User talk:RobSmith/Archive 08

Hypocrisy

Wow - are you seriously complaining about hypocrisy? Aceⁱ⁹ 00:31, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Yah, why? In dealing with leftists, you kinda get jaded and immune to it after awhile. You only speak up when it would seem hypocritical to remain silent. nobs ^{piss in my ear} 01:09, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Complaining about hypocrisy....on Conservapedia...that's next level cognitive dissonance. Aceⁱ⁹ 01:19, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

"cognitive dissonance." Where'd you buy that word, Family Dollar? nobs ^{piss in my ear} 01:41, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

It's actually two words, Rob. Aceⁱ⁹ 01:49, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Ok, so two 50 cent words would still sell for $2.50 plus tax at Family Dollar. Why do Americans feel they're getting screwed? Do we have to await the outcome of Trump-Xi trade talks to see if I buy two 50 cent words made in China at Family Dollar am I going to get value for my money? or are we all supposed to go on living like brain dead Democrats who don't know the value (or cost for that matter) of anything? nobs ^{piss in my ear} 02:22, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘This is more evidence that Nobs does not bother to read RW even though he thought he was qualified to be on the board and be a moderator. Read it Nobs, you might learn something: cognitive dissonance. Bongolian (talk) 03:06, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I spend my time either educating myself or contributing to the betterment of society. My participation here is an attempt at leading by example. nobs ^{piss in my ear} 03:20, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

What in the holy fuck are you even talking about Rob. BTW - you haven't learned shit and if your attempts at bettering society are evidenced by your CP contributions society would be better off if you stopped. But anyway - more to the point: there has never been a more vastly impressive edifice to hypocrisy than CP. Aceⁱ⁹ 03:47, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Funny you mention people feeling like they're being screwed, and why. Here's my particular why; Orange Boy is sabotaging the factory in which I work. We import raw materials from a lot of places, China included, run full fabrication in-house, then sell the finished product globally; one of our biggest customers is China. (FYI I design fluid control and monitoring systems, which are primarily used for industrial and municipal water supplies. 300,000 of my systems are in use around the world.) So at present, we are being punished by this administration through mindless 25% tariffs on many key parts. Then we're slammed on the other side when the completed systems are hit by reciprocal tariffs going out to China. We were on track to hit $50M in sales this year until this needless, pointless bullshit started. You can lead by example here by thinking to yourself, "What if Obama had done this?", realize you would have condemned him soundly for this kind of behavior, and acknowledge that Trump has no idea how macroeconomics or an economy operates - you would stay consistent in your beliefs. Instead you will come up with a convoluted explanation and hold to the idea that if Obama had done this, it would be 'picking winners and losers in the economy' but that when Trump does it, it's only his keen wonderful amazing flawless insight that the rest of us plebs are blind to, which then marks you for the moral contortionist we all know you to be. And then you do it again ten seconds later; it's fucking breathtaking to watch. Semipenultimate (talk) 20:41, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Bullshit. You know damn well, since you're so macroeconomically sophisticated, the tariffs mean higher wages for you no matter what your volume of sales. Spare me all the whataboutism bullshit. And you can't even get that right. Obama has jackshit to do with China trade; that's Papa Bush, Clinton, and even Reagan's baby. nobs ^{piss in my ear} 06:03, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Let's even take it a step farther, since you're so macroeconomically sophisticated: you know damn well once the Chinese obtain the technical skills you racked up $200,000 in student debt to obtain, the Chinese will hire somebody in the Chinese gulag for $1.95 an hour to do what you do and cut out $50 million in trade with your factory. Trump provides you with job security in a limited, and almost monopolistic market where you can rape fellow citizens for higher wages at will, rather than be at the mercy of Chinese competition. nobs ^{piss in my ear}

Presumptions about my educational costs aside, my question about Obama was a theoretical, go back and actually read it. Thank you for pointing out that business doesn't care about nationalism or any of that flowery bullshit; business is about money, and making as much of it as possible, without regard to human cost. That Chinese slave is putting money into the pockets of American businessmen but not American workers. This is why we have to compel businesses to pay a living wage, provide healthcare, and operate in legal and ethical ways, otherwise they'd commit all manner of financial crimes out in the open. There are more sophisticated ways to do this than announcing huge blanket one-size-fits-all tariffs. However, glad to see we're finally in agreement that capitalist greed must be constrained by government action! Semipenultimate (talk) 16:26, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

What? That makes no sense, free capitalism cannot function with such tariffs from Trump. Adam Smith himself would agree. Doublethink (talk) 07:26, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

What make no sense? Trade barriers will return the situation to like it was when U.S. automakers made $36 an hour and Japanese car manufacturers made $16, and Democrats fought tooth and nail to keep allowing U.S. workers to fuck their fellow citizens. Don't give me this Reaganesque bullshit now. nobs ^{piss in my ear} 07:36, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Hahaha, no trade barriers will make producers leave see?. Tarrifs were outdated by Adam Smith's time, this has nothing to do with Regan. Do you not know who Smith is? Doublethink (talk) 17:50, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Trade barriers cannot unmake the container ship revolution, the establishment of modernized manufacturing bases outside the US, nor the fact that we're no longer the only major power to not be utterly destroyed by a world war. The conditions of past success cannot be recreated. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 18:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@Douhlethink: What kinda drugs are you on? Tariffs supported the entire US federal government from 1789 until passage of the income tax in 1916.

@Ikanread: That sounds like something Michelle Bachmann, the Ocasio-Cortez of her day, would say. Why, that great defender of women's rights, Sen. Al Franken, would never have been elected had Bachmann not referred to the Smoot-Hawley trade bill as 'Hoot Smalley' to justify the position of destroying American jobs with free trade. nobs ^{piss in my ear} 18:33, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, they did and nobody liked them. Remember how well the embargo went for Jefferson? Doublethink (talk) 20:04, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

So what exactly is meant by free trade? China gets to export shit duty-free, destroying American jobs, while US exports are looted as soon as they're off-loaded from the ships? You've seen the results of such a Reaganesque and Thatcheresque policy - destruction of whole communities and the election of Donald Trump to reverse it. nobs ^{piss in my ear} 20:29, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

20% right as usual Morty Doublethink (talk) 21:46, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@Doublethink: If nobody liked tariffs under Jefferson around 1805, then explain why they remained at very high levels until about 1945? --Sovereigntist (talk) 21:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

The Americans needed money, also it was not effective. Doublethink (talk) 22:06, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

So, Thatcher was right when she threw 400,000 coal miners out of work and opened the UK up to free trade. Interesting. nobs ^{piss in my ear} 10:06, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

That is a complete non sequitur, I never advocated violence against striking workers. I merely said that tariffs are bad. Also where did you get the 400,000 number and she did't throw them out, Thatcher just broke upthe strike. 20% right as usual Morty Doublethink (talk) 17:14, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘As in most macroeconomic discussions, some people can't see the forest from the trees. I'll try to summarize as briefly as possible.

It was something like 150,000 workers, representing families and communities of about 400,000 who lost their government-protected jobs. Coal miners received above global market wages, something like $25 an hour, and worked fulltime year round. This created a global surplus, driving the global price of coal, per ton, down. By contrast, free market West Virginia coal miners made $15 an hour and endured frequent layoffs and work stoppages due to global surpluses which drive prices down.

IOW, UK coal production was subsidized by the UK Treasury, meaning UK coal was sold at a loss. If a ton of UK coal cost the Treasury $50 to produce, it only sold for $30 on the open markets. These were the conditions that existed from about 1945 to 1986.

Now the anti-Thatcherites and Trump critics are arguing against government protection of workers, and for open, free global markets. Do you see the contradiction in their position? nobs ^{piss in my ear} 02:45, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not a democrat I'm a Libertarian, did you not get that with my repeated references to free markets and my hatred of taxes. Doublethink (talk) 04:59, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

No, I didn't. Not knowing anything about free markets, Adam Smith, or taxes made me doubt you being a Libertarian. Being an economic illiterate made me think you're Democrat.

And being triggered by Thatcherism to automatically think of worker violence instead of the underlying free market cause she advocated was a dead give away. Whatsmore, recently it was reported the UK converted over completely to nuclear power and stopped burning coal anywhere in the UK. So who really was the progressive visionary? and what happened to the anti-nuke environmentalists of the 1980s who wanted to continue burning coal? Oh, I know I know, they quietly are working off their nuclear powered electronic devices, advocating for China to continue building coal plants in Vietnam, Indonesia, and Africa while claiming China is the global leader in fighting carbon emissions. nobs ^{piss in my ear} 06:43, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

You are so off topic, when did we even start arguing about carbon emissions? How was I triggered by Thatcherism? Also, I'm economically illiterate? Coming from the person who doesn't understand macroeconomics or the damages of mercantilism? Doublethink (talk) 17:02, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Me off topic? It's obvious you've never read Adam Smith. You read what some commie lib (of which there are many) claims Adam Smith said. Adam Smith laid down few hard and fast rules. Smith discusses pros and cons on many subjects, such as tariffs. But commie libs don't believe in tradeoffs, they look for ideological purity. So you think the negative aspects of tariffs that Adam Smith discussed is some hard and fast dictum cause your commie lib teachers ignored half of what Smith wrote. As to Thatcherism, go back^^^^. I was discussing the macroeconomics of free trade - the terms "Thatcher" and "coal" triggered a response of "worker violence" from you, which has nothing to do with the global macroeconomic price of a ton of coal in 1986. You sound like a brainless commie lib Democrat. nobs ^{piss in my ear} 17:54, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

And BTW, what are carbon emissions, if not a macroeconomic argument? If not, what is there to worry about? nobs ^{piss in my ear} 18:14, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

HA! Yes I am a commie lib that is arguing for lower taxes and less government control. Do you even know what Communism is? Or is it just Communism = Satan? Tabula Rasa (talk) 06:45, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

A communist who believes in private property, Intetesting. I 'spose you believe in worker rights, too, like giving them a cigarette before you shoot them in the gulag. nobs ^{piss in my ear} 08:39, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Non sequitur. I just pointed out that if you think that I'm a communist when I am for lowering taxes and not having the government control things you don't know what a communist is. Tabula Rasa (talk) 17:20, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Huh? Wake up and smell the coffee. It's going to be a European Spring, with the Right-wing joining the 99% percent against the 1% EU bureaucratic elitists, and the Social Justice Warrior's demonstrating against the carbon tax and for national soveignty. The rich can longer keep us down. Rise up! Rise up for social justice against the globalist human rights abusers! nobs ^{piss in my ear} 22:49, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

That is still a non sequitur. Tabula Rasa (talk) 23:30, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

You can't just call me a commie and not justify it. Tabula Rasa (talk) 22:34, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

The Wall

Hey Rob, why is there a fundraising page for the Border Wall? I thought Mexico was paying for it? Aceⁱ⁹ 21:50, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I dunno; a long-term real estate investor could probably explain it better, but I'll try.

It takes money to make money. The one-time infrastructure cost is relatively a fixed cost, but the perpetual maintainance cost is open-ended (both in material costs and personnel). It is built to generate revenue, either directly to collect custom duties, or indirectly to secure the operation of businesses inside the wall. So an offset of the perpetual maintainance cost, and gradual re-imbursement of the original building cost is needed. To get Mexico to "pay for the wall," I suspect could take several shapes : (1) a tax on money transfers from Mexicans working and residing in the US back home to Mexico. This would likely be the biggest source. (2) Import duties on certain items from Mexico not protected by the USMCA, of which there's not many. (3) Reduced payments to Mexico for the drug war transfered to wall maintainance. (4) Export duties on marijuana. In recent years. the situation has reversed. Because of drug legalization in the US, and improvements in potency, quantity and quality, Mexico has become a net importer of US grown marijuana.

I'm just shooting from the hip, but no one really expects a self-made billionaire to lay his plans on the table for a new revenue generating project. nobs ^{piss in my ear} 22:33, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

So why hasn't any of the above been enacted to pay for this wall instead of asking congress for the funding? Aceⁱ⁹ 01:27, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Well duh, i outlined reimbursement funding above. It requires an initial outlay by Congress. But it's contingent on (a) immigration reform to address workers who send money to Mexico, and (b) tax reform to address sending money to Mexico. As you well know, Congress is composed of thick-headed numbskull idiots of both parties. And there's opposition to all three, the wall, immigration reform, and laying taxes on money transfers from the United States. So it requires a national consensus (here's where the GOP. Trump, and Democrats differ: we'd never dream of ramming such an ambitious project down the throats of the country without a national consensus, unlike the worthless cocksucking human rights violating communist-killer totalitarian assholes who did that to us with Obamacare). nobs ^{piss in my ear} 02:24, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Yet Trump hasn't even put any of the ideas you mention forward. In fact he hasn't put any ideas forward except "give me 5 billion" and that was never going to fly. Weird he hasn't put forward any proposal and keeps lying about how the wall has begun construction which even supporters like Ann Coulter has called out as bullshit.

worthless cocksucking human rights violating communist-killer totalitarian assholes who did that to us with Obamacare Wow...which human rights did you lose Rob? Aceⁱ⁹ 03:12, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Communism and assorted shit

My right to choice. If I want to die of a pre-existing condition, even in a state that allows assisted suicide, the communist whores wanna soak me for insurance premiums on the way out. It's like a goddam toll booth on the off ramp. nobs ^{piss in my ear} 03:48, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Not sure that is a human right there, Rob. But let me ask you something Rob, you don't have to answer but what do you pay for your medical insurance? And do you think a properly functioning society should put people in the position where they face bankruptcy or death? Is that the choice you mean? Aceⁱ⁹ 03:53, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm a senior. I leech off the ignorant youth. And I don't think a properly functioning society should commit its children and grandchildren to a slave system, such as I've experienced in my life, where old people take advantage of ignorant youth who were born into a slave system and never had the chance to vote for it. nobs ^{piss in my ear} 06:10, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Hypocrite. Not to mention, we also will be seniors eventually. The cycle continues.— Ɖøn Ĵuan ^Harass 09:05, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

What did Jesus mean when he said, "If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free." - Mk 7:11-12? Lemme translate: Because the gubmint says, "We'll take the money out of your paycheck and give to your parents, you are absolved of your responsibility. It is Corban, a gift." nobs ^{piss in my ear} 11:41, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

−

well firstly you contradicted yourself, secondly when you claim Obama or any of his policies were communist what I hear you saying is “I don’t know what words mean and finally - have you been drinking because your last comment was more confused than most. How about actually addressing what I asked you? You know I live in a country with state health care and many state programs funded through taxation yet have a business freedom index, and higher freedoms in general than the US. Amazing. Aceⁱ⁹

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Contradicted? What? Huh? Where? I get Medicare. I never voted for the goddam shit. I paid for the goddam shit my whole life, and I don't use it. If I didn't have to pay for old people's shit during my working career, I would have had money to buy my own health insurance and prepare for my own retirement. But my grandparents sold me into Marxist slavery in 1937 with the Social Security Act and in 1962 with the Medicare Act. I was never consulted. I was informed when I entered the workforce, "Tuff, kid, too bad. You're too young and stupid to understand. Shut up and get to work to support us, who voted for this Marxist slave system." Now 70 million Millennials bitch about a fucked world with 68 million babyboomers who control Congress, who they have to support for another 30 years while they can't afford to have children and buy houses. At the same time they want Welfare for All, with nobody working and everybody getting a check. I had to work 40 years to get my free bowl gruel, they want it while still living in their parents basement. And that's called fairness. On top of that, they want forced retirement cause they blame babyboomers for fucking up the world. Fine. I'll give up the fucked up world I inherited when you pry it from my cold dead fingers. nobs ^{piss in my ear} 09:35, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Jesus fuck man. If I met you at a party I'd back away slowly. Almost incoherent. I don't even know where to start let alone what point you are making. Aceⁱ⁹ 10:04, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Just observations on modern America. Communist-killers have taken over the Democrat party. What do you expect? nobs ^{piss in my ear} 10:37, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Who are these communists? And more to the point - how do you feel about your president facing multiple lawsuits while lying to your face about his wall? Aceⁱ⁹ 20:59, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

And let’s not forget having to shut down his foundation due to a ‘shocking amount of illegality’. He’s a crook, Rob. Aceⁱ⁹ 21:04, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

As the wheels fall off

It'll never happen. Rob's an old man, he's had all that time to grow up, and hasn't. — Ɖøn Ĵuan ^Harass 00:03, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

@Don Juan I'm persistent, stubborn and patent, and if I have to hold him down by the hair until he screams uncle I will. His parents should have taught him this, his schoolteachers should have taught him this, and so it appears that I must teach him this lesson. Don't be an ass towards others, some of them may just bite back. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 00:16, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

P.S. Rob, this is really simple. All you have to do is type up an apology to me Ace, and Don, one without any passive-aggressive barbs, and I stop. That's it, nothing else. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 00:22, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

It would be cute if I knew what you're talking about. What? Has there been some changes in RW community standards I don't know about? nobs ^{piss in my ear} 00:28, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie Rob's pissant behavior really isn't anything worth making a fuss over. He's an ass, plain and simple. We have plenty of asses on RW, I could conceivably be counted as one of them if this account of mine is anything to go by. I come from the rough-and-tumble shit hole that is Usenet, and it is still a shithole to this day, contrary to popular belief Usenet isn't dead at all, quite the opposite in fact, and the shit I experience there on a daily basis makes the fucks here at RW seem like angels compared to twats such as myself, Alan Kleinman, Peter Nyikos, JTEM, and a horde of other trolls. Besides, people like Rob provide us something to laugh at. I understand that other people may have different sensitivities, I suffer from PTSD, anxiety, autism and several other neurological illnesses, I know what it's like to be triggered, it ain't pleasant, but dealing with all the vermin in my life, being exposed to such weeds on a daily basis, both online and IRL, has provided me some thick skin, I've seen the worst humanity has to offer, and Rob just doesn't cut it. It's not worth getting angry over, you'll save yourself a lot of headaches along the way by going with the flow and not letting the trolls get to you. Trust me, I speak from experience, both as a victim of trolls and as a relatively infamous troll myself, here's a quick google search of my prior activities as a troll prior to my atonement and you'll see what I mean. — Ɖøn Ĵuan ^Harass 00:37, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

