it all weekend. A response could easily get quite lengthy, but let's begin with dispensing with the idea liberal & conservative are polar opposites, or that lines need to be drawn and sides taken. IOW, partisanship works to the disadvantage of all when it becomes a reflexive response regardless of the issue.

I could present reams of facts to support the idea that lib/cons are not opposites, let's begin with the simple fact persons who self-identify in the US as conservative have historically out polled liberals 2-1 for perhaps 80 years now. That's hardly a starting point for competing ideologies to begin with equal footing. Another thing is today's liberal is tomorrow's conservative, much as today's married person is tomorrow's widow or divorcee, or today's minimum wage earner is tomorrow's employer. Nothing is in concrete, nothing is static.

Today I was looking at youth uneployment stats, for example, 10%+ nationally for high school graduates and the 18-24 age group. The future does not look hopeful for people under 30. They will have extremely limited opportunities to find jobs, get married, have chidren, buy houses, etc., for themselves. Yet the dumb fucks, if and when they do find work, are going to get raped paying for us old fart's Medicare & Social Security. We get paid out of their paycheck before they get to feed themselves and their children. That is is the Law. Only they are too young, inexperienced, and stupid to see this. It has little to do with ideology, IMHO. Yet they willing, and blindly, voted for slave masters who imposed these burdens on them.

This would be the jumping off point for a non-partisan discussion on the looming debt ceiling and default crisis ... nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 03:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Or simply undoing the Reagan tax cuts on he rich and extending the FICA tax to all income. ħuman 08:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, debt is a problem for the US, and it has multiple causes. Healthcare, welfare are the ones conservatives like to pick on; tax cuts and military spending are the ones liberals like to pick on. Actually, both points of view have some truth to them. Healthcare spending in the US is rather inefficient compared to other countries; other countries spend less with similar health outcomes. Military spending is an issue; part of the problem is not so much getting involved in wars (which is probably inevitable for a global hegemon like the US), but taking too long to exit them; another aspect is too much military spending on R&D—the US already has the most technologically advanced military in the world; a certain amount must be spent on R&D to maintain that superiority, but it spends far more than it actually needs to do to do so.

Funny comparing that to the situation here in Australia. From the fuss that sometimes gets made about it, you'd think we have a big government debt, but it is very small by US or European standards. And economists are saying we are at the beginning of the longest boom in our economic history, due to our immense mineral wealth, and the insatiable appetite of China (and other emerging economies) for that wealth.

Also, complaining about how hard it is to buy a house—the US is pretty cheap I think, especially since the whole subprime fiasco. When you live in an Australian capital city, you pay a lot more than the US average for housing. Well, comparable to higher end of the US market, like the Bay Area. The advantage the US has, is it has lots of middle-ranked cities, where there are significant opportunities and affordable housing. In Australia, you either live in the big expensive capital cities, or in smaller cities with much more limited opportunities.

I'm actually pondering moving to the US. The US still has its advantages — as an IT professional, the Bay Area offers plentiful opportunities in areas which are much harder to find here in Australia. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

This is the sad truth about the US right now: it is officially a banana republic. It's become ungovernable. There are structural flaws in both our Constitutional system, and our economic system that just cannot be resolved one way or the other through the political process. We've kicked the can down the road every two years for so many decdades, prefering a short term quick fix to get Congressional members re-elected, rather than address serious problems. 1 in 4 Americans were all born within 10 years of each other, the so-called "baby boom" after WWII (1945-55). They ae all retiring now, over the next ten years, and will live on average another 20 years. IOW, the US economy is fucked until the year 2032, at the minimum. There just are not enough young people to support these aged hippies and lazy motherfuckers who never did anything with thier lives other than sex, drugs, & rock 'n roll. Now they want Social Security benefits and Medicare insurance. That's all the US government is paying right now. Nothing else. It's scheduled to shut down August 2 when the cash runs out.

As for the young people, there is no hope, unless they want to learn Chinese. Wages are just to bloated here. America is having one gigantic fire-sale, everything reduced for quick liquidation, while the rest of the planet is in recovery. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 21:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Stop buying at Walmart and you might stay a chance. --85.182.145.82 (talk) 00:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Schumpeter and Toynbee

At the risk of being all over the map on this, as I've said I've been giving much thought. Let me lay ut my worldview: it's a synthesis of Arnold Toynbee's Theory of challenge and response and Joseph Schumpeter's Theory of creative destuction. More specifically, a fusion of Toynbee's "creative minorities" and Scumpeter's entrepenurial class. In both theories, there are only a handful of individuals seeking, and finding, solutions to society's problems at any given point in time. The rest of society follows their discoveries and solutions by the "faculty of mimesis" (Toynbee's phrase). This is not say, or justify, rule by elitism. Rather, society's problem solvers need be unbound from disincentives. And these idea's are not the prisoner of liberal or conservative ideology; see for example the Schumpterian language used to sell Obama's budget, "winning the future by investing to make the economy more innovative and competitive." [6] This is almost the identical language used to sell Reagan's (horrific) budget cuts & tax cuts. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 03:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

ħuman 04:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

damn you got burned

Are you gonna stand for this shit? I gotta give you props for calling dude out, but he just pretty much shat right in your face. Wow. PACODOG^{woof, bitches} 00:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

It's Ken's Idiot Grin Strategem. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 04:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Lol! ħuman 04:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh Rob, I am so pleased

I knew you'd say something like this.^img The difference between Obama and Palin is that when Obama makes an error, like the Austrian Languague you pointed out or the "57 states" error he'll recognise he made a mistake and move on. He won't go live on national TV and try to convince the nation the US actually does have 57 states or Austrian is a language unlike Palin's laughable attempts at rewriting history to avoid having own up to her own ignorance. As to . It is proof, however, of meanspirited hateful people (if not sexist and bigotted) fearful of a mother and housewife....well, you're an idiot. I don't know what else to tell ya. Please respond with your usual non-sequitar. I am having a good laugh watching Ken shovel his shit down your throat while you pretend Palin is smart and knows better than historians. Ace ^{of Spades} 05:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

What the fuck do you know about US history? Facts are, Paul Revere was captured by the Crown (you New Zealanders still bend the knee to the Queen, don't you?) and warned them Americans would not put down their guns. It's history, and we're all goddamm proud of it. But if you whimps still wanna live in the fuedal ages and worship the Queen, more power to ya (limp-dick sorry bastards....) nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 00:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I know more about US history than Sarah Palin does that's for sure. Even your leader Andy disagrees with Palin. Just look at his history lecture. I don't know why NZ's commonwealth is relevant. Sure Palin made a mistake but to go on TV to defend it not the sign of an intellectually sound individual. Politics aside I genuinely hope you can see Ken to the path of reason. Ace ^{of Spades} 01:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

shhhh, I'll let you in on some inside GOP hush-hush stuff...everybodies bailin on palin...she won't run. Palin is just out to (a) use the media to promote herself and get rich off them dumb fucks, and (b) show what a bunch of dumb fucks they are. Witness, she won't give the mainstream media networks her travel itinerary, they're following her around like like stray puppy dogs, using her to make money for themselves, and constantly speculating to twits like yourself that she's running for president. When she doesn't, dumb fucks like yourself & mainstream journalists are gonna look awfully goddamm stupid with your ceaseless intrusion, speculation, and hateful comments about a family that's just on vacation. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 20:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I never believed she'd run, well, I thought it a possibility but never considered her a serious contender.

ceaseless intrusion, speculation, and hateful comments about a family that's just on vacation Yeah because when I go on vacation I drive a huge bus covered in political rhetoric funded by my own political action committee. And calling someone out on a blatantly false statement and their attempt to rewrite history isn't hateful. Ace ^{of Spades} 21:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

If you could make a coouple million dollars driving a painted RV with free publicity in tow, you would too. Keep telling yourself its a historical rewrite, and keep preaching the gospel of hate to the choir. You're not convincing anyone outside your little circle of leftwing commie symps who never amount to more than 17% of the Amnerican electorate -- in a good year. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 00:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

So you are saying that it's a publicity stunt to increase Palin's pocket? Are you suggesting that Palin is just money grubbing then and has no real personal interest in what she doing aside from profit? Palin made a gaff sure but by going on TV to justify it and then having conservative pundits fawn over her and reqrite the history to make her seem correct is just patently absurd. And where have I "preached hate"? Is calling out Palin on her gratuitously poor general knowledge hate? Oh yeah, for the record, I am not leftwing by a long shot. My politics are further right than you think but I will not support someone, even if they agree with my politics, not because they make a gaff but if they are obviously undereducated, hyperpartisan, mental stonewalls who do not have the good grace to admit where they are wrong. Ace ^{of Spades} 01:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

No, not at all. Palin is taking her children on and educational tour and earning money to support and educate her family. The journalists hounding her are money grubbing scumbags trying to sell a product, i.e., their version of what is news. News organizatios are not, I repeat, are not public intersest groups or non-profit educational foundations. They are greedy capitalist money grubbers eager to sell a product for profit to line their own pockets and eat in fancy hotels while half the planet lives on $2 a day. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 03:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Seriously dude, that is fucking hilarious. Taking her children out..on an educational tour...to support and educate her family.....in a giant fucking bus covered in US patriotic symbolism while meeting people like Donald Trump for lunch and filing reports with Foxnews all the way. Yeah, when I vacation I do that, I also take my PAC minders with me also. That is really funny man, worthy of The Simpsons. But anyway, you haven't actually identified any hate speech. All I seem to get is "Saying critical things about Palin is hate speech!". But yeah that was funny dude.

They are greedy capitalist money grubbers eager to sell a product for profit to line their own pockets and eat in fancy hotels while half the planet lives on $2 a day. Wait wait wait, so now capitalism is a bad thing?

And isnt Palin making a coouple million dollars driving a painted RV with free publicity in tow while the world lives on less than $2 also? Ace ^{of Spades} 03:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Yah but she's got 5 children to feed, including a special needs child. And a grandchild who has to face the world without a father. Where's your compassion? She's able bodied, what do you expect, her to suck the public tit when she's perfectly willing and capable to support the lives she's brought into this world? nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 03:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, Palin is probably really living hand to mouth at the moment. What with the coouple million dollars driving a painted RV and all. 5 children eh? On a Fox salary! How does she manage!. Dude, I have been to Africa, Cambodia and Bolivia and those fuckers are poor and your comment about Palin is utterly ridiculous in comparision to the poverty I have witnessed. Those money grubbing journalists you speak of, do you think they are mot also trying to support their families? Do you know their stories? Sounds to me that you like capitalism when it benefits those you like. Well, sorry buddy, that isn't the way it works. I am capitalist and I realise that people I don't like are going to make money. You can't pick and choose. Your position is internally inconsistent, Rob. Ace ^{of Spades} 03:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

No it isn't. The journalists are motivated by their own greed to exploit a woman, her children, and the public's gullibility to enrich themselves, whereas Palin is trying to provide what any parent wants, the best for their children. It is not Palion's fault that she is in demand, or that millions and millions of people love her, and want to give her their money for just being herself. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 04:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Again you are being inconsistent. You said If you could make a coouple million dollars driving a painted RV with free publicity in tow, you would too. You are saying she is taking her family on holiday but decides she could make a couple of million out of it also so she paints her bus up and gets free publicity in tow. But now, because the free publicity isn't saying what you want it to say they are suddenly greedy scumbags. Dude, you can't have it both ways. And please identify my hate speech. Ace ^{of Spades} 04:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, let me be clear: if you could make a couple million bucks driving an RV across country, you probably would to line your greedy pockets. If Palin makes a couple million doing the same, that doesn't mean she's greedy. Is that clear enough? nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 04:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

And how do you judge who is doing it for greedy purposes and who isn't? Ace ^{of Spades} 04:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Rob, are you kidding me? Palin is so pathetically greedy and conceited. She plays the media for attention and absolutely loves it-- only to bitch about the mean liberal media when they say something she doesn't like. RatMaster ^háblame 05:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Who follows who like an orangutan in heat? Now, if Palin tossed one of Trig's dirty pampers out the RV, and CBS News caught a video of it from inside their car as it hit the windshield, that would be newsworthy. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 18:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Again, Rob, you're being willfully obtuse. Palin quit her job of actually doing something for a living to become a media celebrity, probably because she enjoyed the attention and could make a ton of money doing it. Once you've made that decision, you can't claim purity of purpose. If you're going to make millions off of media attention, you don't get to dictate what they say and whine when they say you're a media whore. Junggai (talk) 19:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Back on topic Rob (and I have enjoyed my discussion with you so far) my question above was how do you judge who is doing it for greedy purposes and who isn't? also you accused me of hate speech towards Palin and I think you should justify this claim with an example. Ace ^{of Spades} 22:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Easy, commie libs from greed, respectable people from pure motives. It's not rocket science. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 04:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

People who Rob likes: Allowed to make as much money anyway they like.