@Don JuanIt's less that I'm offended (I've had people yell death threats to my face, this shit is nothing), and more that I'm tired of Rob talking crap without someone smacking him upside the head and telling him not to piss on the carpet. Basically it's annoying and childish, and I'm somewhat tired of it, so I'm stopping it. It's that simple. Rob, meet my demands and I back down. Like I just told Don, it's that simple. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 00:55, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

P.S. Don't get hung up on what people call themselves or what symbols they wear, those things are as fleeting as the morning dew. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 00:55, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

WTF R U talking about? Examine the thread. Not once did address you personally, not until you starting having a hissy fit. Proof you do not know what ad hominem means. If I'm wrong, show me where I'm wrong. nobs ^{piss in my ear} 07:03, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

"@Ace McWicked@Don Juan It probably doesn't matter anyway, given that the market is probably about to tank (again). Without that economic strength the war effort would be hindered somewhat. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:22, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

   (ec) What? Are you one of those Democrat warmongers, too? Bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive!. ISIS is dead and GM is dead! Where's the wp:AUMF when Obama violated the War Powers Act to put the troops there in the first place? nobs piss in my ear 21:27, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

           A raging hypocrite. Acei9 21:28, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

               It could be argued that all of the wars conducted by us since WWII were unconstitutional, because none of them received a formal declaration of war by Congress. — Ɖøn Ĵuan Harass 21:29, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

                   Well lemme 'splain briefly. According to the Congressional Resesrch Servive, Congress doesn't declare war anymore basically for two reasons: (1) declaration of a nation emergency like that automatically gives a bunch of federal agencies automatic, unlimited spending authority now that survival is at stake and their backs are against the wall. Congress looses power over the budget which goes completely out of control. (2) Insurance policies go null and void cause they all have "act of war" exclusions, and people get wiped out. nobs piss in my ear 21:40, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

                       Gee, it's almost as if those people have incentive to break the law... But they would never do that! Would they? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:48, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

                           (ec) And you will notice in the above WP link the most recent AUMF was limited in scope (airstrikes) and for use against the Syrian regime, not ISIS. The troops are there not to kill ISIS, but to prevent our Turkish allies from killing our Kurdish allies. Some alliance, huh? Obama violated the War Powers Act when he attacked Libya and was never given an AUMF when he put boots on the ground in Syria. 
                           Turn off your TV sets and stop listening to your communist hate-mongers. nobs piss in my ear 21:56, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

                               You assumptions about me and my info sources is... Cute... Unlike you and yours, I don't simply take info at face value, I vet it. When any politician makes a claim I am by default wary of it. So I dig up info, I double and triple check sources, and I dig up as much as possible. Partisan hacks like you can't say the same, it's half of why you're partisan to begin with. You want to be spoonfed your news, you want to be spoonfed your thoughts, and you want your bias reinforced. That is the difference between us. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:15, 24 December 2018 (UTC) "

My cynical commentary is nonpartisan. Apologize and I back down. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:11, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Not to demean your reading comprehension but, the phrases "turn YOUR TV sets" and "YOUR hatemongers" addresses a collective YOU (meaning a crowd), and "hatemongers" refers to people such as Rachel Maddow, Anderson Cooper, the Washington Press Corps, and a host of other critics.

And please, let's not go into the psychopathology of how YOU (individually, personally) can mistake a reference to a collective group of tens of thousands of Trump critics to an ad hominem attack on yourself.

If there was a mistake or misunderstanding on either of our parts, I apologise. nobs ^{piss in my ear} 19:35, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Close enough. I accept. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:41, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Once upon a time

Once upon a time there was the Robrail, where we could move his demented shitehawkery to. It was deleted, though, as a "personal attack" although since it was mostly just his own words, I don't see how that works. Now instead the senile wankpuffin can smear his turds wherever he wants. Avida Dollars^{her again} 14:36, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree that a lot has changed over the years, especially among RW's userbase demographics. Man, doesn't time fly? For the record, I`m not sure if you've noticed because I've been pretty lowkey until recently, my handle here was for a while "Palaeonictis," joined November of 2014, so while I haven't been here as long as you or Ace have, I've been here long enough to see RW undergo many changes. — Ɖøn Ĵuan ^Harass 15:51, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Pissgate

I pissed in your ear, as per your requesto.[1] Bongolian (talk) 19:59, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I have one criticism: Nowhere have I implied Soros was a Nazi sympathizer. That Soros was a Nazi collaborator is indisputable. Of coarse to a moral relativist there probably isn't such distinction. nobs ^{piss in my ear} 20:35, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

One cannot collaborate without being a sympathizer. One can be forced to do something by threat of death or otherwise but that's not collaboration. Bongolian (talk) 21:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Collaboration is an action, sympathy is a state of mind. nobs ^{piss in my ear}

So you are saying that Soros was forced to help the nazis. So? I mean plenty of holocaust (please tell me you aren't a holocaust denier) survivors shoveled bodies into the ovens or built infrastructure while in the camps. Tabula Rasa (talk) 09:23, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

So, if I put a gun in your hand, and put a gun to your head, and order you to shoot a third party, does that absolve you of guilt?

Truth be told. I have great compassion for George Soros, cause I know he is saddled with much guilt. nobs ^{piss in my ear} 06:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, yes it absolves you of guilt. In the law it's called an action "under duress" . In law you aren't guilty and in my book you don't have any guilt. Tabula Rasa (talk) 07:34, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm, you think so? If I get rear-ended at a stop light, and it causes me to rear-end the car in front of me, am I absolved of liability? Hell, it was an accident, I didn't even have a choice in the matter.nobs ^{piss in my ear} 03:28, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Again, yes "under duress" remember? Tabula Rasa (talk) 04:12, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Don't think that'll hold in a court of law, or in an insurance claim. You'll be found at least 10% at fault just for being there. nobs ^{piss in my ear} 05:44, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

At this point what you think means very little to me. You never research your points and just call me a commie lib. I am still waiting for a response to that by the way.--Tabula Rasa (talk) 05:52, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Wow. Thanks. "a person who agrees to a contract under physical duress may avoid the contract, even if the duress was not the main reason for agreeing to the bargain." Couldn't come up with a better point to prove the illegality of Obamacare and the individual mandate (a $600 fine for not purchasing a health insurance contract is "physical duress" if a laborers source of income is labor). I'll ignore the fact that both premises (the gun and the auto) had nothing to do with contract law. nobs ^{piss in my ear} 07:03, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Duress under contract law is not the same as duress in a criminal case. Patty Hearst argued duress, and still got 35 years for bankrobbery. nobs ^{piss in my ear} 07:15, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Did you even see the other few links. Just because a few cases were lost doesn't mean the defense is inaccurate. Do you even understand what a legal defense is? It's a defense that is common in legal courts not one that works 100% or even a majority of the time. (Seeing as most cases end in conviction). Also why did you bring Obama into this. Non Sequitur Tabula Rasa (talk) 08:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

If I put a gun to your head, that is not a contract. If you get rear-ended, that is not a contract. Duress is as an action to set aside a contract, like lack of consideration, lack of capacity, "unclear hands", ultra vires, etc., and is not a criminal defense.

In the case of Patty Hearst, the facts were similiar to what I premised. She wss raped. She was threatened with death. She was locked in a closet and starved. She argued that she was brainwashed and acted under duress. The court sentenced her to 35 years for a voluntary action. What's George Soros' excuse? That he willingly entered into a contract with the Nazi's?nobs ^{piss in my ear} 09:23, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

One problem with that, there was a doubt that she was raped, tortured, ect. With Soros, he is jewish they were NAZIS. Commie Lib (talk) 09:28, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

In the Hearst case, the court found she willingly cooperated. In the Soros instance, he confessed on 60 minutes that he willingly cooperated. Unlike Hearst, Soros never claimed he personally was threatened with death. nobs ^{piss in my ear} 10:28, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

if you areb jew in nazi germany you are by default threatened with death. not 'personally' threatened, as no one said directly gto his that were going to kill specifically. no he was hiding in plan sight. discovery meant death. and he was 14 when the war ended. whatever point your trying to make here, this is fucking idiotic. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:47, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Let's stop here and look closer: according to WP,

At the time of her arrest, Patty Hearst weighed only 87 pounds (40 kg) and was described by Dr. Margaret Singer in October 1975 as "a low-IQ, low-affect zombie".[41] Shortly after her arrest, there were some clear signs of trauma: her IQ was measured as 112, whereas it had previously been 130; there were huge gaps in her memory regarding her pre-Tania life; she was smoking heavily and had nightmares.[42] Without a mental illness or defect, a person was held fully responsible for any criminal action not done under duress, defined as a clear and present threat of death or serious injury.[43][44] Securing an acquittal on the basis of brainwashing would be completely unprecedented.[45][46]

(This defense wouldn't have done "Songbird" McCain any good, either). The court found Hearst willingly entered into an agreement with her captors.

In Soros case, he likewise entered into an agreement (or contract) with the Nazi's. 10,000 people were murdered daily for a period of four months, for which he was rewarded, or paid, by his own admission. Accepting payment in a contract is not evidence of duress.

His only defense, under American law, would be lack of capacity (age) to enter into a contract. That still does not mean he did not do what he did. nobs ^{piss in my ear} 11:01, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

i cant be arsed with this utter bullshit.

his defense is that he didnt do any it. your reading of law fails even before your twisting of it when its all based on lies in the first place. its complete bullshit. you know it is. patty hearst is irrelevant to soros. mccain is irrelevent. this is just despicable. you cannot hang the murders of thousands and thousands of jews on a 14 year old jewish boy who played no part in it. nor did he play any part in confiscation of jewish property. nor did he collaborate in any way. im sure theres plenty of stuff you can pin on soros. stuff hes actually done. it just wont involve nazis. instead you insist on regurgitating lies. you are liar. have some fucking integrity.

there must people on the right, conservatives of various stripes who have something valid to say. i dont know what that would be because the only right wing folk who make here all unvarnished fucknuts, incapable of even the most basic decency. there is no win here. it fucks us all over. get a fucking grip man. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:44, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Watch the 60 Minutes interview. Anyone who has read even just a modicum of Holocaust literature - the accounts of eyewitnesses - knows exactly what's going on. And I've spent years reading most of it. Soros is the only survivor in his situation, and he admits to being paid. What? You think Nazi's, after they deported Jews, let anyone ransack houses? You're in denial. Soros fingered Jews for the Nazis. Unlike Paris or Warsaw, Budapest was never under occupation. Jews in Budapest were never required to wear the Yellow star, so the Nazis needed the collaboration of locals to identify who the Jews were. Soros was ideal, cause he was a member of the community. He was rewarded for his efforts. He puts the best spin on it in the 60 Minutes interview. These are the fundamental facts you have to work with. nobs ^{piss in my ear} 18:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Shut the fuck up, you lying sack of shit. The Soros collaboration myth has been comprehensively debunked, and you fucking know it. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 19:12, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Watch the 60 Minutes interview. He looted houses. He was paid. nobs ^{piss in my ear} 05:10, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Read the Snopes page, you fucking antisemitic conspiracy monger.[2] Bongolian (talk) 05:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Watch the fucking interview, you punk-ass dipshit. nobs ^{piss in my ear} 05:46, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘1) Soros was a minor at the time 2) Soros was under imminent threat of death. According to Snopes:[3]

“”Yet the simple truth is that George Soros neither said nor did anything resembling what he has been accused of. In no sense was Soros, who turned 14 years old not long after the Germans occupied Hungary in 1944, a “Nazi collaborator.” At no time did he confiscate (or help confiscate) the property of Jews, “identify Jews to the Nazis,” or help “round up” people targeted for deportation or extermination by the Germans (to answer just a few of the accusations leveled against him). And although Soros did attest during the infamous 60 Minutes interview that he regrets nothing about the time of German occupation, he also said it is precisely because he didn’t do any of the things attributed to him that his conscience is clear.

Fuck you, you racist PoS. Bongolian (talk) 05:55, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, looks like Snopes is wrong here. In the interview, Soros says he felt no guilt because the property was being taking away either way regardless of his actions and compared it to his actions in the speculative market. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 06:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Give me the exact quote and time in the interview that you're referring to. I can't read your mind. Bongolian (talk) 20:19, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

It's at 8:30 in the YouTube vid Rob linked. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

if only you could have managed just a few seconds later where he states he was merely a spectator. its as if one ambiguous statement taken free from context is proof of fuck all. he says a few times how he had no role in confiscating property. its pretty fucking clear. are you people fucking stupid? did you think we would not look any further? it all hinges on that one statement, only ambiguous out of context, its complete arse water of the worse kind. AMassiveGay (talk) 01:18, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

It's part of the analogy he was making. Either way, I didn't say he was more than a spectator. But I found it odd how Snopes mischaracterized the explanation Soros gave in the interview. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:30, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

(A) It is only the testimony of one witness. (B) The subject is admiting to cooperation, he and his guardian, with the Gestspo. (C) The Gestapo did not allow "spectators." nobs ^{piss in my ear} 01:56, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

As to Snopes, it's not odd at all. Snopes is banking on you take their word for it and not watching the video. nobs ^{piss in my ear} 02:04, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I watched the video and saw the context. Nobs, you're one of the most fucked-up people I've ever personally encountered. You are a sick human being. Here is a 14-year old Jewish boy whose life depends upon his Christian guardian. He did not have the capability to himself seize property, but he was brought to accompany his adult guardian while the guardian seized the property of Jews. Bongolian (talk) 02:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I find it endlessly funny Nobs is trying to argue that living in Nazi Germany as a Jew wouldn't count as under duress. Commie Lib (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@Bongolian I've seen worse than Rob, not by much, but still verifiably worse. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:41, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

The Hungarian government did not know who the Jews were. The Nazis did not know who the Jews were. Soros guardian did not know who the Jews were. Soros knew who members of the Jewish community were. Hungarian Jews were not segregated into ghettos as they were in Warsaw, Paris, Rotterdam and eleswhere. Hungarian Jews were not mandated to wear the Star of David by the Hungarian government. Now, explain the rapid deportation of 430,000 Hungarian Jews in four months and why Soros was allowed to be a "spectator" of Nazi crimes? And why Soros was compensated with food and belongings from the victims homes? nobs ^{piss in my ear} 22:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself: shut the fuck up, you lying sack of shit. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 23:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Interesting article; now answer the specific question: How were the Nazis able to segregate 430,000 Hungarian Jews between June and October 1944? In the case of Poland, there was nearly two years preparation time between September 1939 and July 1941 when Auschwitz extermination operations began. Paris was over a year from June 1940 to July 1941. As the 1962 Eichmann trial reveals, in the case of Budapest it was only because of cooperation with local Jews. Soros made the mistake between 1945 and 1962 of going on record and saying too much how he survived Eichmann's deportations, which he tries to explain away in the 60 Minutes interview of the 1990s. nobs ^{piss in my ear} 23:46, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ You're a turd in the gene pool, Smith, and lazy to boot:

“”Long before that fateful spring of 1944, Hungarian leader Miklós Horthy​ had fostered anti-Semitic fervor in his country. When he first took power in 1920, the country’s Numerus Clausus law, which put a quota on the number of Jewish students allowed to attend universities, went into effect, along with the White Terror, a military crackdown targeting at Jews and other counterrevolutionaries. In the build-up to World War II, a series of anti-Jewish laws starting in 1938 were also responsible for othering Hungarian Jews. But the alliance Hungary struck with the Axis Powers in 1940 at first kept the majority of Hungary’s Jews safe from Nazi Germany. More than 20,000 Jews that Hungarian authorities designated as “foreign nationals” were sent in 1941 to German-occupied Ukraine, with full knowledge of the fate that would await them upon their arrival. The next year, the Hungarian military and citizen forces took part in the Novi Sad massacre in northern Serbia where more than 1,000 people, mostly Jews, were killed. And approximately 40,000 Jewish men conscripted into forced labor battalions died of exposure, enemy fire or mass executions during Hungary’s retreat from Stalingrad in early 1943. Still, unlike much of Europe, most of Hungary’s Jews remained alive in the spring of 1944. As an official ally of the Axis powers, Hitler had left Hungary to find its own solution to the “Jewish Question” up until this point. Now, the Fuhrer demanded its Jews. That spring, with the Soviet army advancing on Hungary's border, and Hungary’s own army largely destroyed at Stalingrad, Nazi troops first entered Hungary’s borders. They came without resistance. Horthy invited the Fuhrer’s troops into the country, and then verbally agreed to send what was initially 100,000 Jews to Germans for “work” in a bid to remain in power. Compounding that number, Horthy decided instead to send the workers’ families as well, ultimately sealing the fates of some 437,000 Jews. ... with only some 150 Nazi Germans in charge of the deportations, it was left to officials of the Hungarian Interior Ministry, the Gendarmes and local authorities to carry out their orders. Rather than refuse to be complicit, Hungarians chose to cooperate. “The Germans pushed for concerted action against Hungarian Jewry, and Horthy not only did not resist—he put the government apparatus at their disposal. The well-oiled process of destruction of the Jews followed quickly: restrictions, wearing the Jewish badge, confiscations, the establishment of ghettos and systematic deportations,” Rozett writes.

Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 00:17, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Bingo. You got it.

unlike much of Europe, most of Hungary’s Jews remained alive in the spring of 1944. As an official ally of the Axis powers, Hitler had left Hungary to find its own solution to the “Jewish Question” up until this point.

[Jews were unsegregated and not required to wear the Star of David]

with only some 150 Nazi Germans in charge of the deportations, it was left to officials of the Hungarian Interior Ministry, the Gendarmes and local authorities to carry out their orders. Rather than refuse to be complicit, Hungarians chose to cooperate

[Soros helped identify Jews. Thats how he survived. Thats how he was rewarded with food and belongings of deportees]. nobs ^{piss in my ear} 00:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Point? This statement however true doesn't invalidate the fact that he must have been scared of Nazi persecution. Commie Lib (talk) 00:56, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

It's ridiculous to say he subscribed to Nazi ideology (other than the atheist and survival of the fittest aspect); it's not ridiculous to say he collaborated. The 85 year old lying sack of shit is saddled today with the guilty conscience of a 14 year old punk. As I said above, I have great compassion for him, or at least much more than I do Adolph Eichmann, who was an adult and only following orders. nobs ^{piss in my ear} 01:13, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I've been watching the hundreds of hours of Eichmann Trial videos for quite sometime now. Here is an excerpt dealing with property seizures from about 28:00 to 36:00). It deals with an order he signed to seize property, which then became Reich property, and to prevent it from being taken by unauthorized persons. This order dates from the occupation of Austria which pre-dates the physical extermination program. In the hundreds of hours, it's the only portion I can recall that deals with property seizures. Also, if you wanna back up to about 19:00, there are a few references to the cooperation he recieved from other Jews relating to deportations, and also the expense involved. His plan was to have rich Jews pay the expense of deporting poor Jews, with the state treasury being the beneficiary of the remaining assets (he denies taking any money or property for himself).

Eichman's whole defense is based on claiming all he did was arrange transportation for deportations, which cost money from seized property, and had no hand or decision in what happened once people disembarked. nobs ^{piss in my ear} 09:10, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

How do you manage it?

Being so completely and openly dishonest. How do you do it? Aceⁱ⁹ 05:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't know. Maybe having lived under and studied the lives and careers of Richard Nixon, Bill and Hillary Clinton had something to do with it. These are our national role models, you know, elected by the people. I had nothing to do with whom the American people chose to hold up to emulate. nobs ^{piss in my ear} 06:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

So you’re dishonest because it’s a learned behaviour from your politicians? Nice going carving yourself an ethical groundwork there Rob. Guess that Bible you have fades to a distant second as far as emulation goes. Aceⁱ⁹ 07:31, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Did being so openly and unashamedly dishonest ever get you anywhere in life, Rob? — Ɖøn Ĵuan ^Harass 14:16, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Look, it's easy to make a charge. I could ask, "Where, when have I been dishonest?", however I'll just chalk up the charge to small minded people's inability to handle ambiguity. nobs ^{piss in my ear} 03:24, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Robs dishonesty. It comes from the fact that if Obama did anything Trump has done you’d nail his ass on it. You’re dishonest. You even seem to admit it. Normally people would feel a little shamed. You revel. What gives? Your Jesus would be very disappointed. That is if you actually believed the tenants of what you preach. But you don’t - it just gives you cover. Aceⁱ⁹ 10:34, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

You don't have a clue what you're talking about. I do not live my life daily, listening to news, attacking Barack Obama and defending Donald Trump, which obviously is what you consider to be a political discussion. There's plenty I disagree with Trump about and little I agree eith Obama on. But neither are the focus of my attention, interest, attitudes, or discussion. You're the one who keeps bringing up Obama, Trump, Palin or whoever. I respond with my views on those persons because you seem incapable of discussing anything else. And personally, I think you're pretty warped in your thinking if that's how you make judgements about people or formulate your own views. nobs ^{piss in my ear} 11:22, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

”But neither are the focus my attention” says the monomaniac spending 24 hours updating ‘Sandy’s” page in exclusion to the guy who lives in a house made of gold. Rob, Aceⁱ⁹ 11:50, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Ocasio-Cortez? Interesting figure. It is amazing the parallels between her and Donald Trump, isn't it? nobs ^{piss in my ear} 11:56, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

as the title suggests - your honesty is what is in question. You have as a starting point. Aceⁱ⁹ 12:01, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Continuing to piss in your ear, Nobs.[4] Should I get a funnel? Bongolian (talk) 04:57, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

My God, you got it bass-akwards again. I've been accused of being part of the Q cabal, not a follower. nobs ^{piss in my ear} 05:39, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Who gives a flying fuck. You're propagating that bullshit. Bongolian (talk) 05:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

What bullshit?nobs ^{piss in my ear} 06:58, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

The bullshit that you wrote on Conservapedia about Soros and other topics. Bongolian (talk) 20:19, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Your making Hillary Clinton out to be a liar. Civility was supposed to be restored after the election, remember? nobs ^{piss in my ear} 20:36, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

No one said that. I allege the death of all republicans might do so. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 20:45, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

And you ran for Mod? nobs ^{piss in my ear} 21:23, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I did not. Also, I'd never ban all the republican users of the site. The death of all republicans is hypothetically about making a better society possible, not silencing voices of people I personally dislike. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 22:10, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Ahhhh, your just blinded by hate. nobs ^{piss in my ear} 22:18, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

People would be quite surprised how divided liberals are in their amalgam of conflicting agendas if they didn't have conservatives to unify against. Always be careful what you wish for. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:36, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

(EC)No way, the disputes between liberals, leftists, progressives, anarchists, and other not completely batshit ideologies make sense to have. There's so much real debate to be had without the compete batshit fuckers being involved. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 22:39, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I mean, it's no an unreasonable interpretation, that I'm hate-filled and cannot see clearly past the crimes against humanity, the international scale damage to the safety, wellbeing, and future of most people, and the facileness of you guys. It makes sense to question whether any person could make a fair judgement of such righteously awful human beings. But no matter how much I stop and consider the ways that could lead me astray, I repeatedly come to conclusion that I'm right about this; at the end of the day, the end must be either your ideology completely and utterly dying or literally all human beings. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 22:39, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Sounds radical. Did God, Satan, or science give you this profound insight into the human psyche and the prophetic course of the planet? Or did you PIDOOMA it? nobs ^{piss in my ear} 22:54, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

None of those things, though science and your insane reaction to it is part. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 22:57, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Science, hmmm. Do you know what science is? You don't seem to know too much about two areas of human knowledge, liberalism and conservativism to even define those.

Secondly, does science lead you to have emotional, hate-filled reactions to other people? nobs ^{piss in my ear} 23:02, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm curious at least about what strains in particular Ikanreed takes offense at. Neocons and fundies are easy targets. Is supporting gun rights evil too? What about working class people who don't want to fund government healthcare? Or people who oppose abortion? Is nationalism always evil? Etc. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:54, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

"offense". I'm not personally offended, I genuinely just find your non-existence(be it some miracle you all stop believing this shit, dying off naturally and not indoctrinating more people, or just vanishing into thin air) an increasingly obvious precondition for a world that keeps living. As to "In particular", I'm out here with my lamp in the daytime looking so hard for the smallest, tiniest honest conservative movement, because there's none. None at all. It doesn't exist. You've got spite, you've got pseudo-economic theories, you've got fundamentalism, you've got huge racist hate-boners, but there's no coherent ideology behind anything labeled conservative. None of it. Even the libertarians who try constructing a world view on "government bad" magically invent "except when protecting private property or fighting wars" as an insane and baseless exception. And the coalition created is death-marching humanity for ecological catastrophe and cyberpunk dystopia and possibly nuclear war, but that last one's subjective. I cannot fathom a decent human being involved with any of it. I can see literal murderers with a better moral system, and more deserving of basic respect as human beings than you guys.

It's easy to call that "blinkered" or "partisan" or "tribal" or any other of very reasonable interpretations of that perspective from the outside, but it really comes down to what completely amoral, monstrous human beings you have to be to even consider saying "well hillary clinton sucks so I'll vote for the obvious fascist who made his intentions of ethnic cleansing clear". It's not "my way or the highway" it's "any way but the stupid, evil way you've selected" ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 18:15, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Ah, so it appears you've been looking in all the wrong places. Maybe check out the Claremont Institute for example, lots of interesting conservative content there. And sure, conservatism is very diverse and the public figures tend to be opportunist hypocrites, but that's not exclusive to conservatism you know. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:19, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

nah they're psychos who reprinted the charge that Sarah Jeong was racist to white people because she parodied a white racist's post, a charge that was made up by literal goddamn nazis. That's the most recent issue, I'm not archive diving for this evidence. Your "respectable conservatism" is just a cover file vile bullshit. I know that you acknowledging that you're completely and totally wrong about this single point will never happen. Which is why "none of you existing anymore" seems like the most plausible solution to your collective bullshit. And if you can't hear the dog whistles screaming in here, just fuck off. The "credible" versions of your ideology are the exact same garbage pail of obviously rationalizing bullshit as the "dumb" versions run through a thesaurus.

But because archive diving to things we both know were completely wrong, Here we have them positively screaming for the annhilation of the million Iraqis we can lay at the feet of Bush, with the charge that not enough pointless bombing of the middle east led to 9/11 because we were "weak", and a contemporaneous All muslims are evil article from 2002-2003. There's no deep insight here. There's just bloodlust.

Or let's go back to the 80s and find them saying gay people deserve to die of AIDS. Maybe this limp, half-hearted defense of apartheid is the missing apotheosis of real, decent, intellectual conservative thought?. They're barbaric, inhuman scum. They've always been scum. Stop defending being a part of a movement whose defining feature is evil contempt for mankind. Cut it out. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 19:54, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

She parodied the same post a hundred-something times then I suppose. Not that I take her many statements particularly serious, she was just repeating a popular trope. Leftist identity politics seems to lend itself to purely hypothetical genocides quite easily it seems. And again, you seem to be doing a lot of nutpicking here (plus projection/strawmanning). Eliminating the boundary between reasonable people and the nutty fringe only empowers the nutty fringe you know. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

"You're doing nutpicking going out of your way to specifically comment on 2 of the most recent 5 essays published by this publication I specifically highlighted as a bastion of clear thought".

I then went back in time, because I suspected you wouldn't accept that those awful articles were awful, but past conservative ideological failures are way more clear, and totally barbaric, and I thought showing that your "credible" sources bought into that shit, you might have a single, solitary moment of reflection. A single momentary questioning of your own moral clarity that you're constantly demanding from me. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 20:43, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

That said, do you think the U.S should pull troops out of Syria (which is an outgrowth of the bi-partisan plan to commit genocide against Iraqis and Muslims as you say, and was begun by Barack Obama)? Stop speaking in generalities and answer this specific question. Is Trump right or wrong? nobs ^{piss in my ear} 23:26, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Pulling troops out is correct; being an inhuman monster doesn't make you incapable of doing the right thing, just unconstrained by it. Trump remains an inhuman monster who made locking children in cages an active policy position. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 01:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Rob, Rob, Rob.... I can’t even

Your edits.... Jesus. Beto: pick unflattering picture for template, ignoring official pics. Standard for you. Then Beto picking his nose? He clearly isn’t. What’s wrong with you. Oh yeah, you’re dishonest. Aceⁱ⁹ 20:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't see where Beto has a problem with any. He consented to all photos, including the mugshot. He uploaded the one in the dental chair himself. nobs ^{piss in my ear} 21:02, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

can you read? Aceⁱ⁹ 21:48, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Unflattering? You're not into cross dressers, Ace? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

yah, uh, right. Seems kinda transphobic, eh Ace? nobs ^{piss in my ear} 22:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

As to the booger shot, I think we caught him in flagrante delicto moments after he munched it down. There's no evidence on his fingers. Maybe Liz Warren could offer him a beer to wash it down. nobs ^{piss in my ear} 22:31, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Or you caught a picture of him with his hand on his face. Which you have labeled as him picking his nose because you think that is what he was doing. So you know, really fucking dishonest Rob. Aceⁱ⁹ 22:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

What article is this? Commie Lib (talk) 23:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

THE Next President of THE United States, HIS Honorable Excellency, Robert Beto O'Rourke. Betomania! The White Obama! A Kennedy Resurrected from the Dead! He Is Risen! He's gone viral! nobs ^{piss in my ear} 00:09, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘If you're still puzzling over Nobs' various faults, @Tabula Rasa, I advise you to look at this page: Conservapedia:RobSmith. Nobs has been trolling RationalWiki for more than a decade: congratulations, Nobs! Bongolian (talk) 00:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Please do not send me any more email

"Your inbred family had bowel movements. Hitler's inbred family had bowel movements. That's called corroborating evidence. What? Are you gonna deny science now too, in addition to being a bigot?"

If I am going to get content like this after blocking you, I would rather I not receive it. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC ()

• (1) This needs to be memorialized. You abused your Mod powers to settle a personal score.
• (2)You reject scienctific and historical evidence that an intelligence community assessment claimed (a) Hitler was a coprophiliac; (b) Hitler was homosexual, which was deemed a psychological malady at the time. (c) Hitler's mother was indeed his father's niece (numerous sources) and interfamial marriages in his bloodline dated back numerous generations (multiple sources).
• (3) You have resorted to racist attacks.
• (4) The blocking instructions clearly stated discuss with blocking Mod (I wasn't aware I could discuss on my Talk page, so I apologise for the second email).
• (5) You're a menace to society. nobs ^{piss in my ear} 20:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

What the hell is wrong with you? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

What now? You wanna make a coop case out of election year rhetoric? You abused your Mod powers, not me. And now you wanna cover it up. But you can't destroy your hostility toward science in the Hitler discussion by calling me a racist. Try rational thinking for once, rather than emotional leftism. nobs ^{piss in my ear} 20:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

What the hell is wrong with you? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Why did you scroll up my comment "This assessment probably did more damage to science than good, being that there's a 50% chance it was fake" when you made the same point here. I offered an explanation, you offered an excuse for flawed science - which is basically the same thing.

And Hitler's heirs didn't turn out fine. His three nephews and only surviving bloodline have made a verbal pact not to reproduce cause they are convinced something's wrong with the bloodline and want it to die out (WP cites it here). Don't forget, his niece committed suicide. nobs ^{piss in my ear} 21:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

@RobSmith You are correct Hitler was the result of an inbreed family. You are Wrong that he was gay. He Killed gay people. Commie Lib (talk) 21:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I never said he was gay. I said the best scienctific minds of his day said he was gay. nobs ^{piss in my ear} 21:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment on discussion on LGM Talk

I know intellectual reasoning isn't Bungolians strong suit, but here goes:

• (1) my "inbred" comment in the heat of an election was a metaphor for sockpuppetry, not an attack on a users family.
• (2) if you wanna consider terms like "racist" or "bigot" personal attacks, nobody's been victimized more than me. Any fair jury would make that determination. nobs ^{piss in my ear} 22:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Furthermore, Wikipedia cites a scholarly source for which I was censored for using the same language and called an anti-Semite:

Kershaw contends that stories circulated by Strasser as to alleged "sexual deviant practices ought to be viewed as ... anti-Hitler propaganda" (see above link). nobs ^{piss in my ear} 22:33, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Come on Rob your not even trying "The 1995 book The Pink Swastika, by Scott Lively and Kevin Abrams, asserts that most of the top Nazis were homosexual and that there is evidence that homosexuals are violent and dangerous. Mainstream historians have criticized the book for its inaccuracies and manipulation of facts.[40][41] Bob Moser, writing for the Southern Poverty Law Center, says the book was promoted by anti-gay groups and that historians agree its premise is "utterly false".[42]"

"Historian Lothar Machtan argues in The Hidden Hitler (2001) that Hitler was homosexual. The book speculates about Hitler's experiences in Vienna with young friends, his adult relationships with (among others) Röhm, Hanfstaengl, and Emil Maurice, and includes a study of the Mend Protocol, a series of allegations made to the Munich Police in the early 1920s by Hans Mend, who served with Hitler during World War I. The American journalist Ron Rosenbaum is highly critical of Machtan's work, saying his "evidence falls short of being conclusive and often falls far short of being evidence at all".[44] Most scholars dismiss Machtan's claims, and believe Hitler was heterosexual.[4][5][6] In 2004, HBO produced a documentary film based on Machtan's theory, titled Hidden Führer: Debating the Enigma of Hitler's Sexuality." Commie Lib (talk) 04:05, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

That's a bit off-topic cause we're not discussing whether or not Hitler was gay. I don't know much of Lively, but here's what I know of Langer.

Langer's 1973 book was a reprint of his now declassified report from 30 years earlier (which he was allowed to commercially benefit from), five years before the Freedom of Information Act. I was a first year history student, and this was "new information." Only it wasn't new, the 16 million homophobes of the "Greatest Generation" signed up to fight Hitler based on lies in a government report causing them to doubt some of the anti-gay propaganda they were spoon fed in wartime. Mind you, Langer's report appeared following on the heels of the Pentagon Papers, Warren Commission and at the peak of Watergate, when people started questioning if the government was in the habit of lying to them.

Lively's book says nothing new; it recreates the atmosphere of anti-Nazi propaganda from the 1920s, 30s, and 40s using German, British, French, American, and Socialist party sources. `nobs ^{piss in my ear} 08:06, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

As a final point, I don't need to read Langer or Lively; I read the Strasser brothers, Rauschnigg, Konrad Heiden, Freidlind Wagner, Kershaw, Trevor-Roper, Joachim Fest, Allen Bullock, Liddell Hart, the Nuremberg Indictment, Lucy Davidowitz, Simon Weisenthal, Ellie Wiesel, the Klarsfelds, Roi Medvedev, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Gordon A. Craig and a shitload of other primary and secondary sources. I was a student of Prof. Bill Renzi, who was a student of Gordon Prange, a consultant on Tora! Tora! Tora!. I know a bit about qualifying sources and determining historical authenticity. nobs ^{piss in my ear} 09:27, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and one Final Final point: the WP on Hitier's sexuality says somebody tried to hook up Hitler with Martha Dodd; I find that interesting cause I created the WP on Martha Dodd and don't recall putting that in there. It leaves me with impression WP tends to exaggerate and make something out of nothing. nobs ^{piss in my ear} 09:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

A final point on the teaching of History

Historians have debated for ages whether History is a science or art. Some call it a sixth sense. In teaching History, the object is to bring it alive. The original Dr. Faustus is said to have made Hector appear in the classroom. The serious student looks at not just historical facts, but how those facts are taught in different eras.