Everyone else: Greedy commie libs.

Thanbks for clearing that up. And you still haven't pointed out any hate speech. Ace ^{of Spades} 04:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Alright, Rob, let's settle this once and for all. Which are you: A) troll, or B) idiot? [C) both could also be an acceptable answer.] I relly think it's only fair that we know at this point. TrickyDickTurpis (talk) 04:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Critics of former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin have turned to Twitter to post hate "tweets" suggesting that "she should be shot" and "assassinated." Pretty ignorant hatefilled bigots, wouldn't you agree? or do you wish to associate yourselves with critics of Palin? nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 04:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, I wanted you to show me where I have used hate speech against Palin. Secondly, and although I don't want nor intend to turn this into a debate about conservapedia, the Barrack Obama piece over there is littered with such language and not to mention What the fuck do you know about US history? Facts are, Paul Revere was captured by the Crown (you New Zealanders still bend the knee to the Queen, don't you?) and warned them Americans would not put down their guns. It's history, and we're all goddamm proud of it. But if you whimps still wanna live in the fuedal ages and worship the Queen, more power to ya (limp-dick sorry bastards....) which to me comes under the same bracket of hate speech as defined by you. Lastly - if Palin just wanted a family vacation she should have ditched the bus, hired an RV and let that be the end of it. As to do you wish to associate yourselves with critics of Palin? I associate with no one, I am a critic of Palin because of her poor grasp of facts, her media whorish behaviour and the fact she is totally unqualified and ultra-partisan. You seem to take every criticism as hate speech which speaks about YOU and not the critics. I am also critical of Obama incidently. Would you also call that hate speech? No, you'd embrace it without further thought. Ace ^{of Spades} 04:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The only way I'd ever bow to Queen would be to rip a big smelly fart. We Americans pity you nut-less, de-casterated, no cahoonie British peasants and serfs with no balls. That's why we don't give up our guns, so we don't end up like you. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 20:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, and that is relevant how? You fucking idiot. Ace ^{of Spades} 21:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Let's take a look at what Rob's cronies are up to, shall we? Yep, real stand up folks there. TrickyDickTurpis (talk) 12:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

ehh, don't believe a word of it. It's just another scam by government employees (alleging a crisis) for more funding. We've seen it 10,000 time. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 20:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

wry?

Why is this still going on? Both of you seem to have acknowledged Sarah Palin is no model of intelligence and poise, and you both refuse to bow to a monarchy. Make love, not wiki arguments--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Confusion

I think you may be confusing TK's overzealous wikiblocks with assfly's overzealous server-side 403 blocks[7]. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 10:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

good effort

Nice try but you know it's going to fail right? Ken just recreated the main page to get rid of his comment and someone elses. You dealing with some extreme dishonesty here and you ain't changing shit despite your efforts. Ace ^{of Spades} 23:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd guess CP management & sysops regard sockpuppetry, especially users previously banned who use socks, as "extreme dishonesty." This line of argument doesn't go far. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 00:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Two wrongs don't make a right big fella. Ace ^{of Spades} 00:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree. But the way to affect change is to become a sysop under the site rules, that would place a dissenter on equal footing. Not this constant bullying and petty-harassment of single user. That reflects worse on the critics then it does on their target, and it does not get the critics any closer to their goal. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 00:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Hear, hear, Rob. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 00:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Backing Ken means you lost. he has broken all the "Commadments". Rob loses. Ace ^{of Spades} 04:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Backing Ken? Show one diff to support your claim. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 04:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

What sort of diff would you like? Ace ^{of Spades} 08:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

That's a fucked burden to shift, Rob. You should have asked him what he means by "backing ken" in order to understand what kind of evidence would suffice. But it's fairly clear that by "backing Ken" anyone looking at this objectively would mean not doing anything to stop his rampaging. So in that regard the evidence is the absence of you giving anything more than lip service to the claim that you give a shit about Ken's obnoxious abuses. He's been openly humiliating you since you stuck your head in the fracas. You lost. 18:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Rob is so much backing ken as he is backing Conservapedia. Call it unity or loyalty. And he can't really stick his neck out and tell ken to go to hell because then he'd be decapitated.--User:Brxbrx/sig 18:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Seeing the forest from the trees

Ace can't see the forest from the trees, once again. My friend, your words and actions as long as I've suffered interaction with you, are so mindlessly partisan, once again you cannot differentiate the longterm goals of any wiki project, the building of a cooperative online interactive community, and your own stunted view of political discourse. Beginning with no knowledge of facts, background, issues, content, etc., once again you enter a discussion with little more perspective than user A is "left", and user B is a right-wing neo-fascist wingnut, and produce the conclusion user A is sainted by the god of rationality and B is the reincarnation of Adolf Hitler. Hence, therefore, anyone who is not openly abusive of user B likewise is sympathetic to neo-fascism. Ace my friend, the planet has suffered enouogh of this kinda bullshit; don't you have anything to do with your life to add to the furtherance of knowledge? Is life so goddamm dull down there in New Zealand you have nothing better to do than recycle tired and stale communist talking points? nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 17:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

You'd notice if you were paying attention that Ace isn't a leftist or liberal and that he has a record of being well enough informed to chime in when he does. He's definitely more reasonable than to make the kinds of sweeping generalizations you're accusing him of. Yet here you are talking about him recycling "tired and stale communist talking points" simply because you don't like something about his message. That sounds like self projection to me. Your reflexive idiocy is why some people here view you as a pathetic partisan crank worth no more than occasionally winding up to see what kind of stupid incoherent shit he'll say next. 18:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

It only takes a single diseased or incandescent tree to destroy the forest--User:Brxbrx/sig 18:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Nutty is exactly right. I don't understand why Rob keeps accusing me of being a liberal. I fucking hate liberals. Ace ^{of Spades} 22:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I never accused you of being a liberal, maybe having shit-for-brains, but then, what's the difference? nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 03:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Shit for brains? Says the guy who believes a person driving round in a bus decorated with political talking points on a tour funded by a political action committee is merely taking a family holiday and wondering/complaining about the media taking interest. I am a political action hero my friend, with the degrees and experience to turn your fucking lights out. So why don't you get Ken to reem you again you filthy masturbatory wonder. Ace ^{of Spades} 04:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Heh, a "degree" in "political science". Heh. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 04:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

errrr, what? Ace ^{of Spades} 04:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Just got off the phone with User:Conservative after an extended, high-level confidential discussion. That's hilarious! Its as if you believe your conversation and the subject matter of said conversation has any real world bearing or of highest interest to anyone but your small circle of Andy followers. Dude man, get with the fucking program. Ace ^{of Spades} 05:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Rob, you have some stones...

...linking to RW like that, but at the end of the day, and let's be perfectly clear about this, Conservative beat you. Sad. P-Foster (talk) 17:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

we don't give RobSmith enough credit--User:Brxbrx/sig 18:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

But seriously

You said my comments are so mindlessly partisan. Please substantiate that claim. Ace ^{of Spades} 04:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

You de-sysoped me because of (a) my activity at CP; (b) your vague perception of WP dispute which you had not a clue of its substance; (c) your prejudiced view that dispute was ideological or partisan in nature; (d) your disdain for Andy Schlafly and TK being transfered to me. Enough for openers? nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 02:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Please define what you mean by partisan because from what I understand you mean partisan in favour of RW over CP. Ace ^{of Spades} 02:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I think what irks him the most is that you lump him in with the likes of TK and Schlafly, but I don't see what he meant by partisan.--User:Brxbrx/sig 02:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

• incorrigible /inkáwrijibl, –kór–/ adj.

A proposition is incorrigible if it cannot be corrected; that is, it is not possible that belief in it should be found to be mistaken. Although many candidates, ranging from first-person introspective reports to basic logical axioms, have been proposed, it is widely held that a proposition could achieve the status only by saying nothing. Any proposition with real content would involve bringing a particular situation under some rule of description, and the possibility of mistaken application always arises. In that case the search for incorrigible starting-points in the theory of knowledge is misguided. See also epistemology, foundationalism. From Latin, 'insanabilis'.

• partisanship /páartiznship/ n. & adj.

noun BIAS, prejudice, one-sidedness, discrimination, favour, favouritism, partiality, sectarianism, factionalism.

Ace, I know it when I see it, only I don't think you're an incorrigible partisan, yet. There's still time to repent. Don't throw your life away, son. God loves you. You can still be a contributing member of society. Broad is the path that leads to destruction, and narrow is the gate that leads to life, and few there be that find it. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 02:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Before I got edit conflicted by you I had written the following...

However, point (d) I can and will answer now. I don't have disdain for Andy Schlafly but I did for TK. I feel sorry for Andy, I really do but TK...he wasn't a nice person at heart. I am sure Andy is a nice person when you get down to it, he is just so hopelessly inept. You, I don't disdain you, I actually quite like you to be honest. But unfortunately you have chosen to throw your lot in with hopeless liars and display, yourself, the want to distort, deceive and promote things that are plainly false because it suits your hyper partisan needs. CP is obviously wrong in so many aspects but (admittedly, until recently) you keep quiet because it promoted your agenda. I, on the other hand, get into many arguments with people here and openly state my political views are at odds with RW's. To do so on CP would end you right there and you support that under the guise of "Trolling" even though people like Karajou and yourself state you'll never block for ideological reasons.

However your comments - Don't throw your life away, son. God loves you and You can still be a contributing member of society make me want to recant. My life is exactly what I want it to be and benefits myself and all those around me. So fuck your god and what you think I could further do for society. I do just fine, thank you very much. Ace ^{of Spades} 02:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

And I have not, nor ever have been, partisan in the slightest. Ace ^{of Spades} 02:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

ok, leving TK and Andy and the lot aside... would it be safe to say you are partisan vis-a-vis God? are you a partisan member of the anti-God crowd? or are you just un-godly, so to speak? nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 02:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you can claim anyone but a satanist to be anti-god.
ANyways, you have legitimate reasons to resent Ace, but his being "partisan" is not one of them--User:Brxbrx/sig 02:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Ahh, we need to forgive and forget. I was young and a dumbfuck at one time, too. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 03:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe in god, no. But I also think covering up the religious symbols in a hall where a graduation is taking place is down right silly. Ace ^{of Spades} 03:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, but what you beleive don't matter. You are not the arbiter of truth. Me, for example, I personally beleive 2+2=5, but that doesn't make it reality, or true. I don't beleive in STOP signs, either; it's just someone elses attempt to impose their idea of law and morality on me. And what right do they have to do that? So if you choose to beleive in STOP signs, that is your right; for me, I do not beleive in them, therefore they do not exist. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 03:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

What? Ace ^{of Spades} 03:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I said, just as you do not beleive in god, I do not beleive in STOP signs. So watch out the next time you think yu have the right-of-way on the road. No one can force me to beleive in STOP signs, it is my free right and choice to make. I beleive STOP signs do not exist, therefore, STOP signs do not exist (in my world). nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 04:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Ace ^{of Spades} 04:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

1. Did you just call me a dumbfuck up there?
2. ?? I think what Ace said concerning pasting religious symbols in, say, a graduation hall was a criticism of things such as school prayer or putting the ten commandments in a courthouse. He believes that the government should not endorse any particular religion or religion at all. I'm not at all sure what you're getting at. Something about moral relativism?--User:Brxbrx/sig 04:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

1.No, no. That was the other dumbfuck (Sorry, just trying to be funny the way this response is phrased).

2.Moral relativism, exactly. I'm countering the pro-athiest argument with a moral relativistic argument. And you see, in this real life laboratory, the response, "That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard." Special thanks to the Frankfurt School of wp:Immanent Critique and the origins of politically correct thinking. Immanent Critique "'enters its object,' so to speak, 'boring from within.' Provisionally accepting the methodological presuppositions, substantive premises, and truth-claims of orthodoxy as its own, immanent critique tests the postulates of orthodoxy by the latter's own standards of proof and accuracy. Upon 'entering' the theory, orthodoxy's premises and assertions are registered and certain strategic contradictions located. These contradictions are then developed according to their own logic." "That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard" remains remains a classic. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 20:23, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm countering the pro-athiest argument with a moral relativistic argument. But no one made a pro-atheist argument. Least of all me. Ace ^{of Spades} 20:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

You said, "I don't beleive in God," I said, "Good. Get the hell out of the road cause I don't beleive in STOP signs, either." You said, "That' completely crazy." I said, "Now we understand each other." nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 21:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, because they are exactly the same. Idiot. Ace ^{of Spades} 21:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

They are exactly the same, so you are saying that your statement, "I don't beleive in god" is "the stupidest thing I ever heard," correct? nobs^{Viva la Revolución!}

It's an absurd argument, the analogy is flawed. Ace ^{of Spades} 22:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Che Guevara?