Which brings us to Scott Lively. Or rather, Scott Lively's sources. Lively didn't make up shit out of his asshole. Scott Lively quoted what Leftists and Hitler's enemies said about the Nazis. And Lively's sources have been, and still are used in a multitude of other books, only not as extensive as Lively used them. Homophobic attacks and sexual innuendo is as old as Marxism itself. The Left used a homophobic attack on Lindsey Graham only yesterday, and tried to destroy Judge Kavanaugh with accusations of sex crimes a few months ago.

Lucy Dawidowicz rejects much of the claims of modern advocates of identity politics. Here's the dilemma of teaching modern history: the Greatest Generation that saved the planet from fascism were motivated by homophobia, because they literally believed all the sources that Langer and Lively used. And a generation or nation that falsifies the teaching of History will, as Germany has done, live with the consequences. nobs ^{piss in my ear} 23:31, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Langer and government records

Langer wrote a secret government report saying Hitler liked women to shit on his face (sound familiar? only the Steele dossier was outsourced to foreign contractors). Langer was able to get the original de-classified after 30 years, copyrighted it, and sold it through mainstream publishers. Coincidentally at the same time Nixon was defying Congressional subpeaona's and arguing in the Supreme Court that tape recordings of Oval Office conversations were his personal property and he didn't have to give up his 5th Amendment rights to not give evidence against himself. The court ruled the tapes were government property, shortly after Langer cashed in on a bunch of homophobic smears he wrote about Hitler.

The ruling on government records raised the question why Langer should get exclusive rights to a million dollar book deal, while the citizens who owned the property were denied access [why should taxpayers have to pay a private publisher for information they already own?]. The court decision was codified in the Freedom of Information Act. Hillary Clinton, who's job on the Watergate investigating committee was to review thousands of hours of tapes, knew full well that if the President or Secretary of State farted, it was automatically classified information. And any written document was the people's property, not her own. She created the private server with intent to circumvent the law. She can't plead ignorance or stupidity. nobs ^{piss in my ear} 00:39, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

A friendly reminder

Hey, you ratfuck. Stop frightening the moderators.

A case involving you has been raised at the Chicken Coop. Feel free to comment.

Ariel31459 (talk) 05:30, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Funny

You edit the Liberal Stupidity at CP you support a president who can barely string 2 words together. Ironic much? Aceⁱ⁹ 02:25, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Trump & Pelosi can plead age. Whats Ocasio-Cortez's excuse? Public schools? nobs ^{piss in my ear} 23:48, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Hey

It seems to be impossible to edit on Conservapedia without a user-right called "edit", do you know whats up, or how does one edit there now? — Dysk (contribs) 11:58, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I dunno; what happens when you register, can you edit then? nobs ^{piss in my ear} 16:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Indeed I can, all good. :) — Dysk (contribs) 19:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

You're overtaking Ken

Your mono-mania pace of editing about all things Democratic is outshining Ken. Aceⁱ⁹ 08:36, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm angling for this years Conservapedia Award. Actually, most pages sorely needed updating. It's not your father's Democratic party anymore. I mean, wow. Infanticide? Assisted suicide? Women shouldn't have kids cause of imminent doom in 12 years? War on Cow Farts? I mean, what the hell is going on over there? nobs ^{piss in my ear} 16:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Some people think the Democratic Party is splitting into factions, some more progressive than others. In truth I suspect most of the current rhetoric is posturing to build up to the 2020 election race. It will be interesting to see what policies stick and which ones will be abandoned as things go forward. — Dysk (contribs) 16:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Rob? What is your problem with assisted suicide? Commie Lib (talk) 17:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

The split is more of a genrational thing. As older establishment Dems try to moderate and distance themselves from socialism, it only emphasize the split. It's impossible for Kamala Harris or Amy Klobuchar (probably the two best qualified) to distance themselves. Amy probably has a better chance at trying, based on her white privilege. But both come from two of the most thoroughly communist infiltrated local Democratic parties in the US.

As to assisted suicide, that section needs to be developed more. I'm just going with the general theme of "culture of death" right now. Some people have strong religious objections to it. And the supposed "medical science" arguments are discredited. The opioid epidemic is assisted suicide with a prescription. nobs ^{piss in my ear} 17:09, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

But it's the patent's choice to die. The doctor is just helping them avoid more pain. It is only for people suffering from terminal conditions in excruciating pain. Commie Lib (talk) 17:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok, fuck religion, give papa or mama a script for oxycodone so he can kill himself, and when he's dead, junior at the age of twelve can empty out the rest of the medicine cabinet. Didn't you see 60 Minutes the other night? The Clinton FDA in 1995 made this all possible, the greedy fucks. But Big Pharma and the Clinton Foundation got rich. nobs ^{piss in my ear} 17:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

But it's their choice. No one is forcing suicide on people. Commie Lib (talk) 19:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Are you arguing that a kid who rips off his parents medication, or the common prevalence of physicians over-prescribing deadly medication, is voluntary suicide? nobs ^{piss in my ear} 19:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with assisted suicide. At all, do you even know what your are talking about? Commie Lib (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Perhaps we need increased government regulation of Big Pharma, you know, the legislators big donor base. nobs ^{piss in my ear} 19:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with assisted suicide. At all, do you even know what your are talking about? Commie Lib (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

The general issue needs to be developed, particularly as more legislation is introduced. There are people who have strong feelings on the subject, and view it as a disregard of human life. I'm not saying I'm for or against it, although (1) there appears to be loopholes in the law now where it's happening on a large scale with people not suffering from terminal illness and not choosig to do so voluntarily, yet recieving medical assistance to do it; and (2) the fact a major political party wants to make assisted suicide part of its platform is itself an issue.

And the real focus should be on the current state of the practice of medicine, the current state of medical school education, and govenrment regulation of pharmacueticals. nobs ^{piss in my ear} 23:09, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

You have been summoned again

A case involving you has been raised at the Chicken Coop. Feel free to comment.

Bongolian (talk) 20:09, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

If you ever want to inspect the huge flame war again it's archived at RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive80. — Dysk (contribs) 10:46, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

North Korea

So Obama bowing to a Saudi prince caused huge uproar from the right but Trump calling a communist leader guilty running his own brutal fiefdom of North Korea a "Great leader" and nothing from you or CP? If Obama did that you'd apoplectic. Aceⁱ⁹ 01:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

This is why this guy needs to be desysopped. He is nuts, he should not have access to the tools. 172.58.173.187 (talk) 02:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Nope - we don't take away sysop powers for having opinions. Aceⁱ⁹ 02:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

TY. I haven't got to Korea yet; the issue is about U.S-Korea relations longterm, and stability in the region. Sorry, but I'm not schooled in journalistic fads and trends. I do historical writing.

Now, Why was Vietnam chosen as the site? So that Kim could see for himself and hear from Vietnamese leaders the advantages of becoming a trading partner with the U.S. after the two being terrible enemies. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 02:57, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Don't forget to throw your two cents in at the coop then Ace. For obvious reasons, I don't want RationalWiki to start banning people for their ideology. Public School Girl (talk) 03:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

BoN, has Nobs abused his Sysop powers on this site? No? Then leave them be. You can all quote me on that if you want. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 03:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

RobS, the arch-anti communist completely ignores the president praising the leader of what is probably the last remaining old school communist leaders. A brutal dictator whom Trump calls “a great leader”. Your cognitive dissonance is impressive. Aceⁱ⁹ 03:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok, so this is the first time since Khruschev that a negotiation has been carried on with a crazed killer with nuclear weapons. Khruschev had a change of heart and was deposed internally. As to non-nuclear armed crazed dictators, the list is quite extensive of those who were offered a chance to go into exile and keep their their looted fortunes - the Shaw, Marcos, Batista, Pinochet, Samoza, etc etc etc. Others refused and became deadenders - Caucescu, Saddam, Hitler etc etc. Still others repented and paid reparations for their crimes - Gadaffi.

Now, to paraphrase a great modern leader and visionary - Ocasio-Cortez - "Because no one else has even tried. Because no one else has even tried. Some people are like, ‘Oh, it’s unrealistic, oh, it’s vague, oh, it doesn’t address this minute little thing, and I’m like, you try! You do it! ‘Cause you’re not! ‘Cause you’re not!" nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 03:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Negotiation? Uhhhhhh - quite the negotiator huh. Trump rails against socialism, turns up in North Korea and calls the latest ruler of one longest standing communist dynasties a 'great leader' while achieving nothing and giving everything away. All the while Rob rails against AOC as a commie. Dude, you are all over the place. Aceⁱ⁹ 04:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Let me amend the my above statement: Nixon negotiated with the world's greatest mass murderer - Mao Zedong - who had nuclear weapons, killed 120,000 Americans in Korea and Vietnam combined, and turned him into a trading partner. Now Trump want's to tax his heirs a little bit, and commies in this country scream, "You can't do that!" nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 04:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Trump isn't negotiating. He's failing. North Korea isn't giving anything up and Trump is giving everything. He's a horrible negotiator. Did Nixon call Mao a great leader and talk about a personal love through the power of letter writing? Aceⁱ⁹ 04:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Rome wasn't built in a day. Maybe he's negotiating to get Kim to be the keynote speaker at the 2020 convention. It's just a matter of luring him down to Camp David. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 14:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

He's just fulfilling the U.S.'s tradition of going to Vietnam to achieve nothing. Nice to see he's gotten over the bone spurs. Féinléiriú (talk) 19:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit War Resolution

I have started a vote here to determine which version of the page to use. Please contribute a difflink with the version you want us to use, and defend why it should be implemented. I'll try to get people involved, so that it doesn't get ignored. RoninMacbeth (talk) 06:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Much appreciated. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 06:50, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Question

Are you a Birther? RoninMacbeth (talk) 20:50, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

To be a bit clearer, if you are not a Birther, then it would be possible to amend the article at a later date to include something along the lines of "RobSmith has since rejected this viewpoint," or something like that. If your objection is that you never believed in it in the first place, well, can you provide links from your earlier CP or RW days where you explicitly rejected it? RoninMacbeth (talk) 20:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I never debated the subject with anyone anywhere (as far as I recall). I did some edits in 2011 to CP mainspace to bring balance to a page slanted toward birtherism. After I was reinstated in 2015 at CP, I removed several point blank statements that Obama was born in Kenya from pages that I created and did 99% of the work on. If someone can find a Talk page I ever participated in anywhere, good luck. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 04:45, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I would not object to modification of the text if you provide evidence about your views that justify such modifications. Saying that you cleaned up birtherism from Conservapedia anytime on or after September 16, 2016, when Trump renounced birtherism because it was no longer mattered politically is not however evidence of being opposed to birtherism, it's evidence of whitewashing Conservapedia. Bongolian (talk) 21:26, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

@RoninMacbeth No, I am not now, nor have ever been a birther. I disagree with the characterization of all birthers as "racist." There were legitimate question's raised early based on the fly leaf of Obama's 1992 book, and in 2004 at the time of Obama's DNC keynote speech, some mainstream journalists reported that Obama was Kenyan by birth. Whatever the cause of birtherism taking root, Obama himself bares some responsibility for letting questions fester as long as he did.

While there are some birthers who took birtherism to extreme, calling him "defacto president," or illegitimate, etc., some of those people were motivated by racism. And yes, Trump used that base to promote himself. But just as strenuously as I objected to all opponents of Obamacare being labeled racist, not all people with legitimate questions were racists. And mainstream journalists who peddled Obama as Kenyan in 2004 shamefully remained silent, or joined in the chorus of calling people racist after Obama was elected, for believing the crap they reported just 5 years earlier.

It's hard to think of a more complicated moot point people still argue over. For my part, I did my best at the earliest possible moment I could to protect CP's mission. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 00:05, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

@Bongolian And who knows? It may have been my failure to jump on the Birtherism bandwagon, and efforts to present a balanced narrative of the issues, that played some part, albeit not the main reason, why I was banned from CP for three years. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 00:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

You were permabanned by Karajou for "Lying in email; making false accusations", and for 1 month previously on the same day by Karajou for "Incivility: lying; hostility".[5] Apparently being a liar for Jesus makes one oblivious to such accusations. Bongolian (talk) 03:54, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Wrong. Inserted for the record. We've since kissed and made up. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 15:58, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Cabal

You are invited to the cabal, of which there is none. — Oxyaena ^{Poke me} 21:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Mistake Correction on Conservapedia's Talk

Hi nobs, I would like to suggest a correction to an error on CP's talk page. Vargas made it, not you, but since you're actually capable of editing CP, I was hoping you could correct them. The statement 'What better way to discredit California leaders than to set them up to fail by secretly setting fires to the forests, so he can oust the Democrats, elect Republicans and then seize all the lumber he wants?' makes the same substantial mistake about the causes of California's wildfires that alleged conservatives have been making for years. The problem is not huge stands of easily-processed trees that you can turn into two-by-fours that we are neglectfully allowing to burn. The actual cause is fast-growing shrubs such as the 20-odd species of chaparral that are endemic here, as well as other species like chamise that develop intensely oily wood. So the real problem is that it will cost several billion dollars, every year, to send people in to clear out something that is basically useless for sale as anything other than bark chips. And it doesn't help that conservatives are thinking it's like a ten-million acre cedar plantation that Groovy Gravy is just too stoned to tend, man. It's oversimplistic, does not remotely reflect reality, and is beneath even CP's low bar. Semipenultimate (talk) 21:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

New Zealand shootings

So the whole world agrees that the murderer was a right wing extremist but you, not wishing to acknowledge that people on your side of the spectrum commit atrocities decide he was a leftist. Have I got this right?--Mercian (talk) 12:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Right wingers aren't for "revolutionary change" or violent "direct action" under any circumstances - those two things specifically are not "right wing" in any context. "Revolutionary change" and violent "direct action" is always Leftist in origin against conservatism, conservative principles, or conservative institutions. Right wingers are not cultural Marxists and do not use the Marxist lexicon. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 07:08, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Wow, there is literally nothing that would ever convince you that there's anything wrong on the right, is there? Trump could be calling for concentration camps for Democrats and you'd find a way to rationalize it as reasonable self protection against the muslim commie invaders and their sympathizers. After all, since 'they' are in league with the devil and therefore evil beyond redemption, there's no reason the righteous should restrict themselves. So go on, please make like Fraser Anning and tell us how you really feel - that they had it coming for being who they were and where they were. Semipenultimate (talk) 15:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Virginia, there are Leftwing White Supremacists. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 15:35, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Just funny how they all seem to use the exact same words and phrasing and have the exact same beliefs about immigration and refugees as President Pornstar. Semipenultimate (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

So, on a website where even the slightest deviation from the party line means the ban hammer (as you well know from experience) and being labeled as a satanist/liberal/mass murderer etc you accuse this website of being " demanding more than just ideological compliance" run by "Gender Psychotic moderators" . Pots and kettles. It is only a matter of time before you are banned again and come crying back here. --Mercian (talk) 18:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I've been promoted from the Director of Counterintelligence to the Director of Political Intelligence. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 21:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Keep on truckin', son. Ignore that disturbingly regular sound of Jesus facepalming in the background. Your moral compass is unerring. Follow wherever it leads. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 22:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Can I just cut through all these words? Rob, you're a cunt. LondonGrump (talk) 23:45, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Simple yes or no, Rob; do you actually believe that all those murdered people are right now being tortured in Hell for the rest of eternity? Semipenultimate (talk) 14:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Whoodat? nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 15:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not God, thank God, so I'd be reluctant to pass judgement on another's spiritual destiny. It would be like diagnosing Donald Trump with Alzheimer's or Hillary Clinton with Parkinson's at a distance. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 15:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

But since we're on the subject of Hell, let's clarify a few myths:

(a) Hell is not a place of fire. It is extremely cold and dark.

(b) The eternal torment people suffer is eternal separation from God's love. Period. No pitchforks up the butt, etc.