Are you serious? A liberal communist? You're not a conservative. (I know u added it a while ago but I just saw it) RatMaster ^háblame 02:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

He's being ironic--User:Brxbrx/sig 02:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Vive the RW revolution! the revolution that ended mob rule. I see reactionaries like Kels have gone into hiding. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 03:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

From a public school teacher, I like your thinking, sir. RatMaster ^háblame 21:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

" the "Obama was born in Kenya" conspiracy theory was promoted by the White House to hide the fact that, Barack Hussein Obama's father was a natural born citizen of Kenya, and not the United States. "

Ummm, Rob, I'm pretty sure that Obama was pretty open about that fact long before he made it to the White House. He mentions it in his books, and that great speech that he gave in Iowa (I think...) that ended with something about "a father from Kenya and a mother from Kentucky" got a lot of airplay. how could he then hide it after all that? P-Foster (talk) 22:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

by the way, what does it matter? You are a citizen if even one parent is a citizen. Godot is confused!En attendant Godot 22:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Born on US soil, you are a citizen even if neither parent is. Like my sister. ħuman 04:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Fuck Godot, don't give Rob a chance to get distracted from my question. You know he has a short attention span. Just to remind you Rob, the point of this thread is not to ascertain US citizenship laws. it's to figure out how/why the Obama white House was trying to hide a fact that Obama mentioned prominently on several occasions, in speech and in print. P-Foster (talk) 22:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, let try to shape the historical narrative as it'll be rememebered by posterity. The framers of the U.S Constitution used the term "natural born citizen" to define eligibilty standards for the job of president. The meaning "natural born citizen" from that day was a son inheritied the citizenship rights of his father, i.e. was a citizen of the country of his father's birth. Lo, many years ago, the commie conspirators who promoted Obama's career and groomed him as the repository of Marxist ideals, discovered this impediment to a successful take over of the White House. But being that the meaning of natural born citizen requirement has never been litigated in the courts, and the Marxist ideal of tearing down the whole system, they promoted the myth that Obama was not a naturtal born citizen becausehe wasn't born in the United States. This crazy conspiracy theory -- fueled by Obama's refusal to come clean on the issue for many years -- was a cover story to divert attention from the real issue. That is, under the doctrine of original intent, Is a person born in the United States whose father was born in Kenya a citizen of the U.S. or Kenya? nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 20:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

...and, not surprisingly, you failed to answer my question. I shall restate it. How can you argue that the Obama White House sought to hide Obama's father's nationality when Obama the candidate referred to his father's nationality several times in speeches and in writing? I would ask other editors to not reply to Rob's irrelevant posting above so as to not distract him from my very simple question. Start another section if you want to discuss the Constitution or the notion of "natural born citizen." Thanks. P-Foster (talk) 20:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

That is not the issue, and that is not what I said. I said, Obama & company deliberately fueled the Obama-was-born-in-Kenya controversy by withhlding the birth certificate to obfuscate a legitimate, unlitigated constitutional question, the meaning of the term "natural born citizen." Because under the doctrine of original intent if it were to be litigated, Obama may not be a "natural nborn citizen".

"and that is not what I said." Yes it is. I cut and paste the words from your own edit on CP. P-Foster (talk) 20:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Haha! --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 20:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Rob, you don't actually believe this, do you? I mean, it's all a joke or thought experiment, right? DickTurpis (talk) 20:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

P-Foster: I did not say Obama "sought to hide Obama's father's nationality;" I said Obama & company sought to obfuscate the question of a natural born citizen being a citizen of his father's country (under original intent) by withholding the birth certificate, and promoting a theory he was not a natural born citizen based on other factors. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 21:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

No, Robert, read what you wrote: You said that the White House wanted to hide the fact that Obama SR. was born in Kenya. and this, even though Obama was transparent about that fact in the years leading up to his winning the election. P-Foster (talk) 21:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

So ... did you write those words Rob? (CP is usually blocked for me)--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 21:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Stuck with your words, damn modern technology is a bitch. just ask Michele Bachmann or Palin. sucks not to be able to say "no i didn't say that". ((and i hate you, pf, for not letting me ask why in heaven's name anyone would think this nonsesnse about only a father's country))....--En attendant Godot 21:23, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

P-Foster: Wrong again. I said, "to hide the fact that, Barack Hussein Obama's father was a natural born citizen of Kenya, and not the United States." The same langiuage is in CP's BHO entry. The legal argument under original intent is citizenship was inherited, passed from father to son. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 21:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

And your proof of that is...? (Let me guess, a WND article.) DickTurpis (talk) 21:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Would it be worth reminding him that by Rob's definition, none of the US "citizens" would have been natural born, since they were all citizens of England, as were their parents.--En attendant Godot 21:33, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

At this point Rob's fucking idiocy would be indistinguishable from deceit were it not for my past experience of him. I believe him to be a true moron. Rob, read Wong Kim Ark and when you're done tell me honestly whether you want to believe there's any room for controversy on this subject. Do it. It'll be fun to laugh at you if you get the answer wrong. You nitwit. 21:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Rob, stay with me here: Why would the White house want to hide the fact that Obama SR. was a Kenyan citizen, and not a US citizen, natural-born or otherwise? Was ANYBODY claiming that Obama SR was anything other than a Kenyan national? P-Foster (talk) 21:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

No, not hide Obama Sr's birth place, obfuscate the question of whether or Obama Jr is a natural born citizen because of his inherited Kenyan citizenship, but rather by promoting a conspiracy theory that Obama Jr was not born in the United States at all. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 21:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

So why would he do that? Every single person who bothered to read anything on the news, on the internet, at liberal or conservative sites knew Obama sr. was Kenyan. so... if your argument is so real, why would no one bring it up? Not one conservative????? why would the white house hide something that was OUT IN THE OPEN, in many many ways.

That's not what you said, Rob. You said "to hide the fact that, Barack Hussein Obama's father was a natural born citizen of Kenya, and not the United States." Nothing about the son. The father's citizenship was what was at play in your claim. P-Foster (talk) 21:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

It's evident, Obama knows the question surrounding his status as a natural born citizen, that (a) he was born in Hawaii, and (b) under Vatell's definition, Obama is a natural born citizen of Kenya, having inherited his father's Kenyan citizenship. Hence Obama withheld producing the birth certificate to fuel, and discredit, birthers whop suspected or claimed he as not born in the U.S. The result was to divert discussion from the central issue: is natural born citizenship inherited or the result of locality of birth. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 22:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I think an analogy would be something like this: a man starts a rumor that he has an octopus in his pocket that he won't let anyone see. His theory is that if everyone is speculating on the octopus in his pocket, no one will notice the one sitting on top of his head. DickTurpis (talk) 22:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

That is a good theory! I'd not notice. That Obama was born in hawaii. cause no one said it. or that, you know, his father was kenyan. AGain, if this is such a big deal, and EVERYONE who could have cared, liek Beck or whoever you all love, knew it, cause you know, wikipedia and conservapedia knew it... you have to think there is a reason they didn't bring it up.

Let's begin with the premise, "Barack Obama is not a citizen of the United States" because of,

A) He was born elsewhere, or

B) The framers of the Constitution defined citizenship as being inherited from your father.

Which did the White House prefer to dispute? nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 22:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

YOu are kidding, right?

so you think that 1) every single child born to a mother only, is not a citizen of any country?

established law that demonstrates citizenship status for anyone born in the US REGARDLESS OF THEIR PARENT'S CITIZENSHIP. you are issued a birth cirtificate. that makes you american. this is established, adjucated law.

why has NO ONE brought this up except you? they bring up the idea that he's not a citizen cause of his British citizenship; they bring up the idea he's not a citizen cause he renounced it in Jakarta; they bring up the idea he isn't a citizen cause his mother had lived outside the US for X number of consecutive years... so why not this sillyness? Oh, right. cause it's been ajudicated.

no one, anywhere thinks that to be a us citizen, your father must be a US citizen. including the term "natural born". lolol you need to read something the framers wrote. they did not associate citizenship with paternity, but with BIRTH location.En attendant Godot 00:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

1)I have not expressed an opinion on the Constitutional issues; 2)I have discussed how Obama & company deliberately skirted the Constitutional question on citizenship by fueling speculation and the birther conspiracy, which worked to their advantage. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 00:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

It is a constitutional issue though, laws must apply to everyone equally. If you have one set of rules for Obama, and one set of rules for everyone else in the entire US, it fails under any test of constitutionality. ~ Subsound ~ 00:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

He didn't "skirt the Constitutional question" by refusing to bow to the demands of cranks who filed frivolous lawsuits, for which some of them were sanctioned. 01:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec) You're both right. I'm just saying there is a Constitutional question -- the doctrine of original intent -- the Obama people wanted to avoid. So they were happy to fuel speculation on the subject based on the flawed premise he was born elsewhere and not debate the original intent of "natural born citizen". nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 01:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I know you won't answer, you never do. But are you really trying to claim that a fatherless child has no right to us citizenship?En attendant Godot 02:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

US Civil Code regarding immigration, defines, per Supreme Court precident, :In the United States there are two established principles upon which individuals are said to acquire citizenship at birth: jus sanguinus ("right of blood"), meaning citizenship conferred by being born to parents who are U.S. citizens, and jus soli ("right of soil"), meaning citizenship conferred by being born on U.S. soil. Per the Fourteenth Amendment, which states that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside," individuals born on U.S. soil are considered "birthright citizens" regardless of the citizenship status of their parents. =====REGARDLESS OF TEH CITIZENSHIP STATUS OF THEIR PARENTS. so what were we arguing again?En attendant Godot 02:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

umm, the Doctrine of wp:Original intent? nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 02:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no doctrine of "original intent". sorry, but that is not constitutional law it's heresay. It's no better than the Courts saying that the framers *intended* for there to be a right to privacy based on letters written outside of the Constitution. NOT ONE THING in the Constitution says "go look at our other writings". if they had wanted that (ie., if it was their intent) they would have identified all the extra Constitutional writings. but they didn't. by the way, NOTHING in the original writings of any of them suggests that citizenship is conferred by father's citizenship. since all of their fathers were English Citizens. (or french or German). they all agreed that citizenship is the right of birth on US soil. -- by the way, are you also in favor, then NOT of strict Constructionalism? seems most conservipedia wet themselves over that concept.En attendant Godot 02:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

And just in case you feel like continuing your bullshit: Originalist criticisms of original intent Despite the frequent (and often, insidious) conflation of Original Intent with Originalism, other schools of Originalist thought have been as critical of original intent as non-Originalists.[4] Original intent presumes that there is a single, unified intent behind a text. In the case of the Constitution, the Philadelphia Convention was composed of over fifty men, who spent an entire summer compromising and arguing over provisions that were interpreted very differently the moment the Constitution's text became public.[5] It is far from clear, therefore, that those fifty-plus men had—i.e. agreed upon—a single original intent of the text, or if their purposes in drafting the Constitution were predicated on personal self interest.[1] Even if the Convention did have a single, unified intent, it is unclear how it could reliably be determined from two centuries' distance. Many of the clauses of the Constitution are relative, and thus specifically defy any claim that it is possible to divine a single, indisputable outcome to any specific problem or dispute. Key passages in the Constitution were originally cast as flexible evaluations, such as "due process," a phrase that suggests the definitions, requirements and dimensions of court or other governmental proceedings sufficient in any given context to permit citizens to be deprived of their rights were never intended to be fixed forever. --- there is no "doctrine", there is no way of knowing "original intent". grow up there are plenty of things to hate about this president, to challeng him on, to question him about without making up shit. En attendant Godot 02:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Citing Wikipedia? whutsitsay at the top: "This article may be unbalanced towards certain viewpoints" Whutabout this? nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 02:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

A pop-up infested blog that hasn't been updated in two years? Awesome cite Rob. Just awesome. You suck. P-Foster (talk) 02:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

You didn't see the advertisement for "A Question of Eligibility" on the page? You don't know Fred Thompson would be President of the United States right now if he hadn't been diagnosed with luekemia in 2007 and the GOP got stuck with McCain instead? You're unaware the freerepublic debated this crap in 2010? This argument wasn't pulled out of somebodies asshole after Obama produced a birth cert. But it was an argument Obama didn't want to get into, largely because it touches on another hot button issue, the judicial activism vs strict constructionalist/original intent debate on judical nominees. And of course everyone knows executives make judicial appointments. Imagine discussions if Obama had to address these points, critics claiming judicial activism has nullified the "natural born citizen" clause so foreigners can now get elected. I think you'll agree: Obama is no idiot, and Obama didn't wanna go there. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 03:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Where Rob learned all about the Constitooooshun

Rob, you put the "tit" in "Constitutional law." P-Foster (talk) 03:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

no. i'm not citing wp. i'm citing the link you gave. oh... YOU were citing wp. hahahahah

well, either way, we won, you lost, I have a smart as shit president who is black, worldly, has two amazing kids, a black wife who is really black, not wanna be white... and a president who is putting your ass to shame by showing how shameful th eright is. so, you know. I win you lose, I'm champaign, you're cheep booze, you lose i win, and all that's left is right wing spin.

"You don't know Fred Thompson would be President of the United States right now if he hadn't been diagnosed with luekemia in 2007 and the GOP got stuck with McCain instead". Rob, I really want to know what you do for a living. You can stop the "I run 20 trillion bizniessiz!!!!!111!!11!" Yeah, and Ken DeMyer is the CEO of WalMart. Come on, no one as delusional as you is getting by on anything but assistance. I'd just like to know if its government or family. DickTurpis (talk) 03:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I sell stuff. All kinds of stuff, including booze & tabaccy. I also sell services, like payee service mentally handicapped and finding work for the unemployable. I deal with real low-life scum daily, my best customers. That's why I fit in at Rationalwiki so well. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 12:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no "doctrine of original intent" on this issue that's not addressed by Wong Kim Ark. Vattel is not the law of the land. Educate yourself. You look like a fucking moron popping off about shit that makes no sense to anyone but a winger, least of all to a lawyer who doesn't want to be sanctioned for wasting EVERYONE'S time with nonsense like you're advocating. Just look at the numbers here - there have been a tiny number of frivolous lawsuits brought by cranks. Do you really think there's a "constitutional question" here? 03:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Not never said none of that. I said, the Obama people didn't wanna address original intent vs activism, they wanted rather to respond to cranks who said he's born in Kenya. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 04:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Cranks like Conservapedia? DickTurpis (talk) 12:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow, do you read the things you say, rob? Do you understand that you can't change "what you said", cause we have a history of it? You did say there was a doctrine of original intent, the word "the" is a clue. (your exact words, cut and paste: You're both right. I'm just saying there is a Constitutional question -- the doctrine of original intent." you amuse me to no end. but again, We won you lost, and will lose again in 2012, and given teh way you approach your life, you will probably find yourself on the losing side, cause you are so bad at actually reading, thinking, and being critical. I know, you think those are "ad hominim", because i've "lost steam". No, they are just playing with a child at a child's level, cause said child cannot manage to keep up with the adults. --En attendant Godot 13:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Rob, why is it everyone else's fault when conservatives went insane over Obama's birth certificate and citizenship? Haven't they ever heard of personal responsibility? ~ Subsound ~ 14:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind comments. Yes the birther phenomenea has been interesting; my guess is it was largely a response to the Bush v Gore & "President-Select" crap of a decade ago -- that is a refusal by partisan cranks to accept the decision of their fellow citizens and the legitimate election of George Walker Bush. And these things have a way of getting out of hand, which is what the promoters of these hoaxes intend, and hope for. And what is the record of promoting hoaxes like the lie that Bush lost the Florida vote, or the lie that Obama was born in Kenya? does it persuade a majority of Americans to come to their senses and undo the mistake they made four years earlier? or does one senseless, partisan vendetta, like the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill hearings, lead to another senseless vendetta, like the imnpeachment of Bill Clinton? Let cooler heads prevail. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 01:29, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

hey rob

You been getting my emails? Just checking in, thanks--User:Brxbrx/sig 19:33, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Yep, two days late. Did anyone post the MPR story? nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 20:33, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

No, and it's been a serious blow to my self-esteem! Just kidding. I just wanted to make sure because whenever I think someone doesn't get an email from me I've the bad habit of sending a bunch of duplicates "just in case."--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Yo. Sent a new mail today. Are you willing/able to help me with my little problem?--User:Brxbrx/sig 02:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Mod nom

Just thought Id let you know I nominated you to be a mod. Alyssa Bryant (talk) 02:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

So then

To revisit our previous discussion above are you still going to insist Palin is merely taking a holiday with her family and the media are hounding her despite her wanting to be left alone? Ace ^{of Spades} 23:16, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

It wouldn't be anything like your previous discussion if I didn't butt in unwelcome! Didn't Palin quit her bus tour this week?--User:Brxbrx/sig 23:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Leonard Pitts nailed it this week: The only thing more telling than watching Palin treat the media as a kitten does a ball of string was watching the media take it, watching them bend over and grab their ankles like a freshman in a frat house hazing as the paddle comes down. "Thank you, sir! May I have another?". Funny. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 00:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The way a kitteh treats a ball of string? Batting it around until the kitteh is completely tangled up and has no idea what happened? Good one. ħuman 06:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Essay on Conservapedia

Hey Rob,

I was told this was a good place to follow up on the essay I wrote on Conservapedia (and about getting it undeleted). It might not be the best thing I've ever written, but the point of it was mainly to show that the questions are being answered- even if it wasn't in the best manner (I wrote in the essay I was not an expert on the subject and freely admit that).

Thanks very much for your time and consideration. :) --Sasayaki (talk) 08:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Does this have something to do with challenging User:Conservative or his contributions? you might as well piss up a rope. You're just wasting your own, and everybodies, time. Haven't you read enough Rationalwiki content to see this? nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 21:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

You shot Conservapedia in the foot.

...by creating cp:Conservapedia:Community_Portal. It allows editors to critique the site and allow for introspection. Introspection requires rationalizing beyond what a few "senior" admins think. Hell, I think Nate summed it up the most by pretty much blasting Conservative and his bizarre essays and stupid censorship-promoting redirects. RatMaster ^háblame 14:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Whoops, Rob. You made big boo-boo.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 14:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't assume User:conservative represents the whole of Conservapedia--User:Brxbrx/sig 14:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

No, he just blocks every one and edits on 31 hour edit-sprees. RatMaster ^háblame 14:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Naw, he represents bout 95%.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 14:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

He is also an admin when all evidence says he shouldn't be. He represents, perhaps moreso than Assfly, the complete joke CP has become. Replying in Chinese, not taking other users seriously, his weird deletions and protections.... the list goes on. RatMaster ^háblame 14:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

As long as Ken carries on unchecked by Andy and ignoring the other sysosp, as long as his actions bring ridicule down upon CP and as long as he acts as the "face of CP" by throwing out ridiculous challenges to all and sundry then yes, he does "represent the whole of Conservapedia." As well as everything that is wrong with CP. --PsyGremlin講話 14:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The fact Rob created the portal means that introspection is a must. As a result, Ken's bizarre behavior will be properly looked into by the (rather new and immature "community"). Nevertheless, a house divided cannot stand and eventually Andy will either always side with Ken and destroy his site until he passes bringing in new change to the dictatorship, or impose radical changes. But I believe it is not the former. Either way, it cannot carry on the way it is going. RatMaster ^háblame 20:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Andy simply won't respond at all. He doesn't like to get into fights between sysops, and is completely unable to exercise leadership and arbitrate. As long as his minions defer to him on matters of content and ideology, he'll happily let them make up their own policies. Since that is bound to result in competing visions, it's of course functionally the same as having no policy at all. Rob's attempt is laudable, but without backing from Andy, it will just fizzle out. Röstigraben (talk) 21:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, Rob? Just to let you know, you should probably ban the following accounts for being parodists: JacobB, HP, Jcw, AngusT. Don't say you haven't been informed. DickTurpis (talk) 20:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

HP, definitely. Jcw doesn't seem so bad.--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

That one's the most obvious parodist in a while. It's amazing how the same shtick works again and again - flatter Andy's ego, contribute to his pet projects, support him in discussions, all the while feeding him nonsense, and voilà - elevated user rights are yours to abuse. You'd think they'd have wisened up after the steady stream of parodists using the same template, but no, it keeps happening. That's also why it's safe to point out parody. Röstigraben (talk) 21:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm upset about Chip Berlet's banning. Supposedly we do';t ban for ideology, but it's hard to see where this was not the case. And this is serious, a living person wants some input in their bio, and they get the same treatment Daniel Brandt and Schlafly's got at Wikipedia. CP needs a guideline for sysops to follow when a living person complains about subject material. And let me add this: TK would have consultd with me, as the primary author of the article, before even engaging with the subject, let alone banning him for protesting content in his biographical page. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 03:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Andy was never blocked at WP, he was merely told to stop being a whiney little bitch when his article on CP was deleted 3 weeks after the site was launched. He was told to come back when it was noteworthy, and when it was, it got an article. See? The system works; if only CP's did. DickTurpis (talk) 21:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't refering to blocking policy, I was refering to having some voice or input in articles about living subjects and organizations people are associated with. Brandt wasn't allowed input. The Schlafly's had problems which extended to WP's Equal Rights Ammendment article which, likewise, was a hit peice on Phyllis. And I know the difficulties from personal experience in the Spring of 2010 in WP's Conservapedia entry. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 22:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Got examples? And not about Brandt. I'm through talking with you about Brandt. You'll just argue that Jimbo saying Brandt was not a reliable source was actually code and he was really saying "Alright, my loyal Wikipedians, I want you to work together and fuck Daniel Brandt and fuck him good. We'll make an example of that sonofabitch, raking his raw hide over the coals until he's begging for mercy. I swear to God he'll lament the day he ever heard the word 'wiki'." I'm pretty sure Andy hasn't tried to edit his own article (it hasn't existed for long), and unless he had another account, it appears the only mainspace edits he ever made were to the Conservapedia and Wikipedia articles. DickTurpis (talk) 22:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

So if you really want CP to be a haven of tranquillity, love and wiki understanding, why not go tell Kendoll to go fuck himself. His behaviour is out of control, and it isn't going to get any better unless someone lays the law down on him. Delete all his ridiculous "essays" and tell him to make some substantive contributions. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I 100% agree. I mean I like you Rob, despite our differences, but it really says a lot about CP, and your position within it, to have Ken get a free reign. Its his wiki now you realise. Ace ^{of Spades} 22:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Jesus, Rob, I hope User:Conservative at least buys you a nice dinner beforehand and gives you a reach-around...P-Foster (talk) 23:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Why…

…did you delete your perfectly fine comment? And might I add, I don't want to bash you in any way, I was just sitting in front of the screen not having a clue why. --uhm, t! 20:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Did I? Geez, I'm having all sorts of trouble with ths laptop. Nothing seems to upload on the first click. It's been that way for two days. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 20:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, thought you were embarrassed or something. Get your laptop working again before you spam RC. --uhm, t! 20:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Have a read of this mate

I know it's old news, and this may not interest you as it contains zero politics Obama bashing, but as someone who works on deepwater drilling rigs, I found this initial report quite interesting. I have no idea why it's upside-down, something to do with communism maybe? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 02:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

What would it take to fix this article

While I'm not really supportive of your cause, I do believe in education. Since at the very least Andy's students use the website to actually learn something (rather than troll and counter-troll)- I have been editing the math articles to bring them up to scratch (Its amazing that an article like Atheism and Obesity would have more edits than pretty much all the math articles combined). I haven't touched the set article because there is some clear history of contention over the "applications" section. Its clearly a disingenuous attempt to politicize an otherwise completely neutral math article and worst of all -it completely misrepresents and trivializes set theory. What would it take to get rid of that one section and keep it only about math.Ateafish (talk) 06:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow. That's an interesting link. I doubt it could be changed. Not to be argumentative, but politicization is in the eye of the beholder.

Let me comment further: 2010 was indeed a record year for deaths caused by disaters. Typically, widely accepted scientific facts claim 50,000 people die annually due to disasters, like hurricanes, floods, tsunammi's etc. In 2010 250,000 people died in disaters, of which 225,000 died in the Haitian earthquake. These facts were used by proponents of "man-made disaters", and global warming theory, to claim man-made disasters caused a giant increase in deaths due to disasters. So the idea that science is neutral, and the study of math and statistics can be politcized to influence students perceptions is hardly nothing new.

So unless widely accepted science can prove earthquakes are man made, I just don't see the problem with an article like that. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 20:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

"So the idea that science is neutral, and the study of math and statistics can be politcized to influence students perceptions is hardly nothing new." - I never mentioned science, and math can certainly be applied for politicized goals, however the math itself is not and should not be politicized . Let me try to explain my reasoning, if this was an article on gay marriage, I would not see any problem with an argument from set theory (although I think the argument doesn't hold water but thats besides the point), in fact had that entire section been moved to the homosexuality or gay marriage article I would think nothing of it - this would be the equivalent of the discover magazine article you linked. People are free to apply the math however they wish, the validity of their conclusion should not be staked in the validity of the underlying math but in the soundness of their argument.Set theory itself is neutral in that it neither precludes nor enforces any particular political view, in fact it has no understanding of politics or anything else it is used for. Conflating set theory to whatever view you hold on gay marriage is erroneous at best and disingenuous at worst. In other words, the mere fact that an article on set theory discusses gay marriage is political, this is not in the eye of the beholder in that I would be making the same argument had the article supported gay marriage.

All the author did was give a valid example of set theory. Life is rough and full of tough decisions. This sounds like criticism of wp:Situational ethics. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 20:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Vice President Governor Presidential Candidate Palin

You said over at TWIGOCP: The case of Sarah Palin in point: for two years the mainstream media has been saying she'll run for pesident and Michelle Bachmann did not have a prayer. Those of us in the conservative movement knew this was complete bullshit. And if I came to a forum such as this six months ago, and told you what I knew, which was 180 degrees contrary to mainstream media reports, you'd all say I was crazy.