(c) People separated from God's love, while alive in the flesh, are experiencing Hell right now. The difference being the knowledge of mortality gives them hope for relief (this explains suicide and a host of other sins, etc). The ultimate torment of this Satanic deception occurs with knowledge of eternal disembodied consciousness, coupled with a loss of hope of ever experiencing relief. Simply put, Hell is eternal separation from God's love, and the knowledge that there is no reconciliation. You rejected him, therefore he rejected you. It's like a messy divorce for all eternity. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 16:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

i'd rather burn/freeze (i dont care which its bollocks) in hell than share a cloud with ted bundy AMassiveGay (talk) 16:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Why would Ted Bundy be in heaven? 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:2876:3C83:70A9:92EA (talk) 16:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

he found jesus before he fried AMassiveGay (talk) 16:23, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

AMassiveGay,There's logic in your words since you're so unforgiving. You'd deserve Hell, unlike Bundy who found or may have found forgiveness. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 16:23, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

some of his victims would probably be in hell too. this is why i am not a christian AMassiveGay (talk) 16:25, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Bundy, Cain, and Hitler are not unique to the human species - whom God created as free moral agents. But as Jesus said, "Me you don't always have." 16:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

is it still CPs position that the 'he without sin, cast the first stone' thing is a liberal fabrication? AMassiveGay (talk) 16:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't know, could be; Jesus sure sounds like a feminist activist there in context. 16:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

And do you believe that there is any path for a practicing Muslim to reach heaven - or have all Muslims, by being Muslims, reject your god, and will therefore be subjected to eternal hopeless torment by being denied it's presence? Semipenultimate (talk) 23:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

What do you know about Islamic teaching? It's all about judgement, and explicitly rejects salvation. What I personally think or believe determines nothing - other than my own personal salvation. Muslim's look forward to Judgement Day. Good luck. I, for my part, have been saved from judgement. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 14:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

According to Consevapedia a conservative typically adheres to principles of personal responsibility, your views on this issue proves that is total rubbish. Consevapedia's rhetoric is always against Muslims, atheists, liberals and even decent conservatives who do not adhere to Andy's extreme radicalism but when something happens to these groups, they, you and people or organisations who have far more clout disown the perpetrators or blame those who you display hatred to for their actions. If someone commits a hate crime against a gay person they blame that person for "coming onto" the criminal. When a right wing nutcase kills dozens of young adults in Norway they "had it coming" or when children are killed at a pop concert in Manchester they are "Pro sodomite sluts and whores". The views of you and your ilk are utterly disgusting. If heaven is populated with people like you, Ken and Andy I am glad I am going to Hell.--Mercian (talk) 14:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Never said I knew anything about Islam; I've only asked two questions about your personal beliefs with respect to another religion outside of your particular subsect of christianity. Speaking to you is a necessarily slow process, since you must be nailed down on every single detail. Shall I interpret your response as a 'no, I, nobs, do not believe there is a path to salvation through any form of Islamic practice'? You need to be more clear-spoken in your responses, otherwise we'll never get past the first question. Semipenultimate (talk) 15:06, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I've had this discussion with Muslims. They look forward to judgement. I praise God because I've been saved from judgement. In the Islamic religion, you get brownie points for killing Allah's enemies in the day of judgement. In may faith, I've been spared from judgement, and all those facing judgement will not stand. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 19:47, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to accept that as confirmation that you do not believe there is a path to salvation through any version of the faith known as Islam. The second question now follows; do you believe that there is any path to salvation through any version of the faith known as Hinduism? Semipenultimate (talk) 20:27, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

As to Islam, it's not what I believe, it's what Islam teaches. There is no salvation. As to Hinduism, I don't know enough about it to speak with any conviction. As I understand it, they are numerous different teachings, and most have to do with karma or luck. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 17:16, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

So, as you understand it, do karma or luck have anything to do with avoiding the eternal torment of hell? Or are they like good deeds, and have no impact with respect to salvation in and of themselves? Semipenultimate (talk) 15:48, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Jesus taught karma in everyday life, what goes around comes around, do unto others, etc.; as to eternal destiny, the idea people come back as snails or Napoleon or whatever seems a bit far fetched. Again, we return to the question of judgement, which is a gospel of grace vs. a gospel of works. Only Christianity teaches a gospel of grace or salvation (see 1 Corinthians 1:23-2:16). Those who do not accept salvation in this life are fated to judgement. Gospel of works = judgement. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 16:58, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to take this as confirmation that you don't believe there's a way to salvation through any form of Hindu practice. The third question now follows; do you believe that there is any path to salvation through any version of the faith known as Judaism? Semipenultimate (talk) 19:37, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I do. Most of the the New Testament, particularly the writings of Paul, are a commentary on the OT. Hebrews 4:2 for example says, For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them [Israel in the wilderness, per chapter 3], meaning the "gospel," a Greek word that does not appear in the OT, was preached to Israel in the wilderness, i.e., before Jesus was born. Exodus 33 (and surrounding chapters) also preaches a doctrine of grace (Wherefore, if I have found grace in thy site...). It also says "Moses spoke unto the Lord face to face," seemingly contradicting John chapter one which says, "No man hath seen God at anytime." This can only be reconciled or expounded by the sections I quoted above from 1 Cor. 1 & 2. This is the basis for my understanding. More examples are available that add more corroboration and understanding. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 01:38, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

This is somewhat surprising, given that Judaism explicitly rejects Jesus' divinity. However I will grant that you believe that people who follow the teachings of Judaism are given special dispensation because they were your god's chosen people before god changed it's holy writ. Grandfathered in, so to speak. Does this reflect what you believe? Semipenultimate (talk) 15:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

It's a personal question that adherents to Judaism have to answer that is just as valid today as when Jesus spoke it, What think ye Christ, Whose son is he? David, or God's? (Matt 42:22). While the teachings of Judaism do provide a path to salvation (and there are many examples of born again, blood washed Christians long before Jesus was born - Abel, Abraham, Moses, Job, Zachariah and Elizabeth, the old widowed woman and another guy mentioned Luke, etc.) - it's how the individual responds to God's invitation that matters. If an individual rejects Christ, they are under law and turn Orthodoxy into a gospel of works.

As to God's chosen pertaining to a racial bloodline, no. And yet there still is much I admit that I do not understand about God's dealings with Israel or the Jews that is ongoing. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 18:07, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

IOWs, this question is the subject beginning at Romans 4:1, What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?, and much of the book of Galatians. To thumbnail it, Abraham believed in the resurrection, and God reckoned it unto righteousness. That, evidently is all that is needed.

First, God promised Abraham an heir; then God told him to kill the heir. Abraham didn't know how God would fulfil his promise to multiply his seed as the stars of sky, yet it was every thought and intent of Abraham's heart to kill his only son. Somehow God resurrected Isaac from the dead. And by believing God, Abraham was saved. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 18:24, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok, there's a lot there. So the key for you is not that there is faith (with respect to our theoretical Jewish person) that the messiah has already visited, but faith that there will be a visit, and that visit will be -the- show - is this the 'believing in the resurrection' you mention? Semipenultimate (talk) 15:25, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

How does blood/ancestry factor into this? Why would a person who converts honestly to Judaism be treated differently as compared to, say, that convert's child or someone who can peg their family tree back to Maimonides? Semipenultimate (talk) 15:25, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Show trials

Really Rob? Show trials. So there is no way these guys are guilty even though, you know, they have actually admitted guilt? Aceⁱ⁹ 22:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for that those bad-asses, Mueller, Rosenstein, Strzok and company to go arrest those 34 Russian bogeymen living in Russia and bring them to American Justice. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 14:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

It is just you and Ken rattling around CP now. How sad. Aceⁱ⁹ 19:22, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

aaah, I'm might take some time off in the near future. I'm so disgusted with everything (not in the wiki world - in the world of information sources and Google fucking with my news sources and subscription accounts. 19:40, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Mueller report

So it is complete. Let me ask you Rob - is there anything that could shake you of the belief that Trump and his circle are just innocent people being persecuted by a conspiracy of forces? Anything? We all know you’re a raging hypocrite but if the report fingers Trump, without a doubt and backed by evidence, would you accept it? Aceⁱ⁹ 23:30, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

You should view this as an opportunity for citizen journalism. It's the dawn of a new era, now that the mainstream media has thoroughly and permanently discredited itself (per Schumpeter's theory of wp:Creative destruction. Mainstream journalism has become outmoded}.

This will be the #1 campaign issue insuring Trump's re-election. Let's compare my reporting on the Russiagaters against Rationalwiki's pursueing crank ideas. This is your opportunity to come clean and save RW's credibility as a viable source. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 00:23, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

dude, worry about your own credibility. You’re a raging hypocrite. RW will take care of itself. You need to look at yourself. Aceⁱ⁹ 00:45, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I am. I reviewed all my Trump-Russia, Obamagate, Muellergate, Russiagate, etc reporting, and compared it to Trump-Russia connection. It's not to late for RW to save face and delete it. My buddy Jeff Carlson just got hired by The Epoch Times, which has replaced NYT, Wapo, CNN & the BBC as the most authoritive news source of record. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 01:30, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm curious if we get to find out whose side Rosenstein was on all this time. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:2876:3C83:70A9:92EA (talk) 01:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Rob, this is going to hurt you a bit. "You should view this as an opportunity for citizen journalism. It's the dawn of a new era, now that the mainstream media has thoroughly and permanently discredited itself (per Schumpeter's theory of wp:Creative destruction. Mainstream journalism has become outmoded}." sounds like something Ken would say. Please don't be like Ken, no one should suffer that fate. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 01:50, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Rosenstein was on the side of preserving the integrity of the institution - the DOJ, along with Mueller, and now Barr, from the Obama era corruption. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 02:03, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

GrammarCommie:Valid point. Ken's been Cryin' Wolf for so long that's probably true. But I'm just trying back up my point so it can be included in economic text books, along with the buggy whip manufacturers, telegraph operators, gas station attendents, and others. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 02:17, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey, remember that time Obama canceled sanctions against a communist leader because he “liked him” and you lost it, proving that Obama was a socialist all along? Oh wait...... you see what a hypocrite you are? Aceⁱ⁹ 04:52, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Do I hear the sound of expectations being dashed to bits? 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:2876:3C83:70A9:92EA (talk) 12:21, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

It's almost as though Mueller had lied before about the Iraq war and in the end he is still a republican. Féinléiriú (talk) 12:27, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Keep stacking those conspiracy cards. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:2876:3C83:70A9:92EA (talk) 12:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I just didn't expect much, in Ireland we had the 'Tribunals' appointed by people on the same team as the accused and it never amounted to anything apart from making a lot of money for lawyers. Féinléiriú (talk) 12:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Amen.nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 22:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Question

Are you a Christian, Rob? Aceⁱ⁹ 19:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Yep. Jesus Christ is my Lord and personal Savior. Wouldn't have it any other way. You should check it out. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 20:50, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Nobs, that's so yesteryear, man, the new, hip lord and savior is the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Everyone knows that. — Oxyaena ^Harass 00:09, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Don’t you think supporting Trump is a betrayal of Christian values? Aceⁱ⁹ 00:36, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

According to Christians like Nobs verses like Ephesians 2:10 don't matter. — Oxyaena ^Harass 01:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Actually, if you wanna know the true meaning of life, God's purpose and plan, read Psalm 8. God, through Christ, is retaking the Earth from evil after Satan was cast down and made the Earth his abode (this explains Global warming, murder, rape, political corruption, etc). As to Trump, coincidentally I was reading some (see page 223) oppo on Trump last night. They claim, "Donald Trump Said He Had Never Asked God For Forgiveness And Spoke Casually About Holy Communion." Don't know what exactly they are trying to imply. All I know is, "Judge not, lest ye be judged." nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 17:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Wow, you quote that verse entirely unironically, even though you LOVE to judge others. Homosexuals, atheists, communists... etc etc etc Keep treading on, Nobs, keep treading on. — Oxyaena ^Harass 17:38, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Judge others? Commies? maybe. Atheists? they judge themselves. Gays? not so much. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 17:54, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Expounding further - this ties in with the discussion over at WIGO:CP right now. While I'm not judging an individual per Jesus's word, your applying Jesus's word to (even some organized) groups. A classic illustration of the different perceptions between Left and Right. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 18:00, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Jesus was a revolutionary socialist himself. Today's "prosperity gospel" is utterly contrary to Jesus' teachings. Jesus himself said "rich men won't enter the Kingdom of Heaven." Fundies don't pay much attention to their holy books now, do they? — Oxyaena ^Harass 18:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

So you're a Christian who has no problem with a vainglorious, lying, patently un-Christian leader? Aceⁱ⁹ 20:07, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men. Dan. 4:17. This explains Obama, Hitler, etc. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 21:12, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Nothing like a cryptic quote in an outdated form of English combined with mentioning Obama and Hitler in the same sentence to really get the point clearly. Féinléiriú (talk) 21:39, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

So you're a Christian who has no problem with a vainglorious, lying, patently un-Christian leader? Acei9 20:07, 3 April 2019 (UTC)Aceⁱ⁹ 21:46, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Jesus is my leader; if Jesus decides to put Trump in charge until he returns, Who am I to tell him his business? I 'sppose I could register a protest, but that might be a bit uppidity of me. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 22:49, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

so you’re a Christian that has no problem actively supporting a vainglorious, lying and patently unchristian president? Aceⁱ⁹ 00:12, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

^ you got nothing on the above? Aceⁱ⁹ 18:56, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

The point here, nobs, is to highlight the vast differences in your standards of evidence. All it takes for you to totally deny that Obama is a christian is one single piece of 'evidence' - like, say, a single blurry photo of his wedding ring. This is in spite of actual evidence that he goes to church, has knowledge of the contents of the bible, can cite actual scripture when spoken to about it, etc. Meanwhile, I believe there is literally nothing that will convince you that Donald Trump does not live by christian principles in any real way. Again, in spite of evidence in the form of his own words and deeds. Everything said by those you believe are your allies about everything is accepted uncritically; everything said by the opposition are the literal words of the devil. Understanding this about your approach to the world is the first step to growth. Semipenultimate (talk) 19:43, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Judge not, lest ye be judged.

I don't doubt that Obama's statements reflect the views of Michael Robinson (aka Michelle Obama) who was reared in a traditional Black Christian church. Obama, who colluded with Marxist professors, views are similar to Yassir Arafat, a cross between revolutionary atheist Marxism and Islam. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 23:52, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

"Michael Robinson (aka Michelle Obama)" Holy shit lads, we found one in the wild. DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 03:38, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Nobs was only JAQing off about the First Lady's birth gender on Conservapedia.[6] Nobs' true conspiracy-colors shine on RationalWiki where we don't censor him too much. Bongolian (talk) 03:47, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

C'mon, Michael Robinson was a linebacker for the Oregon State Beavers. [7] Democracy and Truth dies in darkness. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 15:36, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Look, I get that believing that Hillary Clinton has either personally murdered or ordered the deaths of upwards of 90 people or other blood libel about Democrats helps get the ignorant to the polls and keeps the clattering heads on Fox a-froth, but there is a substantial price to pay for giving up on facts and evidence in favor of a reliance on triggering visceral hatred based on half-truths, exaggerations and FUD as the party has since 1994. I only noticed it in the run-up to Iraq 2, when people who dared to state the truth within the party were sidelined. Newt Gingrich let to 'Alternate Facts' led to the entire parallel universe you live in now, where Obama runs a shadow government with George Soros when he's not raping children in a basement somewhere. The further you get from reality the harder the break will be when it comes. I was lucky, and got out before I had to force myself to believe things like 'I think Sarah Palin will make a GREAT Vice President'. Semipenultimate (talk) 15:42, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Question: Is WP revisiting its Reliable Source policy now, after the Mueller report? nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 16:24, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Which subsection in particular are you referring to? Semipenultimate (talk) 20:30, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Ken's mania

Why don't you or you someone else actually take heed of Ken's total mania? He has pretty much blanked out Recent Changes for 2 maybe 3 days straight? He's been editing for 8 hours straight as it stands and did a mammoth 15 hours yesterday. Are you afraid he'll get you banned again? Aceⁱ⁹ 23:19, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

"Crack attack… I want my money back!" Bongolian (talk) 00:36, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Cue nothing but white noise from Nobs. — Oxyaena ^Harass 05:38, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

"White Light/White Heat" Bongolian (talk) 07:31, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I've heard trolling is a bannable offense. Does this incude everyone on this talkpage? 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:1D8:7F7C:A69D:476A (talk) 07:45, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

"I Heard a Rumour" — Bananarama Bongolian (talk) 19:48, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

— Oxyaena ^Harass 20:01, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

And he is still going....why do you keep editing CP out interest? Ken has turned it into a complete joke. Do you think anyone is actually reading what you write over there with any seriousness? Anyone looking for serious information gets immediately confronted with Ken's droppings. Andy has pretty much given up. Aceⁱ⁹ 20:07, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Does Karajou still edit that hornet's nest, or no? Conservapedia is hardly considered relevant these days, the few remaining editors should pack up and leave, there's nothing of value being lost in doing so. — Oxyaena ^Harass 20:10, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

We all missed it, but Leonard Pitts of the Miami Herald (recently posted on MPR) unraveled a mystery. Pitts wrote,

that attempt to translate a conservative Bible so that Christians would no longer have to put up with all that welcoming the stranger and helping the poor you find in the King James Version. [8]

Andy's understanding of "conservativism" is Catholic, and he regards Protestantism as "liberal." nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 23:43, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Wow, people like Ray Comfort would have to disagree with him on that. Also, why not use the Douay-Rheims version then? — Oxyaena ^Harass 01:50, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Wait, you “all missed it”? Ken’s raving insanity over a 4 day period? Aceⁱ⁹ 06:48, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

oh I see - I miss read your post. But nothing to say about Ken’s disturbing behaviour? Aceⁱ⁹ 06:55, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Oxyaena: You got it. Douay-Rheims is conservative. King James is liberal. All things flow from this paradigm. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 15:40, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Well Andy's a Catholic as you say, I don't see the reason to be flippant. — Oxyaena ^Harass 17:15, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Respect

Bongolian's name will go down in history, his face will be put up on Mount Rushmore. Amen! — Dr. Ox ^{quack specialist} 02:01, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

A long time ago, in a wiki far far away.....

NOB WARS. — Oxyaena ^Harass 02:28, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Obama is gay?

Rob, you never fail to come up with more and more hilarity. Obama is a homosexual? Amazing... Aceⁱ⁹ 03:01, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

C'mon. You never saw the facts? nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 04:55, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Right, convicted liar with no evidence = “Obama must be gay!”

Con man, liar, cheat, adulterous huckster shown on multiple occasions to be guilty of fraud who hides his taxes and presides over an ethically dubious administration = “best president ever”.

You’re a fuck::ing retard, Rob. Aceⁱ⁹ 05:13, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry. That was the raw intelligence feed. Mark Dice supplies the proper context. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 16:32, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Mark "Did Lil Wayne & Drake Do a Gay Illuminati Sex Magick Ritual?" Dice? That Mark Dice?? Seriously? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:38, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Food for thought: looks like consuming raw intelligence gave a case of mind poisoning to Nobs. Bongolian (talk) 16:58, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

The raw intelligence was supplied by homosexual Obama loving commies. — Oxyaena ^Harass 17:04, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Then, after Larry Sinclair delivered this bombshell press briefing, Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden, son of 2020 Democratic presidential hopeful Joe Biden, had Larry Sinclair arrested in DC on some trumped bullshit charges to silence the truth from coming out. This is obviously an abuse of power and a case of hateful conduct and wrongful persecution toward a person based on their sexual orientation. Creepy Uncle Joe has much to answer for regarding the conduct of both his sons. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 17:06, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Creepy Joe has engaged in some pretty low behavior. I mean, his behavior is almost as low as advocating vagina-grabbing, calling African countries "shitholes," describing white nationalist marchers as "very fine people," denigrating NFL players who oppose racialized police brutality as "sons of bitches" and accusing American intelligence agencies of "treason" because they do their duty to investigate people who collude with foreign agents of a hostile anti-American country.Ty Incognito (talk) 01:34, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

(a) Show me a video of Trump grabbing a nine -year-old girl by the private parts in front of her parents and I'll convert to Marxism; (b) Trump did not call "African" countries shitholes, e.g. Canada is a shithole; (c) a complete fabrication; (d) any son-of-a-bitch who violates their contract should be fired; (e) name one Trump campaign official or worker who colluded with Russia or any hostile foreign power. There are plenty of Democrats, Clinton officials, and Obama administration officials who did collude with foreign powers before, during, and after the 2016 election, to subvert American democracy and elections. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 02:07, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

NFL player should be fired for protesting!