Check the second part of the #4 entry at RationalWiki:Predictions, note the date, and the number of upvotes. While Palin and the "lamestream media" had a mutual interest in hyping her potential candidacy, it doesn't mean people actually bought that nonsense. At least we didn't. Röstigraben (talk) 07:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Very good. I'm impressed. Would this be based on confidence the mainstream media would effectively carry out its agenda of character assassination on Palin? nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 20:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

No, that would be based on the fact that she's ridiculously unqualified, can't be bothered to bone up on policies or act presidentially, and would've handed Obama his reelection on a silver platter. And, most importantly, that she's only in it for the money and would rather collect millions for vapid TV statements than trudge through corn fields. The mainstream media made Palin the celebrity she is today and always wanted to be - she's their creature, not their victim. She's just fooled her supporters into believing that she's being badly mistreated by the very people to whose attention she owes her whole status. Röstigraben (talk) 21:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Palin is no more, nor more less, qualified than the last three presidents we've had. And let me throw into that mix Al Gore and Dan Quayle, too. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 20:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

From one asshole to another...

I really hope you succeed. you are fighting the good fight. Ace^{of Spades} 04:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I totally get the credit for saying that first [8]. That's me, trend setter. Soon, people will be removing vowels from their names!--User:Brxbrx/sig 04:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

N, dn't thnk s. Tht b jst t dmn hrd t rd. --hm* - 15:34, 12 Jly 2011 (TC)

I must admit - credit where credit is due. Congrats for taking the fight to Conservative, even though he is too monumentally thick to realise that he is being criticised. I see he's done his usual "Ooh, I'm too suddenly too busy to comment any more" trick. What a coward the man in. --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 09:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

You have my sword! _{and my axe!} (listen to this while you type. LET THIS BE YOUR FINAL BATTLE!) Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 13:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The people love you. They want to talk to you.

Enable your damn e-mail, Rob. P-Foster_{Can't we talk about this, baby?} 15:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 16:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Gotta admit, it was well done. hope you can keep it up. or, since i love the lulz, maybe i should hope you cant. :-) --En attendant Godot 16:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Robert. P-Foster_{Can't we talk about this, baby?} 17:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I emailed you, you never responded. Wheres the fucking love already? Ace^{of Spades} 20:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Ace, but I got a few emails stacked up. Hope the get caught up tonite. Moving the ball forward and getting a first down is the main focus (do they have first downs in Aussie football?) nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 20:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully I have the right email. I'll resend via "email this user". Ace^{of Spades} 20:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

What I find funny about this is that a few days ago, Schlafly disabled the E-mail this user feature from Conservapedia.--User:Brxbrx/sig 20:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey yo, Rob!

If you're fed up with Conservapedia, you could always take a look at Ameriwiki. It was started not too long ago and it's intended to be a Conservative wiki, but not like Conservapedia. Of course, if you left CP I'd have nobody to protect me from ken and Ed Poor--User:Brxbrx/sig 20:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Already registered an account {Nobs). Looks exciting. I was gonna ask someone there about cutting n' pasting my most recent scholarly exploit, wp:Deviationism & cp:Deviationism, but I wasn't sure the wiki was developed enough to handle that question so I didn't wanna throw a wrench in the system. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 01:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I have to ask

But are you picking up any flak that side for your courageous efforts? --PsyGremlinRunāt! 19:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not at liberty to disclose the substance of confidential communications. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 19:36, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Never mind the Reds under the Bed....

...you should be more worried about the Bolsheviks in the bathroom. Unlike Christian conservatives like Andy Schlafly, Bolsheviks wash their hands after having a bowel movement, and get pesky if the paper towels are too rough.

P-Foster_{The Grateful Dead were neither grateful nor dead. Discuss.} 16:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The vitals

Thanks again, Rob. You asked about the vitals in regards to investigating my block at CP. While appreciated, I don't think I'd be doing much editing there, as I left the site (of my own volition) due to a comment made by Andy regarding liberals and intelligence (here is a screenshot of my userpage before the retirement template went up). I made over 8000 edits in 6 months (the number has dropped due to page deletions) and worked with many sysops, including TK with categorization, Ed Poor with implementing his Age template, and JessicaT (before her outing) with vandalism reversion. I'd worked also with keeping up rosters of all the major sports teams (which admittedly was a fool's errand, as they are constantly changing). I only take umbrage to the deletion of both user and talk pages, and a change in block reasons out of spite from TK (I'd written a small blurb about multiculturalism as a blockable event here on RW). All I ask at this time is a change of my user/talk pages from red-link status. Aboriginal Noise ^{What the hell is that thing?} 20:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Read every word from your subpage, and I couldn't agree more on multiculturalism. While CP doesn't block for ideological purposes, TK put in liberal multicultural/worldview as a blockable offense. Amazing. Nothing illustrates the need for sysop accountability, community standards, and community input, than this case. I'll unblock & recreate, and should you ever feel like stopping by to give a clear-eyed, level headed perspective in a tuff situation, such as you do so well, please do so. Oh, and hey, I think I put you somewhere in the top two or three mod positions, I forget. Good luck in your new position in Rationalwiki. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 22:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad you liked my mini-essay. It was something that bothered me the moment I saw it implemented. And thanks for unblocking me, for I may just pop on over there for old time's sake. Aboriginal Noise ^{What the hell is that thing?} 23:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm curious...

It seems a little bit like you're on a one-man crusade to reform CP. What sort of feedback are you getting from Karajou/Ed Poor/Andy -- everyone has been pretty silent on-wiki, so far. P-Foster_{The Grateful Dead were neither grateful nor dead. Discuss.} 02:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

It's really a question of management style & leadership. TK was a prick, I say kill 'em with kindness. You can catch more bees with honey than a stick. By their fruit ye shall know them. Results are all that matter. What point is their in vindictiveness? And I'm getting agreement, the days of "Administrators instructions are to be followed" are over. We need to promote interaction between diverse viewpoints, not shut it down. We've tried eveything else, and failed. It's time for hope and change. Besides, in two years, everybody will see what a big bunch of bullshit that is, anyway. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 03:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

TK was a dictator lacking organizational skills; I realize people are our strongest asset. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 03:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

FergusE on CP

Hey Rob, could you be a sweetheart and block this obvious troll, who is also probably the guy who made this lame post at WIGO CP. These kids today, no sense of style. Thanks. P-Foster_{The Grateful Dead were neither grateful nor dead. Discuss.} 03:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Just wondering

Are you still harboring the delusion that the urlapprasial site is somehow irrefutable in its valuation of websites? Keep in mind they apparently say a blog by nobody of consequence which has not been updated in years is worth about as much as Twitter, [the 9th most visited site in the country]? Or is it possible that their numbers are a wee bit off? Hey, if I were you I'd sell your blog. I mean, which would you rather have, a blog you've done nothing with in years, or over $23,000? Seems a no-brainer to me. DickTurpis (talk) 14:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Consistency Test

I've heard many right wing figures use former Senator Specter as a prime example of sexism in the Democratic party, particularly against Michelle Bachmann because he once told her to "act like a lady." So a quick test for you, 2 parts: 1, Do you think that was an example of sexism? and 2, what does that make this incident in Florida? a direct quote: "you are not a Lady... (you) shall not be afforded due respect from me!" SirChuckB^{This country needs more Rutabegas}

Wasserman's a piece of crap. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 17:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Obviously what Specter should have done was suggest that Bachmann bake cookies for the male representatives. Then he should have given her and the other House girlies their own feminine versions of bills to vote on. We need less sexism and more chivalry. DickTurpis (talk) 12:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Not familiar with the incident. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 17:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

That's very sexist of you Rob.... I mean, it's obviously sexism that you don't like Wasserman Shultz. There is no other explanation. As for the Bachmann/Specter incident. here you go SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 22:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Respect should be afforded based on what a person does, and in some sense, the fact that they are elected and hold title (i'm dubious of this on, myself. I'd have a very hard time calling bachman "Congresswoman" and not "stupid fool". That said, it is sexist to say "act like a lady", because of the role a "lady" vs., a woman, adult female, congress person, etc., has. The appropriate thing that should be said to Bachman is "act like a decent human, and bother to learn something about history, politics and the world like a fucking congressperson". If you dislike wasserman, the appropriate response is not "I don't respect you cause you don't act like a lady." fuck that, if you cuss, she can cuss. the appropriate response is "I don't respect you cause you are an idiot". "lady" is a set of roles that some men (many, actually) still use to define who is good and not good in society.--En attendant Godot 22:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Wasserman, and many if not most Democracts, have ZERO credibility playing the sexism card. They all simulataneous got down on all fours and sucked Bill Clinton's dick in the Oval Office, were damn proud of it then, and damn proud to do it again, now. Wiener's wiener exposed a hardened prodding toward reactionary virtues, but that may be short lived. The "Obama's a family guy" wears thin pretty quickly. I don't think we can take another 4 years. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 20:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

When you edit, do you chug a beer between every sentence? I feel like I need to call mt MIT buddies just to decode that post. SirChuckB^{I have very poor judgement} 05:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

That stuff they stick in kids heads

Regarding this edit "that stuff they stick in innocent childrens heads". You mean "mainstream, accepted, demonstratable, observational, experimental and predicted science" as opposed to "the universe is just a big fireworks show God is putting on for our entertainment"? Andy comparing the enormity of space to the Mona Lisa? And he is a teacher (of sorts). Really Rob? Ace^{of Spades} 06:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The point is, they stick in kids heads, facts = science, when clearly, from the discussion you & I had yesterday, that is not true. Re-read the part you posted, "current studies", meaning just inverstigatory theories, and not facts, or truth. Now, you can object and say, "It's not proven truth yet, but it will (or maybe can) be later." Nonetheless, my point is sound, science (by which you mean, "current studies"), taught children are not facts. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 17:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

What evidence do you have these these claims are 1) not facts, and 2) not true science. I think you, at least from the little I've read, have this idea that Science "KNOWS TRUTH" the way religious people claim their religion knows truth. Science has models. and they test those models against all known facts, and see if those models hold up. So far, things like Evolution holds up amazingly well. Gravity on the other hand, isn't holding up so well - again. The big bang in its more generic form holds up quite well, against every read, every count we've made "out there". The more specific theories of what happens before the first planck time are of course, not tested, and at this point cannot be tested. If you or any other person especially those trained in scientific fields, thinks that a model has failed against the known details, or failed in making predictions to the extent it can - then your obligation is not to "stop teaching teh children" but write a scientific paper. Cause you are suggesting things that even NASA isn't aware of. Otherwise, you are just saying "I don't like your answers, so don't teach them."--En attendant Godot 19:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Rob, you obviously don't understand how science works. Ace^{of Spades} 00:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Nah, I just take exception to the cult of scientific truth seekers. They don't know truth. They don't know jackshit. Science is just, and only just, a human specialized area of knowledge, no different than auto mechanic or a clerk/typist. The idea they are truth seekers is laughable. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 00:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

They don't know truth. They don't know jackshit Exactly. Which is why we do science. It's only religion that has The Truth. Ace^{of Spades} 00:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly the problem. Some scientists are motivated by an idea of taking on God, rather than serving truth or their fellow man. Not to say this isn't a problem in churches, either. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 01:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Your Ameriwiki account

Hi Rob, I heard you locked yourself out of your Ameriwiki account. I'm afraid I don't have access to reset your password, and I don't believe GeorgeF has either. What I can offer you, however, is if you create yourself a new account, I believe I can rename your existing account to something else, and then rename your new account to have the same name as your old one. If you'd like me to do this, create yourself a new account, and let me know, I'll fix it up. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Most wikis allow you to request a new password if you have submitted a valid email address, You did do that, didn't you Rob? Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 13:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I think I did, but I couldn't find the "Forget you password" question. I'll just come in as Nobs01, same as my WP account. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 17:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

It's right next to the log in button. Yeah, sometimes I can't find it either even though it's right in front of my eyes. -- Nx / talk 17:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Just create a new account. It's all right.--George (talk) 19:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you're working this out, Rob--User:Brxbrx/sig 19:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

With 10 million IPs recently unblocked, there are hours during the day I can't access CP, and RW, you know, gets boring real quick. So I figured I'd go there if I have time to help out. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 19:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Unblocking

Hey Rob, I was blocked for a month by Andy then blocked for infinity three months later by JAllen, even without making another edit. She blocked a lot of accounts, perhaps you could start undoing them. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 12:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Gimme you're user name & I'll look into it this afternoon. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 17:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I was blocked for infinity by TK (as Sterile). Wouldn't mind if it were changed to 5 years, even. sterile^talk 02:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, nevermind. I forgot my password. You'd have to delete the acct and start over. sterile^talk 02:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes I saw it when going through the log. Was there a reason given for the block? nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 02:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Looking at both of these [9][10], I don't find a problem. You evidently were a victim of the Night of the Blunt Knives. I don't recall any damning evidence from RW 1.0 Archives, but I may have to recheck that. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 03:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Rob, I was blocked by you and then (after being allowed to return) I was blocked by Andy for 5 years for "talk, talk, talk". Could you review my block please? It seems a little excessive having regard to the relevant history. Note that I was not even in breach of 90/10 at the time and was editing in a responsible manner. --Horace (talk) 03:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

You're case is going to be problematic; just the other day someone handed out a block for "sock of Horace". nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 03:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's not call it problematic. Let's call it challenging. --Horace (talk) 06:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, dear God. I started the article on lactose intolerance with some evolutionary stuff in it that was summarily removed. I asked some questions. That is all. sterile^talk 12:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Well Rob, I am glad we are calling it challenging. I can see that you obviously enjoy a challenge. Why else, in circumstances wherein I am seeking a review of my block, would you include my username in a somewhat provocative context in this edit? I suspect that you felt that getting me back in was too simple a task to be of real interest. You wanted to make it that little bit harder so that getting me reinstated was a worthy test of your wiki powers. Bravo sir! Play up and play the game! --Horace (talk) 00:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

You're just too famous. [11] nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 01:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It amazes me; Karajou contributes absolutely zero content, just sits there and runs checkuser on every account created -- even while on vacation. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 01:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

As a lawyer it is my inclination to admit nothing. I will say, however, that the point made by PierreS in his only post, seems to be a well considered and virtuous one. --Horace (talk) 01:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Pssst, hey Rob

Do you still have access to CP's secret discussion group? Quick, make a back-up of everything. Then when the likes of Andy, Karajerk and Ken finally stab you in the back and kick you out, and block your account, we can alllllll pore over the juicy, juicy details. Go on, you know you want to. ^{ONE / TALK} 11:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. Andy could swing either way on this one. Or he could ignore the situation entirely. Keep being the voice of reason, Rob. CP desperately needs it. If that fails, there's always Ameriwiki--User:Brxbrx/sig 12:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm with Mr. First Number on this. You need some kind of insurance policy against the looming backstabbing. Trust me - things are being said in the super-super secret Fab Five forum. PsyGremlinSermā! 13:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

As much as I'm dying to see more of CP's discussion groups, violating their trust would not be in Rob's best interest for his tenure at CP--User:Brxbrx/sig 14:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

No one would have to know he's making backups of the discussion groups. This is just in case he does get kicked out, then he can leak them. (ʞlɐʇ) ɹǝɯɯɐHʍoƆ 16:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It's also a question of good faith. "Nobody saw me do it" doesn't make it okay. Rob is trusted to keep the emails private. TK seemed to have been a lesser human being, and wantonly leaked the emails. Rob has principles.--User:Brxbrx/sig 17:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Rob has ever been in the top-notch super-secret Fab Five group, just the kids' table group with Ken

. Download that one anyway though mate. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 19:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The CP crowd has shown in the past to be able turn on their own. Rob should download it with the expectation of not leaking it. A 'just in case...' precaution if they decide to backstab him. --Night Jaguar (talk) 00:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

User:conservative

Just call him on his bullshit. Next time he moans about you wasting his precious time, cite a few of his 48 hour editing sprees.--User:Brxbrx/sig 23:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's a moderator intervention for you.

Don't bother other editors with your concern trolling. Thanks. P-Foster_{The French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss.} 23:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Daniel Pulido

Should also unblock him? I never understood why he was blocked... but what do I know. Thanks RatMaster ^háblame 18:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

deviationism

I read it, I even rated it. Not bad at all. But don't you have other examples besides communists? Anyways, I'm done complimenting you for the week.--User:Brxbrx/sig 18:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I've always been proud of this one, [12] it's one of the first I did for WP six years ago and has survived virtually 99% intact, with minor tinkering by others and not much at all to the text. nobs^{put down the toilet seat} 20:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

So much for welcoming

(Block log); 13:41 . . DouglasA (Talk | contribs) blocked SeanS (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 2 weeks (account creation disabled) (Reverting admin)

Wanna know what the revert was? Douglas hiding the list of GTA games for "being Filth". Wanna fix that, cause, thats BS. --Mikalos209 (talk) 18:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Unblock

Since you're on a roll, please can you unblock RobertE? I don't believe I ever did anything wrong. It was the parodist TK that blocked me. Thanks for your time. 85.210.8.4 (talk) 20:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

May take a while to review the case. nobs^{put down the toilet seat} 20:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Any news? 85.210.5.174 (talk) 23:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Obviously some records have been deleted, there is no record of what warranted a two hour block from Aschlafly on October 2009. The contribs end about March 2009 and pick up well after October. The block from TK makes no sense, he asked User:RobertE to make a Debate page, which RobertE did, and then blocked him for MYOB (unless, again, contributions were deleted). The block has been reduced to time served. nobs^{put down the toilet seat} 23:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

How long do you reckon you've got

Until you're shown the door over at Assflyapedia? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 04:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Considering he's started to get hypocritical (justified but still) by insulting people, he's slashed his time even more.

We're just seeing resistance to reform. Cowards, and petty dictators who feel threatened. None of them are qualified to be Wikipedia editors, let alone Conservapedia sysops. Rob Smith 00:30, 31 July 2011 (EDT) is what im refering to --Mikalos209 (talk) 05:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Rob,

There's merit in that uninformed user's opinion. (Oh and it's lose, not loose) DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 19:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I am just dying to know

What you wrote on User:conservative's messages page after me. --User:Brxbrx/sig 23:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

If i remember, it was something to do with running away--Mikalos209 (talk) 23:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

It was all improvisatory theater, I don't know where it was going to go, but never had the chance. nobs^{put down the toilet seat} 00:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

If you want to work with DIY Firefox screencaps, I recommend Screengrab - it's an extension that adds a button to your toolbar and lets you instantly save the content of the page you're viewing right now. It's extremely useful for capturing pages that are longer than your browser window, but also for quick "Might need this later..." caps. --Sid (talk) 00:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

you know you can use tabs right? --Mikalos209 (talk) 00:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm just learning Firefox, been using it not even two weeks. nobs^{put down the toilet seat} 02:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

You can also just save the page locally and re-open it later for capping so that you can tweak the dimensions. Just another option. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 03:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

JarradD

I see that Karajou has blocked JarradD for being a sock of KennyD. That seems a little unfair because KennyD was blocked after only two edits in an edit war with Conservative wherein Conservative was (improperly, in my view) reverting Sid3050 on the evolution talk page. I wonder if you could review the block. I am sure JarradD would have asked you personally but I understand that the email on Conservapedia is currently inoperative and he is probably unaware of the existence of this site. --Horace (talk) 01:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I can't access the site right now. I've been having this trouble for two weeks. nobs^{put down the toilet seat} 01:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

That's how it starts Rob, then before you know it you can never access it. I haven't been able to access CP properly for months. Ace^{of Spades} 01:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I note that JarradD was blocked after supporting you on the Let's Lynch Rob Smith page. Perhaps he is relying on you to help him in accordance with the note at the top of that page. I am sure he is wondering if he will be unblocked any time soon. --Horace (talk) 22:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Dammit! I see that Sid's comment is now reinstated on the talk page but Jarrad (and Kenny) remain blocked. Where is the justice, I ask you? --Horace (talk) 01:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Forget Jarrad, forget Horace. I can see that these idiots are determined to keep me out at all costs. I do not want you to risk what influence you have left for what is undoubtedly a lost cause. I still have not come to grips with why they feel compelled to block and revert me even when all I am doing is trying to ask for a review of my block. Am I really that threatening? But, who the hell really cares in the end? I guess I just feel obligated to keep pushing in order to see how far they are prepared to go. Well, it's a hobby... of sorts. --Horace (talk) 08:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

You right, Horace just isn't the proper test case for blocking appeal. nobs^{put down the toilet seat} 02:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I should add, I was the blocking sysop during the Night_of_the_blunt_knives#Latecomers_to_the_List, and you may have been the only block I issued (perhaps 1 or 2 more in the following days). I haved suggested both publicly & privately that an amnesty be declared for certain RW 1.0 users, on a case by case basis. And I have not reviewed what the cause of my in initial blocking was, being that it's moot after Karajou and other's undid my infinite block (without consultation). nobs^{put down the toilet seat} 22:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, actually we had a discussion about the cause of the initial block. You have since redeemed yourself and I have forgiven you accordingly. I am a river to my people. --Horace (talk) 03:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Why do you keep praising TK?

Why do you keep praising TK?--User:Brxbrx/sig 23:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm just saying in the old days, TK probably would have been communicating with me (and Karajou and Conservative)privately saying something like, "I know he's an asshole and he screwed this up and that, but I've been talking to him and we've got this other problem, and of course you know Sid & Human are now saying this and that, and gees, Andy's just had enough of all this, so can you just do something else? Hey! your work on whatever it was was really good! Andy loved it! Keep up the good work!" nobs^{put down the toilet seat} 00:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

So what, he was like a behind-the-scenes authority that actually got involved in disputes? That thing you just described sounds like exactly the sort of thing Andy should be doing right now. X Stickman (talk) 00:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, he worked hard to hide the dirty laundry, this is well known. And his penchant for private IM discussions. I used to not be able to get mainspace articles done cause he wanted to chat all night. He used wikis for social networking before Facebook. Ask Nutty, he knows. We've talked about making a compendium of his private chats, which I'm willing to disclose all. nobs^{put down the toilet seat} 00:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

"I'm having trouble copy pasting it"

I seriously doubt it'll make Andy listen, but I'm willing to help if I can. You got my mail address on file; feel free to send me a mail with details and/or forward the data so I can try to reformat it for you. --Sid (talk) 17:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I use gmail, and it doesn't read below the [View all of message]; I tried loading it into a word document & google docs, but can't get it to do that either; what about putting it on a user subpage here, and if there are confidenctial IP's we could delete it quickly...RobSmith^{I have been defamed by anonymous CP trolls} 17:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you try forwarding the mail to me? I'm not sure why copyasting to one area doesn't work while copypasting to a subpage here would. Then we won't have to worry about making this public. --Sid (talk) 17:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Sent; let me know if you can read it below [Message clipped] View entire message. RobSmith^{I have been defamed by anonymous CP trolls} 18:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Nope, the message ends with "[Message clipped]" for me. Don't even get an option for the entire thing. Maybe this workaround helps? I don't use Gmail, so I can't try it. --Sid (talk) 18:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll try it again. RobSmith^{I have been defamed by anonymous CP trolls} 18:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘The page is so large (it's when I undid range blocks) my whole system just runs too slow. I've been trying for two days to create a copy in email, google docs, and microsoft word. It just took 30 seconds on a subpage here. RobSmith^{I have been defamed by anonymous CP trolls} 19:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Would you like me to do some basic wiki formatting? Or will you process this further offline before sending a .doc to Andy? --Sid (talk) 19:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead, please. I'm still trying to make a copy here somehow. RobSmith^{I have been defamed by anonymous CP trolls} 19:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Done, all tidy and wiki-friendly. --Sid (talk) 20:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Thank you, Sid. I'm going to write up about of an explanation of what this is and how it came about on the talk page there. I'm calling them "false positive's" until I find out more. RobSmith^{I have been defamed by anonymous CP trolls} 20:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Is this what you're looking for?

WHOAH! Dude! You're like, totally in the right here! Seriously! That blocking dude, dude, he's like, a real downer, dude. Dude, you need to talk to the top dude - Schlafly dude, dude? Dude! I'm sure that dude will totally, like, sort you out dude. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 00:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

so...