Kim Davis violating the law by protesting? CONSERVATIVE HERO! You’re such a fucking hypocrite. Aceⁱ⁹ 04:15, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Rob Smith is gay… and black.[9] Bongolian (talk) 04:19, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I've been outed. Please don't hate me jus cuz I'm black. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 19:28, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I thought I saw you in that tearoom cruising for rough trade! Bongolian (talk) 20:01, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Nobs is secretly Uncle Ruckus from The Boondocks in disguise. — Oxyaena ^Harass 20:25, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Would you have accepted this sort of dishonesty if Obama did it?

If Obama lied like this would you be ok with it? Aceⁱ⁹ 07:19, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry - try this. Aceⁱ⁹ 07:20, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I think we all know the answer to that. — Oxyaena ^Harass 12:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

You know, the eyes are amazing tools. With just the slightest bit of training, they can fail to see even the most glaring contradiction or hypocrisy. Semipenultimate (talk) 18:39, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Paywall. Sorry, my subscription The Washington Post ran out August 5, 1974, the day after Nixon resigned. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 21:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

That’s ok - as you well know Trump is the biggest crook the presidency has ever seen which is completely self-evident. Do you disagree? Aceⁱ⁹ 04:57, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Ok Smartypants, name one living American over 35, male or female, black or white, green orange purple or blue, or any one of 58 genders, who would make a better president. Name one. Just one. nobs^{I'm all yea'res}

Bernie Sanders. — Oxyaena ^Harass 13:09, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

George W. Bush. (I would have listed Barry Goldwater or Ronald Reagan, but they're both dead.) ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 13:18, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

You guys are all high. See, this is why it's too early to terminate the War on Drugs. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 13:43, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie *cough* *cough* Iraq War *cough* *cough* 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:9493:5967:B93C:4C3C (talk) 13:47, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

And of course you'd be outraged at the un-Christian vermin fascist Barack "Make Sure To Emphasize His Middle Name is Hussein" Obama if his Justice Department was making this bullshit argument in court. I thought you folks just hated concentration camps (excepting 1941-1945 here in the good old USA), especially the made up ones that he never built! Your boy does it, gosh golly, it's just butter and jam on your toast, isn't it? Semipenultimate (talk) 15:48, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Wow. Interesting debate. According to Wikipedia, Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt held citizens in concentration camps without trial. [10] Lesser known is the fact that FDR traded 81 German Jews from South America to Hitler for American citizens; the Jews likely perished in concentration camps. [11]

And those were all huge mistakes, yes, and people died as a result of it. We can both acknowledge this - there's no debate. I'm not blind to mistakes made by people with a D next to their name. And yet when it comes to anyone with an R by their name talking about diseased invasive vermin coming to steal what's ours, you demur. Semipenultimate (talk) 18:02, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I bring this up after watching The View during D-Day Commemorations, and what the dead bodies of American servicemen in France were fighting for. Needless to say, they neglected to mention all those dead were heterosexual white males, as the Army was segregated until 1947 and didn't allow gays in til 1993, while The View was mocking straight white males at the same time. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 17:13, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Trump has always been a paragon of fascist values. — Oxyaena ^Harass 17:30, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Well then, you're just a mind controlled brainwashed idiot. Do you vote in American elections? 18:07, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Not sure what it is you're saying here. Are you trying to ironically comment on the people of other races who also died during D-Day, since the Army, while segregated, still had black-only units, since that's what segregation means? Or do you feel like you are being wronged because you think it's madness that the price to be paid by straight white men so people that have been marginalized, scorned, murdered, hounded, fired, disowned, and imprisoned can live like free human beings in America is being mocked by strangers on television? Semipenultimate (talk) 18:22, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

How many Blacks are buried in Normandy? How many Blacks stormed the beaches? We can presume among some of the white males buried there, there likely is a few closet homosexuals. But they would have been booted out if discovered, as the hetero sexual white males who defeated Hitler and fascism deemed gays unfit to participate. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 19:30, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

It seems there were about 2,000 black soldiers at Normandy, at least amongst the segregated US Army; I have no idea of the numbers from Canada or the UK where such explicit segregation did not exist. Here is a story of just one of them, who isn't buried there, along with the several hundred of the men he saved on that beach. Instead he had to fight on back home for the recognition he and those other men deserved. So I can say that about 2,000 black soldiers in the US Army stormed the beaches at Normandy although that fact, per the article, is often written out of history. I cannot tell you how many were killed there. However given the casualty rate, it is safe to say that at least one of them is buried at Normandy, or at a minimum on the beach with the rest of the quiet dead. So, again, exactly what fucking point are you trying to make here? Semipenultimate (talk) 21:10, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

How many Blacks in combat roles? Blacks served primarily in support roles, transportation, supplies, kitchen, etc. Blacks did serve front line duty as occupation troops, after the straight white males killed the krauts (usually Ukrainians POWs in German uniform) and cleared towns. Blacks were specifically denied frontline combat duty - that's what segregation was. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 22:04, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

120,000 total in service, 708 KIA. You may or may not understand that war is an inherently fucked process, and soldiers working the rear echelon would be attacked just as readily by the enemy; supply line attacks are entry-level strategy and have been so since Napoleon. And the efforts of the 761st Tankers and Tuskeegee Airmen are well-documented. Yes, black Americans died for a country that scorned the fuck out of them upon return. Despite the best efforts of unreconstructed confederates, black Americans showed valor on all fronts of WWII. So, again, nobs, What. Is. Your. Point. Semipenultimate (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

How many Blacks are buried among the 25,000 at Normandy? Watch The View from June 6, 2019, America's most popular political program, from the the opening explaining the significance of what those combat heroes fought for, calling Trump a Nazi, followed by a segment calling white heterosexual men racists and fascists. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 01:52, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

This is how much I love you, nobs: I watched part of an episode of the View for you. 13 minutes and 12 seconds of my life I will never get back. I heard about Abby Huntsman's new twins, woo-hoo. Then some inane patter about Joy Behar's wearing of sunglasses due to her cataract surgery, good for her. Aw, then she was mean about how Trump looked terrible in his tux while in Britain, which, yeah, he looked stiff and awful. Then Whoopi talked about age 90+ vets parachuting on D-Day. Behar talks about how incredible the site is, and she's right. More patter about all the gear the troops had to carry, and they're right. Then the military cemeteries which they urge you to go to, and they're right. Freedom ain't free, which is right. The Germans don't apparently often come to the German section of the cemetery, which, sure? Whoopi encourages people to look into the history of World War II and said that people who couldn't vote here (i.e. black people) went and fought over there, and she's right. She says that Japanese people put into concentration camps here in the states enlisted anyway and fought in the war, because they still loved this country, and she's right about that, too. They then talk about Trump's continued habit of personally insulting anyone who dares to criticize him; i.e. Bette Midler is a "washed up psycho", which he does; he makes a point to personally insult all of his 'enemies'. Behar says it was rich for Trump, a known draft dodger, speaking at Normandy on D-Day, and yes, Trump's a draft dodger. Do I have to liveblog the remaining 22 minutes of the haystack until I come to the needle that has you so outraged, or can you simplify matters and just provide a quote or a timestamp for what's got you so particularly outraged? Semipenultimate (talk) 16:09, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Also here is the relevant part of the Congressional record where the names of the black Americans that are buried at the Normandy American Cemetery were recited. These men all fought there. They are buried there. When is it ever enough for you? Or will you now change your requirements again, out of the desperate fear of being proven wrong on the Internet, and you will now insist that all along you've actually meant black men who died on June 6th that are buried there? If that's the case, that man's name was SGT Willie Collins. He died on Utah. Here's his grave at Normandy. Will you cry fake news at this, I wonder? Is this enough for you to at last show some fucking human decency? Semipenultimate (talk) 16:33, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

"Whoopi encourages people to look into the history of World War II and said that people who couldn't vote here (i.e. black people) went and fought over there, and she's right."

Wrong. Blacks were denied combat roles until 1947. But thank you, you found one black of 25,000 buried at Normandy. Whether he was gay or straight is another question. How an African American got into a white combat unit at Utah beach remains unanswered.

You cut off a little too early. Whoopi & Behar get into a section on a men's rights movement, which evidently are made of straight white men who support Trump and are Nazis who stand against everything the heroism of the straight white men who gave their lives defeat Hitler. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 17:52, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

The 490th Port Battalion was a segregated unit, which the 'one black' you speak of was deployed in, that was called upon to establish port operations (i.e. unloading vast supplies, prepping for Mulberry harbors) while under fire on D-Day on Utah Beach as part of the invasion. It's American heroism, period, and I will not see you deny their existence. Although black men were denied roles in front-line combat units, you should fucking well know that combat engineers, transportation battalions, and every other person involved in war can come under fire at any time so don't conflate 'weren't deployed to front-line combat units' with 'denied combat roles'. When they came under fire they shot back with the weapons they were issued, and died just as readily as their white counterparts. I watched The View for you. The least you could do is read the fuck up on the links I've so lovingly provided to the names of American heroes who fought and died so you could be free. There are many black men buried at the NAC; I just wanted to pre-empt your moving the goal posts to redefine what you were seeking (i.e. moving from 'how many blacks are buried there' to 'how many blacks who died on June 6th are buried there'). Since the 320th, as one example, served with distinction on Utah Beach on D-Day, the men were entitled to be buried at the NAC. So there are many black men interred there, and from multiple units. Go read the link to the Congressional record. The names are real, and so were the units. Here's a brief account of the 490th's deployment between 1/1943 and 9/1945. Stop, stop, stop, stop denying the existence of black heroes on D-Day. Stop denying that black units were involved in the landing on D-Day. Stop denying that black American men fought and died in Europe. The record is plain. You are not correct in your understanding of it. Semipenultimate (talk) 18:24, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

No one has denied any of it. Your research is admirable, and very much appreciated. I just didn't see any Black faces in the opening sequence of Spielberg and Hanks Saving Private Ryan.

Yes, there were blacks in the opening day of D-Day. How many climbed up the cliffs as Behar reconstructed? Yes, there were many blacks among the one million across the channel in the first 11 days, but most served, like Pete Buttigieg did, in behind the front line combat roles - receiving combat pay and valors. No one is denigrating their (conscripted) heroism. But simple facts remain: Democrats segregated them. Democrats denied them frontline combat roles. And Democrat, only Democrats, denied them the right to vote. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 19:45, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

And now there's no point in talking about this any more, since you deny any realignment of the unreconstructed confederate citizens who opposed 'forced busing' and other race-mixing from the Democratic party to the Republican party in 1964 and 1968 as a result of the Civil Rights Act. You deny the primacy of Lee Atwater and his tactics in modern Republican strategy. The RNC even acknowledged this to the NAACP in 2005, but you deny that too. You deny that the purpose of modern Republican-led voter purges that throw out vastly more qualified voters than unqualified voters is to purge voters of color. Counties with seg schools in the south are brick-fucking-red, nobs, but you deny that too. It isn't Democrats defending monuments to Confederate traitors; it's the Republicans currently in power who are enraptured by their love for the Confederacy that are lying across the tracks for this. Pro-seg organizations like the CCC consistently recommend Republican candidates, but you deny that too. You presume a conspiracy vaster than than that which would be required for chemtrails to be real, that millions of Democrats are just poised and ready to throw black Americans in chains again, and every Republican who demonstrates public racism is just an undercover agent for the conspiracy assigned to discredit the cause. It's a point refuted a thousand times. Semipenultimate (talk) 20:23, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Your narrative is collapsing along with that racist segregationist Democrat frontrunner and scumbag, Joe Biden. Keep it up, if you wanna see Trump re-elected in 2020. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 02:31, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Speaking of The View, America's most watched political program, this morning they said we need more facts to determine the truth or falsity of fascist racist Democrat Joe Biden's segregationist proclivities; in the same breath they accuse Trump of calling for execution of the Central Park 5. Fact Check: Trump did not call for execution of the Central Park 5. Trump called for re-instatement of the death penalty with no reference to the Central Park 5. The Central Park jogger was raped, not murdered. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 18:12, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I'll explain it slow. In 1989, Trump called for the death penalty for the Central Park 5. He has refused to acknowledge that he is wrong, on this, or anything. He has no knowledge of reciprocity, or how that standard was set by the Supreme Court. He still maintains, to the present day, his belief that they are guilty because of the false confessions. So because he will not recant his initial positions that 1, they did it, and 2, they deserved the death penalty for it, yes, he still believes they should have been put to death for it. Semipenultimate (talk) 18:30, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Fact Check: Trumps full page ad makes no reference to the Central park 5 (it's called "presumption of innocence," something commie/libs forgot). The victim and prosecutor have not signed onto Bill De Blasio's pandering scheme, despite what commie propagandists like Ken Burns says.

There you are again with your befuck-ed standards! How many people did Hillary Clinton directly murder, again, despite never being convicted of a crime? 100, 200? After Vince Foster I lost track. Semipenultimate (talk) 21:15, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Fact Check: Vince Foster was murdered by the Mossad because he had been working with the Mossad since 1982 and took $2 million from them. When it became known to the FBI and IRS that Bill Clinton's White Counsel was an agent of a foreign power, he had to go. The Mossad whacked one of their own sources to avoid exposure in Congressional hearings. The White House, DOJ, Special Counsel, media, etc. acquiesced to the cover story in a case that would have resembled that of Jonathan Pollard.

As to what Foster did for the Mossad from 1982 on, answers available upon request. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 21:28, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Isn't it odd, that after three years of calling Trump a racist, the Democrat frontrunner has expressed segregationist sentiments. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 18:16, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

See, there's your bullshit double standard talking again. If Trump had said the same thing, would you be throwing out this bad-faith mock outrage? Semipenultimate (talk) 18:32, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Update: Politico is looking into Biden's past support of segregation. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 19:30, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Great! If there's anything concrete to find, I hope they find it. Comments about women, too; anything below the level of dignity required by the office. For example, if he were to allege to have such license with women that he could just reach under their skirt and grab them by their genitalia, that would certainly disqualify him from running for President in the eyes of a responsible electorate. Semipenultimate (talk) 21:20, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

If Trump groped your daughter, as he did other people's daughters, would you still throw away your integrity for him? — Oxyaena ^Harass 19:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

If if if. Fact: Biden is racist segregationist and serial sexual predator of children. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 21:16, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Fact: Biden is the latest of Democrat frontrunners, which includes Obama and Clinton whom Democrats anoint and trust, knowing nothing about them, their background, or views. With Trump, we knew what we're getting. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 21:18, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, we got a guy who alleges that he has such license with women that he could just reach under their skirt and grab them by the genitalia. Semipenultimate (talk) 21:22, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Perks of the job, be it Hollywood celebs or president of the United States. We thank Democrats, Bill Clinton, Harvey Weinstein and 45 Democrat Senators voting to acquit for this new law and precedent. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 21:32, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

"I learned it from watching you, Dad" is the last refuge of scoundrels. The golden rule ain't "Do unto others as they have done unto you", but maybe you grew up with a different bible. Semipenultimate (talk) 23:44, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I was actively involved in the effort to remove William Jefferson Clinton from office. I remember the day Democrats ruled Hollywood celebs and president's get a special pass for sexual misconduct. Like the tax laws, don't criticized Trump for taking advantage of the loopholes. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 00:05, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

At least Clinton never tore children apart from their families. Whatever happened to "family values," Nobs? — Oxyaena ^Harass 00:28, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

One word: Elian Gonzalez.