Did you just not care about the injustices before July, or did you not notice them? Because either way, Stop. Fucking. Bitching. --Mikalos209 (talk) 02:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

No. I've always been outspoken about these problems, and Conservaleaks, Rationalwiki & CP all bare me out; some RW editors behavior has not been helpful in my role as Advocate for an open wiki, and remains that way. But I will prove that an editor can be active on both wikis, and perhaps even become a sysop without being a deep cover RW parodist. My goal for a long time has been to put an end to the CP/RW War. It's been totally unnecessary. RobSmith^{I have been defamed by anonymous CP trolls} 03:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Then STOP BITCHING about how things fell apart against you like it was a surprise.and it will NEVER happen because the leadership at CP doesn't CARE rob. get that through your damn head. andy himself said no to you. Welcome to the life of the lowly serf, have fun with me and the few others doing what they can to improve some articles --Mikalos209 (talk) 03:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Mikalos, you're the one doing most of the "bitching."--User:Brxbrx/sig 03:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

You think any of my plans have been derailed? Think again. RobSmith^{I have been defamed by anonymous CP trolls} 03:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah, it'll be really easy for you to bring about major administrative changes with no administrative powers whatsoever. Are you fucking high, or what? Maybe there will be another contest soon, and your nsTeam2RO rights will come in handy again, you delusional loser. BbMaj7 Doin' to you in your ear hole. 03:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

... what? --Mikalos209 (talk) 03:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Probably before your time, son. BbMaj7 Doin' to you in your ear hole. 03:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

You know I worked in a stucco factory once upon a time where day labors at $4 an hour did all the work, and us full time employees job was to make sure they did it. That's kinda how CP is: the fat bosses sit on their asses and the lowly laborers do all the grunt work. Well you know how much I hate communism, and this kind of abuse is exactly the kinda shit that stirs up discontent among the masses. Only CP sysops & stucco factory foremen sure as hell ain't the rich bourgeois, but this is how class warfare, ideological hatreds and misunderstandings get started. But I'll throw my lot in with the lumpenproletartiat everytime--as a counterweight to the agitators who mean nobody no good. RobSmith^{I have been defamed by anonymous CP trolls} 03:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

@ Bb, i was referring to Rob actually, not you, i understood yours mostly, and Rob... again, what? And what plans do you have left? Those sekret ones that make andy suddenly realize how you can somehow fix CP?--Mikalos209 (talk) 04:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, nothing's happening soon. It's all up to you guys teaching User:Conservative the fundementals in wiki editing and playing nice with others, which he's expressed several times he'd like to do, and Karajou getting the shit slapped out of him by his wife (or boyfriend or whoever) to let the wheat and the tares grow to together. Andy's just oblivious to all this, anbd feels he's being a peacemaker by giving me a time out. RobSmith^{I have been defamed by anonymous CP trolls} 04:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I.... what? Are you that Retarded or is this a Badly made joke?--Mikalos209 (talk) 04:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

No, that's the way it is, the situation up to this moment. I should have also said, " It's all up to you guys teaching User:Conservative the fundementals in wiki editing and playing nice with others, as many of you did today...."

Ya see, these guys, User:Conservative, Karajou, and also TK, never made it as Wikipedia editors. They were thrown out. They never got as far as learning citation policy or NPOV. They do not know WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:What Wikipedia is Not, WP:Wikipedia is Not a Battleground, WP:Wikiette, WP:LOVE, WP:Don't Bite the Newbies, and a few others. They are hard cases. Forget trying to rehab them as sysops, they need to learn basic wiki editing civility and collaboration. User:Conservative has, and I can provide diffs, on many occasssions expressed an interest and willingness to learn how to properly interact with other users. Karajou has not, or doesn't care, or is undecided, or doesn't know, or is just too focused on hating the world or something, I don't know. He's a hard case, but he doesn't edit or contribute much. He just plays goon. As long as you behave yourself, and leave Andy alone, chances are you can avoid him. Focus on teaching Ken, but on Ken's terms. He really does want to learn how to be social. RobSmith^{I have been defamed by anonymous CP trolls} 04:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

No, he really doesn't. Reading that site since 2008 is more then enough evidence acquisition for me to know it won't change. That the Gang won't stop being what they are and that andy doesn't Give a damn. Ken isn't "Going to improve" as much as you are apparently deluded into thinking can happen. The site is a lost cause, and your better off making a new wiki entirely for your own, more open version then improving that site. And really, you think Andy didn't side with Ken? Thats why you got sent back to the Fields and not rewarded for your efforts to either reform or remove the great Dark Night that was Ken as CP entered the New dawn.--Mikalos209 (talk) 04:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Give it up, liberal!

Don't even try to go back to CP. Trus me. Go to AW. Those idiots aren't worth your time. You're a liberal now. I am too. Though I am a libertarian, but that is just another liberal to Arsefly. But seriously, don't try.

Hell, this place would be more pleasant.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 01:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Conservaleaks part IV

Wherefore art thy? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 07:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Come on Rob! It's a chance to really finally stick it to Andy, Ken & Brian. Expose their lies, hatred and bigotry! Show us who Brian's been writing too! People want to know! Besides, Jpatt said he's not leaking anything until he packs it in at the end of next year...

Also... see as how you've defected here, think of this as your "debriefing" (not in the Ken just-a-quicky-in-the-men's-loo way)... --PsyGremlin話しなさい 09:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey Rob

I sent you an email. 20:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

?

WAs there a fight in the "What user is a parodist" section on WIGO cP? --Mikalos209 (talk) 03:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe there wasn't a fight, but you two do have a history of sparring about the wiki. Look at it from the community's point of view.--User:Brxbrx/sig 03:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

And unless there is one, that title is completely wrong and i will continue to fight. Pre-emptive isn't something you do on a wiki.--Mikalos209 (talk) 03:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Mikalos, I'll nurse you along, if you'd like. CP & RW users have a long history. I've always enjoyed, for the most part, good relations with RW users and opposed the mass banning of users (Conservapedia:Great Purge) from the start. I've always wanted to work with them, here, and at Wikipedia. It wasn't until the late TK's untimely demise that an opportunity arose to mend fences between editors who wanted to volunteer their time, and Conservapedia. But too much bad blood built up, and Andy's just not ready to issue a general amnesty. Just cause I'm not active there doesn't mean these goals still can't be realized, or that I'll quit trying. I believe in good faith editing; while banned at Wikipedia for two years, I never once sockpuppetted, despite being instructed at WikipediaReview forum it was almost expected of me if I wanted to get back in. I've never sockpuppeted at Consevapedia. This is an issue the site's founder, Mr. Andrew Schlafly must address at some point regarding his 5th all time active good faith contributor. I'm not going away. And I'm not shutting up, either. My story will be told. nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 04:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

... thank you for not at all answering the question i asked Rob. and rob. again. your not getting back into CP. you challenged Andy himself and got smited for doing so. If andy honestly wanted to take your side he wouldnt have demoted and 90/10'd you.--Mikalos209 (talk) 04:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

No, no fight. Watch and learn. Do you think my sole personal ambition is to get user rights for myself? or do you think I may have a vested interest in preserving the integrity of my contributions and hence Conservapedia's reputation as a hosting facility for it? What do you think os more important? nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 04:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I think neither. I dont know what you honestly want, because you seem to want to be back in CP,, and have a honest belief that said action is not only a good thing, but inevitable. Now, stop dragging this offtopic. I asked a question. ANSWER IT.. In the "What user is a parodist" section, did we have a fight? Because from my POV no, we did not.--Mikalos209 (talk) 04:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that in that particular section you did not pick a fight. However, given your recent WIGOCP:talk edit history that is unusual so in this instance the section title may be seen as ironic/sarcastic and therefore can safely be ignored. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 09:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Mikalos, When does "no" not mean "no"? Didn't you learn the answer in wp:Anger management? nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 23:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Rob, I ask a question, you replied with a fucking history lesson I already knew about You never said No.--Mikalos209 (talk) 23:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so you ride the wp:short bus. What are the first three words in this post? nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 23:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Yep, so christian of you rob to insult people without basis. But thats the power of the internet, no? Being able to do that.And you in no way gave indication those words were your answer. Considering right after that you went off on your i was wronged by CP bitching, i had no reason to think it was.--Mikalos209 (talk) 23:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, is this the "that's so Christian of you" excuse? Kiss my ass. God invented your asshole, did you know that? God also invented my mouth, so when I say "fuck off" with your anti-christian bigotry, does Satan have you so decieved that God may not be sending you a message in the only language you understand? nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 23:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC) understand?

That would be fine and dandy rob if I wasn't a Conservative literalist christian. Sadly for your assumptions, I am. --Mikalos209 (talk) 23:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I made no assumptions. That's an assumption you made, that I made an assumption. nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 17:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

You assumed I wasn't christian when you called me an anti-christian Bigot.--Mikalos209 (talk) 21:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

And why can't a Christian be an anti-christian bigot? I've meet anti-Semitic Jews, black's with extreme prejudice against African-Americans, anti-Latino Hispanics, and white hating white's. Some of these can be the most extreme cases. There's nothing unusual about a Christian anti-Christian bigot. Ever here of the wp:Thirty Years War, for example, and it's lingering legacy? nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 23:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

You're kinda stretching now, Rob. You presumed that since he was on RationalWiki, he was just a typical anti-theist jerk. He's not. Everybody makes mistakes, you know. Even you.--User:Brxbrx/sig 23:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Im still confused by how me having read CP since 2008 makes me a vandal... also, what BR said--Mikalos209 (talk) 23:37, 31 :August 2011 (UTC)

These are still a bunch of assumptions; I never cared what Mikalos professes to be on either a spiritual or socio/political/ideological plane. It's the substance of the arguments he brings to the table. You guys sound like Conservapedia sysops -- a persons value as a editor is based on their ideological outlook. My own view is, that's just a bunch of crap. nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 17:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Cool, Cool.--Mikalos209 (talk) 21:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

So you're still going to be back allowed in the fold, eh?

22:35, 1 September 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) deleted "User:RobS" ‎ (content was: "#REDIRECT User:RobSmith")

22:34, 1 September 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) deleted "User talk:RobS/archive2" ‎ (content was: "==Being Factual== Also means being honest. "Rap Music" is not a standard method of torturing somebody. Flippin 18:01, 23 April 2007 (EDT) :Perhaps that's a subject for a Conservapedia:Debate. RobS 18:03, 2...")

22:33, 1 September 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) deleted "User talk:RobS/archive1" ‎ (content was: "==Whittaker Chambers== Rob, I don't know all the details of the issue over the Whittaker Chambers issue, but you have authority as admin to resolve issues in favor of..." (and the only contributor was "AmesG"))

22:31, 1 September 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) deleted "User:RobS/contest" ‎ (content was: "===New entries:=== *Quality new entry w/6 refs & cat tag :*Day 1 (3) Soviet spies in America (1921-1948) Walter Bernstein [[Richard Lauterbach]..." (and the only contributor was "RobSmith"))

Good luck with that. Does User:Conservative at least give you money for a cab home after he fucks you? B♭maj7 “We are moving too fast for any label to stick.”-CLRJ 02:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm truly broken hearted. Between Ken's vindictiveness, Karajou's sadism, and Andy's complacency, I just don't know where to turn next. nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 17:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I thought you were going to ameriwiki--Mikalos209 (talk) 19:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Been working on it all day, but when I have trouble accessing the CP connection I've been coming here. nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 19:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

What does ameriwiki have to do with conservapedia...?--Mikalos209 (talk) 19:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I need to export files from CP to Ameriwiki; this has been true for quite awile, since CP started Guard Dog. It was easier to come to RW than CP.

P.S. For somebody who asks so many questions, how can you be so fucking dense all the time? nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 19:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me for not being a fucking mind reader and knowing what your doing Rob. --Mikalos209 (talk) 19:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

So, you hate communists

You must love this piece of legislation from 1954--Mikalos209 (talk) 18:58, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

ah, the good old days, when the constitution didn't matter and anything was allowed to fight those damned communists. All in the interest of freedom, of course.--User:Brxbrx/sig 19:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Hubert Humphrey, who once said "the time has arrived in America for the Democratic Party to get out of the shadow of states' rights and walk forthrightly into the bright sunshine of human rights," was a sponsor of the clause in the McCarran Act "threatening concentration camps for 'subversives,'" and in 1954 proposed to make mere membership in the Communist Party a felony.' nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 19:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC) —

Huh?--Mikalos209 (talk) 19:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Shame on Hubert Humphrey, then.--User:Brxbrx/sig 19:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

As part of the legislation Mikalos linked to, Humphrey proposed making membership in the CP a felony; of course that unconstitutional proposal never would have withstood Supreme Court review, violating the basic human right of free association. No wonder Humphrey's nickname at the time was "Mr. Liberal." nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 19:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and I strongly disagree with Humphrey's actions.--User:Brxbrx/sig 19:16, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

When you look at the context, Humphrey makes that human rights speech in 1948 then by 1954 becomes a McCarthyite bigot, and goes beyond anything Joe McCarthy or Richard Nixon proposed, advocating violating people's basic human rights. nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 19:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Still think Humphrey would have been a better choice for President than Nixon in 1968? Nixon (a) never authored a law to set up concentration camps, or (b) advocated writing into law basic denials of human rights. nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 19:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I also strongly disagree with his political stance in this respect, and am glad to have not been alive in 1968- as thus I am spared from choosing between the two.--User:Brxbrx/sig 19:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

There's two theories, (1) he was a strong anti-communist with the best interests of national security at heart, and (2) he was a panderer, tailoring his positions to prevailing winds of public opinion. I'm inclined to the latter, as we've seen Clinton & Obama do much similar. He was willing to say "fuck human rights" if he perceived it meant votes. Just as Obama now wants to poison the air our children breathe by delaying costly government air pollution regulations just so greedy corporations can create jobs. nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 19:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the liberalism here is rubbing off on you.--User:Brxbrx/sig 19:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Karajou

I stumbled upon this discussion just before it got archived, so I answer your questions here:

• Karajou's up to 3.1% from 1.2%; do blocks count as edits? No, blocks don't count as edits. This pic includes everything which MediaWiki sees as a contribution and lists in the cp:Special:Contributions/Karajou page. This includes all edits, all uploads and all (un)protections of pages - unless deleted or oversighted.

• Karajou claims 20,000 edits, but the best count I find says 13,000. With 7,000 blocking edits, he may have 20,000. The number of 20,000 sounds correct for me. I assume he takes it from his cp:Special:Preferences page. It includes again all edits, uploads and protections - but even when those are deleted or oversighted. The best count of undeleted contributions may be found here: it's 17,000.

Karajou not only has an obsession with birds and battles, but he also reverts lots of vandalism and more innocent edits by newbies. Such actions made up the lion's share of his 350 contributions in August 2011.

BTW: Karajou has only 4,300 blocking edits - less than TK (5,800), but more than everybody else...

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 10:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

So actual mainspace contributions, less unattributed copy paste and stolen copy right is negligible out of 17,000 edits. He's never written an essay or been accused of original research, ASFAIK. nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 17:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Once again, Obama

Thoughts on his speech before the Congress? I'd be interested in what you think. --★uːʤɱ netlabelist 15:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The key term in budget jargon is "deficit neutral". Obama claims adding $450B in new spending will be "deficit neutral", or "paid for", without proposing specifics how it will be "paid for", i.e. cutting other existing programs or raising taxes. Monday he will introduce his proposals to "pay for" his jobs bill. His jobs bill contains proposals for "tax cuts". So Monday he will propose tax increases (i.e., deficit neutral) to pay for his proposed tax cuts, and the tax increases will be on businesses. So, we'll get deficit neutral tax increases on employers to pay for tax cuts and an incentive for employers to hire, if that makes any sense. nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 16:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

You have become quite the cynic. I kinda like that, it's funnier this way. But I see what he's trying to do: First cut the taxes for the poor so they can spend more money and increase demand, then that demand will create jobs. From an economics standpoint that should work but the psychological effects of the drama queens will probably put a stop to that. So, yeah I have become cynical too. --★uːʤɱ netlabelist 16:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Right. Obama didn't have the balls to say forthright his plan to tak e money from employers somehow leaves them with more money to hire people. He wants to cut in half the employer contribution to Social Security. Social Security tax3es are the biggest source of revenue for the government right now, and in 2010, for the first time in its history, the Social Security trust fund began a negative cash flow, i.e. it pays out more in benefits now than it collects in taxes. And everyone knows, there is no such thing as a "temporary tax cut". He may have touched the "third rail." nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 16:37, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Rob...

Ok seriously, you honestly expect to be let back in? You honestly expect andy to give a damn bout his own rules? Were you not watching the last couple years where those rules didn't matter anyways? --Mikalos209 (talk) 21:27, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

It's a matter of making a record, a paper trail. But you can be forgiven for not knowing that, ya dumb fuck. nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 21:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

A record of what Exactly?--Mikalos209 (talk) 21:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Mikalos, let me explain using the words of the immortal Rumsumsfeld why you're such a dumbfuck: There are things we know, there are things we don't know, and there are things we don't know we don't know. You, my dear man/woman/other, don't having a fucking clue of context. Why the fuck are you so interested in WIGO, since you don't really know or understand jackshit about the persons or issues involved? nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 21:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Horray for insults that don't actually answer the question? And again, what did I say about the insults and christian rob?--Mikalos209 (talk) 21:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Mikalos, you've been hounding Rob all over the wiki. Maybe he's a little fed up with you? Cut him some slack.--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

--Durbinator^Durbinating 02:28, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Rob has been hounding the wiki with his pathetic whining about how he was bullied off of Conservapedia. Maybe we're a little fed up with him? -- Nx / talk 06:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm fed up with the users who are fed up with it! In fact, I'm fed up with myself! Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 15:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

That's not Ken. That's one of AceMcWicked's sockpuppets

Evidence? Ace^ace 22:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Goat!

Oh, you was just trolling. OK then. Dick. Ace^ace 23:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

-insert Subject here-

-insert harassing statement here, possibly involving a statement about your mother's Sexual History---Mikalos209 (talk) 23:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a mother, she was murdered by communists. nobs^{abandon hope all ye who enter here.} 00:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

You still have one, otherwise I wouldn't be here. -inserts witty remark---Mikalos209 (talk) 00:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all your efforts but you'll no longer be required to assist in this project

Thanks again, we all really appreciate everything you have done for us. Really. Mikalos209 Ace^ace 23:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

What the fuck is your problem, Smith?

Seriously. Stop being a dick. B♭maj7 "If two men say they're Jesus, one of them must be wrong." 01:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Fuck off. nobs^{abandon hope all ye who enter here.} 01:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey, hey rob

Fuck off.--Mikalos209 (talk) 01:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

So...

Do you have any biblical support for your views that your allowed to lie and what not?--SmithRob (talk) 20:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

HE IS COVERED IN THE BLOOD OF JEEEEESSSSSUUUUSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! B♭maj7 "Voted in two different votes, but there was never a vote." 20:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Mikalos, B♭maj7 is right. That IS a serious answer. Ace^ace 20:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Not for the question i asked. Rob answers, not you.--SmithRob (talk) 20:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

that doesn't give you the right to revert other people. Ace^ace 20:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

You know

You never actually answered this question.--Mikalosa (talk) 21:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Any progress? OH HAI

I'm not sure whether or not you mentioned if Andy replied to your email(s) for that paper trail you spoke of. I can imagine he ignore you, so what is this "paper trail" you intend to create? Will this paper trail be revealed? More importantly for you though, is Ameriwiki to your liking? :D Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 13:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The interwiki link with Trevor Luden's Keywiki makes Ameriwiki your one-stop source for all things communist. As to the other matter, I don't discuss ongoing operations. nobs^{Empty Recycle Bin} 17:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I find it ironic that I would go to a site called "Ameriwiki" for information on the communists.--Mikalosa (talk) 22:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

My one-stop source for all things communist. And a handy secondary source. ‎Capital punishment doesn't undermine the moral or legal foundations of a society. ‎It is the moral and legal foundation of society. 22:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Here's my one-stop source. Ace^ace 22:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I would enjoy using Communpedia if it didnt have a god awful color scheme--Mikalosa (talk) 22:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Yabuut those sites are all commie agitprop. We need a reliable source to make sense of it and put it in perspective. nobs^{Empty Recycle Bin} 22:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Aka we need a site that will demonize the fuck out of them? --Mikalosa (talk) 22:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Any news?

Just wondering if there is any news on who all my socks are? Curious to know how many accounts I have and what handles they are using. Ace^ace 22:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey Rob, any news? Ace^ace 22:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I see you still think I am Milakos? Ace^ace 23:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Come on little Robbie - put up or shut up. Ace^ace 19:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, I admit it

I have an RW sock... Ace^ace 20:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Gestapo Care

WTF? Ace^ace 22:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

That's because you're a dumbfuck. [13] nobs^{Empty Recycle Bin} 23:16, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Two irrelevant links, well done. Ace^ace 23:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

C'mon Ace, how damn stupid can you get? I only got invited into Conservapedia:The Zeuglodon Blues because of my work on cp:Gestapo care, which TK moved to CP's current article on ObamaCare. Do some fucking research on your own before you bother people, please? you only display how fucking ignorant you are in criticizing people because you do not have a fucking clue about anything. nobs^{Empty Recycle Bin} 23:32, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I am just going to put this out there right now. Rob, I am smarter than you. Now we can continue...It is difficult to make much sense of your word salad but from what I can gather from the gibberish falling from your no doubt chapped lips caused by licking your chops over images of Kara Duhe is that Gestapo Care is a legitimate term because it allowed you into the ZB group and TK okey'd it. Ace^ace 23:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Here in the states we say, "you're a dumb as a box of rocks." nobs^{Empty Recycle Bin} 23:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not the idiot linking to irrelevant group posts and making completely off topic remarks. Ace^ace 23:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Nobody gives a shit about who was invited into what clique at CP. In fact to be honest, I'd say that writing an article TK liked is nothing to boast about. --Longbow (talk) 23:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Ace wants to know why there's a redirect from Gestapo care to Obama care on another wiki. I'm moving my work from another wiki to a third wiki. My original article was entitled, Gestapo care, with sources and links. TK requested if he could move my article to Obama care. I consented. At approximately the same time, and in the same threads, I was invited into TZG. It's all CP history. nobs^{Empty Recycle Bin} 00:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

No Rob, I am wondering why there is the term Gestapo Care to begin with with. It appears totally made up and not used...anywhere outside of CP and a single blog posting. Ace^ace 00:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

But "Gestapo Care" is just a slur raised on one or two wingnut websites. Is it really encyclopaedic information? --Longbow (talk) 00:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

" 00:37, 9 October 2011 George Fitzgerald (Talk | contribs) deleted "Gestapo care" ‎ (Non-encyclopedic: content was: "Template:Made up term with no relevance")

"--Mikalosa (talk) 01:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Your lies...

...why do you keep lying? Ace^ace 23:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey Rob!

Not only is someone gutting your "New Ordeal" article, but Ed approves of the mass removal of your stuff and thinks the term itself is bullshit. So, has Andy asked you back to work on MPR for the election yet? Huh? Has he? B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 21:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

It is the end of life on this planet as we know it. But that's ok, I've begun work on cp:New Dealers and bestiality. [14] nobs^{Empty Recycle Bin} 20:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Bachmann

Looks like Bachmann is losing her shine (not to mention her money). I know she was your favourtite. So who is next? Cain? Perry or Romney? Ace^ace 20:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

My man Herman Cain. '9 Inch Pizza for only $99. nobs^{Empty Recycle Bin} 20:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

So does that mean you like Cain or....? Ace^ace 20:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Cain is the candidate of hope and change; he was sent to redeem the world of its sin. nobs^{Empty Recycle Bin} 21:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure he is, but would you prefer him over Perry or Romney? Ace^ace 22:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Please... Cain is the candidate of "see! we're not racist, we let the darkie play with us." Or possibly the "God, we hate that liberal mormon so much we'll consider anybody else." SirChuckB^{One of those deceitful Liberals Schlafly warned you about} 02:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

...or the candidate of "we've got this election in the motherfuckin' bag no matter who we run, so since we don't need to worry about mainstream electability (Romney) or really pandering to the evangelicals (Perry or Bachmann), let's get a total free-market/anti-tax ideologue into the White House while we can." B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 03:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Perry sucks. Period. Unredeemable. Romney maybe electable but carries the Mormon baggage & is an East Coast/liberal RINO; Cain looks good, but the 9% national sales tax is a tuff sell (remember Mondale? he promised to raise taxes, too). If the question is, "Who is electable?" the order is Rommey & Cain, or vice verse, then Perry. If the question is "Who is closest to your own ideology, the order is Cain, Bachman, Romney, with Perry a distant fourth. nobs^{Empty Recycle Bin} 00:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Herman Cain could be a good choice for the Republicans. Might split a lot of the African-American vote. Although, something like Powell v. Clinton would have worked even better... (((Zack Martin)))^™ 00:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Interesting...a straight answer too Rob. Must be a first. I agree with you on Perry - what a tit. Of the others I think Romney has the greatest chance of electability against Obama. Ace^ace 00:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Homer Simpson could beat Obama right now. He's toast. Nobody listens anymore. Obama preaches to the choir when talks. All he's got is the 12% African-American vote + 5% liberal/commie/progressives. That's it. No more. And even they don't like him. He promised to keep unemployment below 8%; it's been 9%+ for three years now -- after we piled on $4 trillion more debt -- and now they're saying a new Recession is unavoidable. Recession's typically add 3.5% more to the existing unemployment base. That brings unemployment to 12.5% by Election Day and 4 years of cp:Obamunism. Good luck. They said the Titanic was unsinkable, too. nobs^{Empty Recycle Bin} 22:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Word on the street is that Obama can still win as long as he carries the states he won last time minus Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Virginia, and Indiana. Besides all those, which else will he lose, Rob? B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 02:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania; perhaps Iowa & Minnisota, too. nobs^{Empty Recycle Bin} 21:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Pity the Republicans can't field their generic candidate that would beat Obama, but instead have to field an actual candidate with Cain doing the best with a statistical tie. Given he is doing much much worse than Bush the first and only a little worse than Reagan and Clinton prediction are a waste of time right now. - π 05:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

"New Ordeal."

Some noob: "Hey Ed, that "New Ordeal" article is pretty shit, don't you agree." Ed: Yup. Let's move it where nobody will see it. By the way, when are you going to be making your MPR appearance? The primaries are soon, and you did say that Andy would want you on board for that.... B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 20:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Is it Ace?

Or...is it....mikalos! Ace^ace 01:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)