To Clinton's credit, he hated Jimmy Carter for the Democrats setting up concentration camps in Arkansas for Marial boat refugees with brown skin. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 01:52, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Trump thanks you for sacrificing your religious values to support his criminal ways. — Oxyaena ^Harass 01:54, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

You remember Eilan Gonzalez? the mother who drowned and risked the life of her young son fleeing Cuba's single payer healthcare system? nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 01:59, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Remember when Jesus said a rich man can't get into heaven? I do. — Oxyaena ^Harass 02:05, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Listen Rob

The GOP spent years sending up Obama for crimes like wearing a tan suit, ordering a burger with Dijon mustard, wearing a bike helmet and not wearing a tie. Trump has openly embraced treason. If Obama had said he'd accept dirt on another candidate from an adversary, not inform the FBI and go so far as to call the head of the FBI as incorrect you'd lose your shit. Aceⁱ⁹ 02:23, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

“This is my last election … After my election I have more flexibility” 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:9493:5967:B93C:4C3C (talk) 02:47, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Obama, Hillary, and Mueller all colluded with Russia to influence the 2016 election. And in Mueller's case, he colluded with Russia to interfere in the 2018 and 2020 elections. Ace, you still get your alternative facts from the mainstream fake news media. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 03:04, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Firstly Rob, Mueller wasn't involved with any of this until after the election. And secondly Rob I didn't get the facts about Trump admitting he'd take dirt from a foreign power from the media - Trump fucking said it himself. Doesn't matter what the source is Rob, Trump lies about everything and it isn't the reporting that's wrong, Trump lies. That's plain as day. If Obama did the same you'd e all over it. So I repeat - You're a raging hypocrite. Supporting a narcissist who has not only demeaned the office of the President but has turned the US into a total laughing stock. You have no values to uphold. You're a fucking sell out. Aceⁱ⁹ 04:10, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Wrong. Mueller scuttled the U1 scandal and signed off on the transfer of U1 assets to Putin. So were were Weissmann and Rosenstein. U1 was Hillary's biggest weakness, and Trump-Russia was manufactured to coverup Hillary's biggest weakness. As to Trump's comment, Free speech is not illegal, not even for Russians in Russia exercising it on Facebook. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 13:45, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Where are you getting this crap Rob? Cite your source. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:17, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Nobs, are you high? — Oxyaena ^Harass 14:26, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

All my sources are cited here: cp:Uranium_One_bribery_scandal#Robert_Mueller

And the cp:Oleg_Deripaska#Robert_Mueller case is closely related, particularly in conjunction with Manafort and FBI lawbreaking to violate sanctions. Rosenstein, Weissmann, and McCabe are also implicated in these scandals. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 17:41, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh yeah, CP is definitely a reliable source. — Oxyaena ^Harass 21:08, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Rob even if anything you said was true it in no way absolves Trump. He still lies about everything and admitted on camera he’d commit treason. You’re a sellout and a hypocrite. Aceⁱ⁹ 21:25, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

He said he wouldn't call the FBI everytime a foreigner wanted to talk to him about particular American politicians. How is Trump supporting free speech rights for non-citizens a bad thing? 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:B5DF:7DC1:C41:AA5 (talk) 22:45, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

There's something called "bribery" and "collusion," free speech does not apply here. — Oxyaena ^Harass 23:56, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Neither of which occurred with Trump (see Mueller report). Meanwhile Hillary actually paid a foreign spy for oppo dirt. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:B5DF:7DC1:C41:AA5 (talk) 00:33, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

OK!! TIME OUT TIME!! The FBI report stated that while Trump was evasive and uncooperative, and while members of the 2016 Trump campaign did indeed confess to meeting with Russian nationals, THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CHOSE NOT TO INDICT. That's it, end of story. I wrote a whole post in my best NPOV about this in the saloon bar just a few days after it was announced. Why? Because idiots like you exist. A lack of indictment does not equate to a not guilty verdict. Everyone understand that? Good! ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 00:50, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Way to misrepresent what I said. I'm not talking about what Mueller did or didn't conclude at the end, I'm talking about the overall text of the Mueller report. Read it. None of the actions documented even approach the accusations of "bribery and collusion". So instead what people are left with is framing the mere fact of meeting with foreign nationals as treasonous. The rhetoric is so far removed from reality it's ridiculous, really. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:B5DF:7DC1:C41:AA5 (talk) 01:35, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Shifting of the goalposts noted, we're talking about Trump's comment here, not what he did in the 2016 election. — Oxyaena ^Harass 02:36, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I will not even deign to comment on the Mueller slurs until after whoever wants to discuss it reads this from the Federalist: Special Counsel Case Against Russian Company Takes A Page Out Of The Soviet Handbook, and we discuss that article , first. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 03:05, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Mill seems to be arguing that foreign agents should have the freedom to invest in their preferred candidate by publishing their opinions but, for a foreigner, "Making any contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or making any expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement in connection with any federal, state or local election in the United States" is very illegal. Foreigners can't spend a dime promulgating their political opinions about a candidate. That includes buying ads on Facebook. Ariel31459 (talk) 03:58, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Ok, we'll wait for the court to rule on the Concord case. Now, explain how Michael Cohen paying $130,000 to a hooker is an illegal campaign donation, and how the Clinton campaign paying $168,000 to Christopher Steele (who then paid money to Russian sources) is not a campaign contribution (Skanky Daniels is an American citizen, Steele and his Russian sources are not). nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 04:34, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Firstly - hypocrisy again from Rob. “But but Clinton!” While ignoring the utter debasement of the presidency from the actual president. Secondly ‘’Skanky’’ Daniels? Sure, she’s no Kara Duhe but.....Aceⁱ⁹ 07:36, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

So you can't answer the question, and support the Soviet/CCP style anti-democratic single party playbook of the Mueller gang and Obama police state? nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 08:12, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

At least you admit Cohen did it and Trump lies about it. But don’t throw new questions at me without answering the question I have posed to you over and over....would you have accepted all these lies (10000 at least) from Obama. Lie after lie after lie. And no, I can’t stand Clinton but Trump is far and away more demeaning in his conduct as president. Why are you ok with it? Because you’re a fucking hypocrite and a sell-out. Aceⁱ⁹ 08:17, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Cohen did. All I know is the evidence was gathered by illegal FISA 702 abuse. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 08:23, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

See. in Cohen's case, there was illegal surveillance supposedly to find a Putin connection. All they came up with was a payoff to a hooker. Then they had to stretch the law to get a conviction, cover their ass, and hope he had something to spout leading to impeachment. It didn't work. Flynn, Papadopolous, and Manafort will all get pardons on November 4, 2020, the day after the election (win or lose); Cohen may have to wait a few years, if ever. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 08:28, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

All they came up with was a payoff to a hooker. Which Trump fucking lied about. Honestly Rob, how are you so incapable of this? Aceⁱ⁹ 09:20, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

The courts, the FEC, and 45 Democrat Senators all say its okay for a public official to lie about sex in order to protect a poor elected official and victim's marriage, wife and family. What planet have you lived on the past two decades? nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 16:45, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

So you are ok with being lied to, repeatedly. Glad you cleared that up. So you’re a sell-out without values. Aceⁱ⁹ 22:37, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

You got me there. I thought Trump was gonna nuke Iran. He lied. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 23:58, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Notable quotable

"Grab em by the pussy." - Donald Trump — Oxyaena ^Harass 02:46, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

You left out the operative phrase, "They let you..." nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 03:14, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

You left out the part about his ten thousand lies. I'm sure you take his word for it that they let him...were you ever really a conservative? Trump never was one. Ariel31459 (talk) 03:33, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I dunno. But if you really want to beat Trump, you guys are asking all the wrong questions and barking up the wrong trees. All you are really doing is driving moderate Democrats out of the party. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 04:37, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

You have this remarkable ability to avoid answering to your hypocrisy. Trump lies with every statement. You seem fine with it. Would you be fine with Obama doing the same? Come on, answer that you twisted cunt. Aceⁱ⁹ 07:02, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Well honestly, I've listened to Trump a little more since the Mueller witch hunt ended. You always ask about Trump lies, but I really don't listen to him speak that much. And I sure as fuck don't believe bullshit fake news media reports about what he says, which evidently you do. I only pay attention to what he says about the coup attempt, foreign policy issues dealing with mostly with Iran and North Korea, and trade issues with China. I am paying a bit more attention his remarks on the Fed and interest rates. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 08:21, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Listen Rob, And I sure as fuck don't believe bullshit fake news media reports about what he says, which evidently you do. none of this is "fake news" - these are words out of his mouth we are directly contradictory to other things he says. It isn't some media beat up - it's his own fucking words. Drop all diversions and answer the fucking question - would you have put with Obama lying directly to you? It's a simple question. Aceⁱ⁹ 09:22, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Lol, Obama's the one who normalized the boastful hyperbole and lies you keep complaining about. "This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal." "If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor." -His own fucking words. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:B5DF:7DC1:C41:AA5 (talk) 11:09, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

OK great, you’re mad because Obama lies. So now, about this current president....Aceⁱ⁹ 12:00, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

With Obama I had high hopes, and he managed to trash every last one of them. With Trump I had no hopes, so every positive development is a pleasant surprise. And as it turns out, he's pretty good at being surprising. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:B5DF:7DC1:C41:AA5 (talk) 14:46, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Amen. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 16:32, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Yah. Trump's secret plan to make Mexico pay for the wall invoked Nixon's secret plan to end the Vietnam War. Now we know what it is: tariffs. And just as Nixon's detente laid the ground work for the end of the Cold War, Trump's tariffs are laying the ground work to end the post-Cold War globalization that nobody but a handful of international oligarchs are happy with. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 16:38, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

So Obama - not allowed to lie. Trump ok to lie. Hypocrite thy name is rob. Aceⁱ⁹ 22:38, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Maybe I bitched about Obama lying once, but among 65 million idiots who voted for Obama and lie to themselves daily, it's not worth repeating twice. Everything else is an echo chamber. I'll pray for you. 23:55, 22 June 2019 (UTC)nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 23:55, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

RobS, ok with treasonous presidents who lie, enrich themselves, engage in extreme nepotism all the while prostrating themselves to hostile powers and autocratic despots. I would like to say you’ve fallen so far but you didn’t have far to go. Aceⁱ⁹ 00:09, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Btw if lying is so bad, how do you feel about slander? 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:B5DF:7DC1:C41:AA5 (talk) 00:21, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

If you’re suggesting I’m committing slander then you’d be wrong. Aceⁱ⁹ 02:05, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

A boldfaced lie if ever I saw one. :P 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:B5DF:7DC1:C41:AA5 (talk) 03:25, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Which part was slander? Aceⁱ⁹ 04:07, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

The only part which wasn't hyperbole or lie was "who lie". Trump works in the best interest of the US and donates his salary to veterans programs. Also curious what's extreme about Ivanka working an unpaid job. You're free to critique Trump whenever he's "too pally" with non-democratic foreign leaders, but if you think he's prostating himself you might be confusing him with Obama. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:B5DF:7DC1:C41:AA5 (talk) 04:59, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

In addition to everything you claim about Trump, you're also clearly slandering nobs there. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:B5DF:7DC1:C41:AA5 (talk) 05:07, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Given Rob fails to answer a simple fucking question which I keep asking, and his silence on Trump ridiculous lies means I'm not slandering - I'm taking his silence as complicity. Secondly we now have Trump abdicating on moral leadership. You think Obama prostated himself but we have Trump being a fawning pen-pal with NK while letting S Arabia get away with murder. You fucks have sold out all moral high-ground for power. I'm an atheist and my morals are far more decipherable then the milieu of confused signals you fucks can manage. Aceⁱ⁹ 02:02, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

(1) I have no response to an alleged list of supposed lies compilied by the NYT or any other fake news source; (2) I'd be delighted to discuss the Democratic Socialist Republic of Korea (DPKR); (3) same as with Saudi Arabia. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 02:44, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I have no response to an alleged list of supposed lies compilied by the NYT or any other fake news source OK Rob, let's unpack this. I don't have list of of supposed lies compilied by the NYT I'm talking about how the words and sentences Trump says are clearly at odds with what is actually happening, as well contradictory to his own words. They aren't supposed lies complied - they are actual, demonstrably provable lies. Aceⁱ⁹ 03:40, 24 June 2019(UTC)

Yep. I know. Like when he said, "Russia, if you're listening....blah blah blah" You still take any of that shit seriously? nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 04:40, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Since you keep bring up Obama and Trump in the same sentence, and are so passionately concerned about the truth, How do you interpret what the incumbent president Obama said when he said, "We are going to reward our friends and punish our enemies"? Who was the president speaking of when he referred to "our enemies"? Russia? The Islamic State? Al Qaeda? China? Republicans? Deplorables? I thought he was supposed to be president of all the people? Was he joking? Lying? Engaging in hyperbole? nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 04:53, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘BoN is quite ignorant here. 1. It would be libel (written) not slander (oral). 2. The subject himself needs to claim libel. 3. The alleged libelous statement needs to be false, and defamatory, and proven in court. Bongolian (talk) 02:15, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Does RationalWiki have an article on appeal to legal definitions yet? Because it should probably have one. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:B5DF:7DC1:C41:AA5 (talk) 03:31, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Who will be the anointed one

Hey Ace, you're a prime commie source for what's going on over there in the Democrat party. Gimme a rundown as to what's gonna happen. Who will be the final 8 after the Third Debate, the final 5 going into February, the final 3 emerging out of New Hampshire, the final 2 after Super Tuesday, and the final frontrunner. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 03:58, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I’m not sure how think I’m a source for what’s happening with the Democratic Party. Aceⁱ⁹ 04:08, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Shit, I thought I had my fingers on the pulse of the latest commie agitprop when we talk. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 06:36, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

one would think that for someone so obsessed with 'commies' you would have at least some inkling of what 'commie' meant what they are, what they they think or believe. but nope. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:52, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Nobs' personal hero is Joe "I have a little list..." McCarthy after all. — Oxyaena ^Harass 12:34, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm trying to get a first hand update from knowledgeable sources about what's going on on the left side of the spectrum. However, it seems to have entered a time warp about two and half years ago, and the only feedback is "orange man bad". Seriously, you guys need a some jumper cables or anything over there? nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 14:49, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

It isn't just lefties whining about Trump: "last week at the 94th annual CEO Summit, put on by the Yale School of Management’s Chief Executive Leadership Institute, the survey also showed that two-thirds of the CEOs surveyed feel that political instability—not trade—is the biggest threat to American business. The same amount of respondents reported they felt that Trump isn’t effectively leading the country on national security issues, with a majority saying they think he’s been outsmarted by Russia and North Korea." --some commie at Fortune. Is any Republican member of Congress less conservative than Trump? Hard to say.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:02, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Ok, we'll put that down as in the pro-nuclear war camp.

So, the ultimate question is, What is the greatest national priority, climate change or nuclear proliferation? If climate change, that means submitting to nuclear blackmail from North Korea, Iran et al; if nuclear proliferation, that means ending the kumbahyah of globalization. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 17:54, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Since American CEOs are the Republican's bosses, I guess you are admitting that Trump runs the pro-nuclear war camp? Nice. Deranged, but nice.Ariel31459 (talk) 23:00, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Not true; American CEOs are globalist-socialists, and its been trending that way since the Clintons. Republicans are the party of the common man working people Blacks are odd-man-out, they are conservative, believe in God, family, community, law and order, morality, etc. Now that they see what aligning with the LGBTQs has got them, many are rethinking their positions. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 23:13, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

American CEOs have directed the course of both parties for decades. And American politics has continuously shifted to the left. So what does that tell you? 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:B5DF:7DC1:C41:AA5 (talk) 14:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Your statement tells me that you're delusional. Which party has a hard-on for tax cuts? Which party pushes for corporate tax breaks? Which party is predominately "pro-business"? Which party ignores climate scientists and loosens regulations for fossil fuel companies? Which party killed Net Neutrality to help network companies increase their profits? Hint, which party does the president and vice president belong to? Socially there is a recent left-wing drift, but politically, in the legislature, there is a very definite right-wing slant. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Have you looked at the corporate funding both parties receive? It's insane. What has the conservative party actually conserved, which communities are better off thanks to the progressive party? They may have different policy platforms, but the parties haven't served the common man in ages. And whether by design or by accident (probably a mix of both) the corporate interests calling the shots have allowed the Overton window to shift way to left. That's a simple fact. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:B5DF:7DC1:C41:AA5 (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

If you're talking social attitudes and corporate backing of left-wing ideas, then that's bullshit. More specifically the corporate backers only back left-wing ideas because they're profitable at the moment, and will just as easily back right wing ideas (like reduced corporate taxation, estate tax immunity, reduced regulations, etc) if it were to benefit them. Both parties are corrupt, but one is more corrupt than the other. Further, you make the mistake in assuming corporations are the ones driving social progress (they aren't), rather than noticing that they are merely exploiting existing social attitudes for their own gain, just as they have done for centuries. Corporations only started supporting LGBT rights for example, after activists and legislators had pushed through all the hard work, and not one second before. Why? Because backing the underdog isn't profitable unless the underdog wins. Then, and only then is the underdog a safe investment. You make the mistake of assuming they care which side wins, when in fact they're double-dealing and profiteering in every area they can, not one area in particular. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:57, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Masterpiece Bakery

That's crap. A small baker is powerless against Big Tech and social media. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 16:53, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

That baker was homophobic. If a baker tried to use that same explanation to not make a cake for a person of color, the reaction would not only be the same but also justified. Social media has only amplified people's shitty opinions. Maybe we should treat humans with dignity and respect, then racists and homophobes would be able to keep their businesses. --RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:44, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Nobs, would you still support Trump if he launched the nuke today? — Oxyaena ^Harass 20:54, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

RipCityLiberal: The Supreme Court said he's not homophobic, so fuck ya.

Oxyaena: Depends against who?

RipCityLiberal: In fact, the Supreme Court found leftist liberal commie progressives violated the baker's civil, Constitutional, and human rights. 23:28, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

(Reset) The Supreme Court is not the arbiter of what is or isn't homophobia. They did send the decision back to the lower court because their may have been prejudice against the baker, which is fair. But the point remains, if that is acceptable for gay people, then it will be for people of color, people with different religious beliefs and ethnicities. Imagine if a Polish baker said they wouldn't make a cake for an Irish couple. It'd be just as stupid.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:11, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

(Psst. Bakers are not obliged to bake customized cakes on demand. Standard cakes were offered and declined.) 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:B5DF:7DC1:C41:AA5 (talk) 16:30, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I see we're conflated small and big businesses... ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:32, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

When we make it acceptable to deny business to people based on religious objections to sexual orientation, we open ourselves to other religious objections based on other arbitrary bullshit.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Morris, would you be upset if a baker refused to make you a wedding cake because of your religion or ethnicity? — Oxyaena ^Harass 17:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

So if a business cites religious beliefs as informing their decisions the law should step in to make it illegal, but if they refuse to enable gay identity/culture because they think gay people are inherently predetermined to have tougher lives so the solution is mass abortion to prevent suffering that's fine because it's not religious? 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:B5DF:7DC1:C41:AA5 (talk) 17:41, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

That federalist piece...woof. Definitely an example when thought experiments go off the rails into bullshit. Especially considering there is no test to determine if a fetus is gay. Also neglects the whole gender is a spectrum.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:58, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Scientists have tied select genes to a higher likelihood of homosexuality, so designing a test is pretty simple. And while such a test wouldn't tell you with certainty how the child would turn out, if abortions are a-okay as a practice then increased likelihood is plenty of justification to go ahead and throw the baby out with the bathwater. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:B5DF:7DC1:C41:AA5 (talk) 18:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

So, in other words, evasion? Classy. — Oxyaena ^Harass 17:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

What evasion? I'm inquiring about your positions. People always single out whenever religion is involved, but there's plenty of non-religious discrimination waiting right around the corner, often well-intentioned too. How much are you willing to make illegal? 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:B5DF:7DC1:C41:AA5 (talk) 18:35, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

My question was specifically directed towards you, David, not the other way around. — Oxyaena ^Harass 18:39, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

If you mean to address me, perhaps don't use random names? As to your question, my opinion is that "offense" is not a basis for legislation. Blatant discrimination might be, but the idea that government should mandate partaking in the celebration of select government-approved ideologies/identities/cultures is completely insane. I'm sure you wouldn't want to be forced to fly a US flag on your property if this goes against your sensibilities. Well, the same applies to LGBT flags. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:B5DF:7DC1:C41:AA5 (talk) 18:47, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

BON this isn't the argument you think it is. First, it's not a celebration, it's a product. If you offer a product in exchange for money, you can't deny that product because of religious objections. if that offends you stop offering the product. Second, government doesn't "approve" of an ideology, or culture. That's kind of the point of things like the Bill of Rights. Lastly, I see American Flags all over the place where they don't belong, as well as crosses, but I keep moving on because it isn't harming me. This is definitely not harming you.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:56, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

But if the government demands that you bake a customized cake celebrating gay marriage (again, standard cakes were offered and declined) that would be the de facto reality, regardless of whether the people involved intended to create a government-mandated celebration of an identity. No baker who offers customized cakes as an option is going to agree with every concept the customer has in mind. Why should the baker's personal discretion end where their religious beliefs begin? 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:B5DF:7DC1:C41:AA5 (talk) 19:11, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

So it's contract law. Under what circumstances can an offeree withdraw his offer? nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 19:16, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

For example, if I were a baker with a legal problem and sat done with a lawyer to discuss my case, and gave him no money, and he ultimately declined to accept my case - for whatever reason - can I sue? nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 19:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

If their reason is in any way, shape or form related to their personal religious beliefs then yes apparently. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:B5DF:7DC1:C41:AA5 (talk) 19:29, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

So (a) under what statute, federal or state, or code of conduct, would a lawyer be sued? Could the defendant argue privilege for a client he never took money from? Would the lawyer bringing suit possibly be in violation of the bars own code of conduct? nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 19:47, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

BON, we have a literal fascist in office, with a homophobic VP. The government is most definitely not pro-LGBT. — Oxyaena ^Harass 19:54, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

You're wrong on both counts, but you also seem to have completely missed my point. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:B5DF:7DC1:C41:AA5 (talk) 20:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

How is a government that banned transgender people from the military pro-LGBT? Don't be so ridiculous. — Oxyaena ^Harass 20:03, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

(reset) JFC Y'all are just whipping out the word salad aren't you. The government isn't "demanding" anything. There are laws that say you can't discriminate based on race or sex. In certain states these rights have been expanded to gender and sexual orientation. In these instances, the baker discriminated against a couple. So they were taken to court for violating the law. Two particular cases reached SCOTUS, in the case of the Colorado baker, it was remanded to a lower court because there may have been prejudice from regulators (which definitely needs to be addressed). The Oregon case as I understand was remanded because the penalty was excessive. Either way both of these people are bigots, trying to hide behind religious objection. It's also not new, Southern Whites tried to hide behind religious objections against serving black people, and many right-wing Evangelicals tried to use religious objections to deny rights to women. Both of you are obfuscating the question bringing in questions about legal clients and privilege, so I'll repeat. If you attempted to purchase something from a hardware store, and when you went to pay they told you they don't sell products to white christians, would that be ok?--RipCityLiberal (talk) 20:04, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Just as we can stop anthropocentric climate change through legislation we can stop anthropocentric sex reassignment through legislation. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 20:13, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Looks like someone is unfamiliar with the meaning of "word salad". As for obfuscation, that's precisely what you've been doing. The Colorado baker didn't refuse anyone services, they simply refused to make specific cakes. If an atheist baker doesn't want to make cakes involving religious themes that'd be fine with me. If a vegetarian baker doesn't want to make cakes about religious ritual slaughter that's fine with me. If a Jewish baker doesn't want to make a cake spelling out "Christ is Lord" that's again fine with me. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:B5DF:7DC1:C41:AA5 (talk) 20:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not even gonna try to figure out what nobs is babbling about. As for the BON, both the Oregon and Colorado baker offer, among their services, wedding cakes. That's it. Nothing religious at all. They both objected based on their own religious beliefs. By inserting their religious beliefs in a simple transaction, they violated the law. There isn't really much else to these cases. And the examples you presented didn't apply to you. I'm asking you directly, would it be fair for someone to discriminate against your religious beliefs.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:05, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Weddings are traditionally a deeply religious matter (and secular weddings to this day are still closely modeled after religious weddings), so you have the injection backwards. It's perfectly natural for a religious man to reject what they perceive as a secular mockery of religious tradition. And again, I have no interest in coercing others to express/endorse my beliefs or something of a similar effect if it's against their will. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:B5DF:7DC1:C41:AA5 (talk) 22:23, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

It's simple: If I request the services of a lawyer, and he turns me down, did he break a law? Religion, or any other cause for refusal has nothing to do with it, nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 22:32, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Weddings have a religious element, but for all intents and purposes it is a legally binding contract because we don't have religious laws in this country. A lawyer is well within his rights to not represent you if they choose. But it would be a crime if the lawyer said, "I'm not going to represent you because my religious beliefs", that breaks the law in these cases. --RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

So let me get this straight: I go to a baker and say, "Bake me a cake," and he says "No," that's a crime. I go to a lawyer and say, "Represent me," and he says "No," that's just fine. So, there are protected industries, I imagine. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 01:04, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

If you go to a baker and say, "Bake me a cake," and he says, "No," that is not a crime. If he says, "No, you're gay/my religion/etc.," that is a crime. Likewise, if a lawyer doesn't represent you, that is his business decision. If he doesn't represent you because of his religious beliefs, then he is opening himself up to legal repercussions. And of course, you would have to bear the burden of proof when claiming they aren't servicing you because of their beliefs.Osha^wottalot 04:35, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect. SCOTUS has ruled it is not a crime. Secondly, what 'repercussions' are available to sue a lawyer? Thirdly, most all businesses reserve the right to refuse service to anyone (posting a sign is a separate issue). Fourthly, a business does not have to give a reason for refusal. Fifthly, Did the baker exercise his Constitutional right to the free exercise of religion to the gay couple, or the state Human Right's Commission? Sixthly, the fact the gay couple targeted a Christian baker, drove many miles with other wedding bakers in between, opens them up to charges of harassment, damages for legal bills, and a hate crime.

The case illustrates the problems with leftism; leftists want to destroy anyone who opposes the way they think. They are intolerant. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 05:27, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

It was leftists who ended Jim Crow, try again. — Oxyaena ^Harass 06:13, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Not entirely. It was a coalition. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 06:16, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

The Southern Strategy says hi, Nobs. — Oxyaena ^Harass 10:29, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

You do not have a fucking clue what you are talking about. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 10:58, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Steve King says hi, Nobs. — Oxyaena ^Harass 11:40, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Say hi to cp:Ilhan Omar. Next you're going to make some inane statement that Iowa was a Jim Crow state. Go back to school Better yet, get homeschooled. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 12:13, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

LMFAO. Omar criticized Israel for its racist treatment of its ethnic minorities, and people jump on her as "anti-Semitic." There's a difference between Zionism and Judaism, you know. Many American Jews are Anti-Zionists. And what, you want me to become a student of the Schlafly way? Please. — Oxyaena ^Harass 13:07, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

The Omar page needs updating. I get reports on her racism daily. I can't keep up with them. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 14:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, assuming we are talking about this case, SCOTUS did not rule it is not a crime. They ruled that the Commission was not acting neutrally in regards to religion, and because of that they reversed the decision. They did not make any major ruling on anti-discrimination laws and the First Amendment because of the lack of neutrality. This should also be where I say my intent was to provide a simple summary/clarification because it appeared that you did not quite understand RipCityLiberal's last post. As for the protected industries, I believe that would be those that are not subject to anti-discrimination laws.

Secondly, the repercussions would be whatever legal actions you could take when a lawyer doesn't take your case because of his religious beliefs. I don't really know much about law, but I imagine that would be suing him or his practice on those anti-discrimination laws.

Thirdly, I'll admit I forgot businesses could do this and did not consider it. However, if I am arguing that the business is withholding service because of a religious belief, wouldn't this point be irrelevant? Because the business is already proven to be discriminating.

Fourthly, you are correct, a business does not have to give a reason for denying service. My argument relies on the business choosing to give a reason that happens to go against an anti-discrimination law.

Fithly, I am not sure what that question is or what you mean by it. Would you please clarify this for me?

Sixthly, the Wikipedia article doesn't state anything about their knowledge of the bakery or their trip to the bakery and past others, so I can and will neither confirm nor deny that. Assuming they did target a Christian baker, I'm not sure if it would open them up to harassment charges considering the establishment's discriminatory policy. At the very least it would probably be difficult to prove in court should the baker try to make such allegations.Osha^wottalot 10:11, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Bingo. The state Civil Rights Commission ignored the baker"s constitutional rights, discriminated, and ignored the hate crime committed by the gay couple. Good luck finding a lawyer willing to sue another lawyer. In the legal profession, the whole object is to find settlement between two lawyers - and avoid asking a third party (a judge) rule on their disputes. As to the fourth point, I imagine the scenario went down something like this:

The gay couple asked for the baker's services. They baker said "No." The couple may have inquired "Why?" he said "religious grounds." The couple filed a complaint with the Civil Rights Commission, (the theory being their case was similar to blacks denied lunch counter service in the early 1960s). When the state CRC investigated, the baker gave the same reason. This case is between the baker and the CRC, not the gay couple ("Congress shall make no law...etc.").

The Fifth point is answered by you providing the wiki link: the baker was exercising his constitutional right to the CRC when they investigated. Lastly, I heard somewhere the gay couple drove something like 70 miles to another town (the baker may have refused service to other gay couples earlier, word got around in the gay community, and he was targeted by this couple for a CRC complaint. The baker has not complained to the police or the CRC thus far of being the target of a hate crime, but I would suspect another test case on that issue is in the offing somewhere in the United States in coming years or decades. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 11:29, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Not to belabor the point, this case is similar to the Hobby Lobby ruling: SCOTUS recognizes that some businesses are protected under the free exercise of religion clause, that God instructed his followers to start a cake shop or retail hobby shop to employ people and provide a service to the community. Such a business can be a greedy capitalist for-profit enterprise. It's an advantage that atheists foolishly ignore. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 11:53, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how you can call this case similar to the "Hobby Lobby" case. In this case SCOTUS didn't recognize any new or more broad protections under the free exercise clause. They ruled the Commission wasn't neutral. Several of the Justices indicated that if the Commission was neutral, they might have ruled in favor of the Commission. Justice Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion, the baker "might have his right to the free exercise of his religion limited by generally applicable laws". So if we want to compare this to Hobby Lobby, it's almost close to the exact opposite. If the Commission wasn't a little too zealous in demanding repayment, it was very possible SCOTUS could have recognized that the free exercise of religion cannot be used to deny service to anyone. As it stands, we have a whole lot of nothing with this case. Nothing but extra care paid to make sure the government is neutral.Osha^wottalot 13:09, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

From the Wikipedia page,

Responding to lower court judges' suggestion that the purpose of for-profit corporations "is simply to make money", the court said, "For-profit corporations, with ownership approval, support a wide variety of charitable causes, and it is not at all uncommon for such corporations to further humanitarian and other altruistic objectives."[44] The court rejected the contention that "the Nation lacks a tradition of exempting for-profit corporations from generally applicable laws," pointing to a federal statute from 1993 that exempted any covered health care entity from engaging in "certain activities related to abortion".[45]...The court held that the HHS contraception mandate substantially burdens the exercise of religion..."'

Masterpiece Cake is built on the Hobby Lobby precedent. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 14:17, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

IOWs, two guys with a tube of KY jelly don't trump a child of Jesus. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 14:25, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Post mortem

(reset)Thank you @Oshawottalot for engaging with my exact same arguments, so one of us can handle this shit while the other is living. Masterpiece is trying to use the same constitutional argument as Hobby Lobby, but the facts of the case are fundamentally different. Hobby Lobby was arguing a law about providing reproductive healthcare to women violated their religious beliefs. And SCOTUS made a narrow ruling pertaining to closely held private corporations. Masterpiece (And the Oregon case as well I think) argue that non-discrimination laws passed in their states, are unconstitutional. In neither case did SCOTUS say their laws were unconstitutional, only that the fines were excessive and the CO commission was prejudiced, which I think is fair. Rob I continue to be astounded that your logical arguments somehow manage to be worse than Kevin Kruse's personal plaything. You have a wild misunderstanding of Hate crime laws, as well it has been Conservatives in the state hunting for ways to manipulate the CRC law in Colorado. Overall, a lot of your thought experiments could be solved by these bigots rater simply; lie. But when you are under the belief that being cis-white christian is "normal" than you believe everyone should accommodate you. Also denying the Southern Strategy is so laughable to border on pathetic.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:13, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Not to be redundant, but in both Hobby Lobby and Masterpiece case the argument is that their founding and operation of a business is a free exercise of religion, protected under both the First Amendment and the 1994 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (IOWs, the businesses never would have been founded, operated, hired people, provide services, and pay taxes, if not for some religious driving principal, not just "to make money," which is a common secular atheist motivation). Secondly, you evidentially do not understand that religion is protected by hate crime legislation.

As to the so-called Southern strategy, I've litigated this discussion for over ten years on both RW and CP. My experience is that facts are irrelevant to arguing with bigots over this. Unless you have something new to add, commenting on it would again be redundant. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 17:51, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

@RipCityLiberal actually right now there are studies checking the link between genetics and sexuality Link. While it's far from scientific fact right now there could betests in the future for this kind of thing. Commie Lib (talk) 18:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

@Tabula Rasa Interesting, but dangerous if used incorrectly (which it absolutely fucking will)

Hate crime's require an aggravating factor. Being sued doesn't count. Also this is all you need https://twitter.com/KevinMKruse/status/993475124618825728 RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:41, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Drawing a swastika on a bathroom wall is a hate crime, with no specific target. Getting in your car and driving 70 miles and saying, "Hey, looks go fuck with them Christians," is a crime motivated by hate, particularly if it results in monetary damages. And it was the bakery that brought the suit against the CRC. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 18:50, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Are you sure they even knew it was a Christian bakery? — Oxyaena ^Harass 05:26, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Those are background facts; the baker evidently turned down gays before. and was specifically targeted by this couple. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 06:34, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

So who's the bigot here then? — Oxyaena ^Harass 07:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

It's a wash. And it's hard to determine who was a bigot first. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 13:32, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Well given the Christian baker has a history of discrimination, I don't think it's difficult to figure out, Nobs. — Oxyaena ^Harass 15:55, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

The Christian's history of discrimination is protected by God; the gays set out with the malicious intent to cause harm and commit a hate crime. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 16:47, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Bullshit, what happened to loving the sinner as you would your own brother?

"Cause harm and commit a hate crime." You mean try to buy a fucking wedding cake? What's wrong with you? — Oxyaena ^Harass 19:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

You can love somebody without baking a cake with two little plastic gay guys on top "just for money," as commie/lib judges think.

It's pretty obvious it was calculated, per-meditiated, and malicious with the intent to file a CRC complaint and cause harm in the form of negative publicity aimed to damage the baker's business and legal bills. This is what happens when schools stop teaching civics ed in favor of political correctness and identity politics. Innocent citizens are harassed, abused, and their rights violated. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 19:36, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

For something to be a hate crime, the act must first be a crime absent the extreme drive generated by the hate. Vandalism, property destruction, assault, rape, murder; these are all crimes that, absent hate, are still crimes. The motivation - hatred based on race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation - provides the added status of hate crime. You getting this yet? Trying to buy a wedding cake is not a crime. It is legal commerce. Take your little script-flipping bullshit back to the workshop, Mr. 'irrelevant to argue with bigots over this'. Semipenultimate (talk) 21:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

You left out religion. All reporting says the gays were motivated by an intent to cause harm to a Christian baker, not to buy a cake. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 21:13, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes your 'all reporting' from the 'gays want to kill us all and rape our children into Sharia law' crowd you get your news from. Did you ever stop to consider that the bakers were motivated by hatred and the 'otherness' of the eww-gays and were merely using religion as a cover? Semipenultimate (talk) 22:26, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

You;re going off the rails now. So we disagree. BFD. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 22:33, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

This couple has a history of bigotry against gays, use your head for once and try to determine who's in the wrong here. — Oxyaena ^Harass 08:51, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

It's not impossible for people with a history of bigotry to make a valid legal argument or for a gay couple to be in the wrong, you know. Just saying. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:7498:47D3:9C05:EF95 (talk) 17:07, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Right, we disagree on motive; which is why we have the whole of the legal system. In it, there's a standard of evidence that must be met for an opinion like 'Person X did Y for reason Z'. When an antisemite or homophobe attacks their victim of choice, you can present evidence from a variety of sources to prove a motive of hate. Lawyers make points in court that they think they will persuade a jury and help their argument (not counting Andy Schlafly in this since he's a crusader, and they make shitty points - never represent your own interests in a court of law). The lawyers representing Masterpiece did not make this point in what was ultimately a narrow ruling since the shop owner's prejudice happened before the Obergefell decision. So if your hate crime motive is a bad point that wouldn't hold up in court, why are you holding it up like some pearl you've found on the beach? Just trollin' the commielibs? It's a turd, my friend, no matter how you polish it. Semipenultimate (talk) 15:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Pleading the First Amendment (free exercise) is no different than pleading the Fifth Amendment (self incrimination); the bigots in the CRC didn't like it. SCOTUS bitch slapped them. They cannot abuse their executive power against the baker or anyone else. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 00:00, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Let's try something new...

OK Rob, I'm going to try this a different way with you. Trump met with Putin in the last few days at the G20. He and Putin hammed it up talking about the 2016 election meddling as well as 'getting rid' of journalists who report 'fake news'. Now given that the overwhelming preponderance of evidence shows Russia did indeed meddle in the 2016 election and that Russia under Putin has a habit of jailing or 'disappearing' of journalists or opposition in its way I want to know how you can square this up with your own moral and political compass. Here are the facts:

• Russia deliberately meddled in the 2016 election as evidenced by the USA's own intelligence
• Trump openly denies his own administrations conclusions in support of Putin
• Russia has a long history, under Putin, of bullying, harassing and murdering opposition as well as the idea of freedom of press in service of the Putin government
• Trump openly joked about doing the same
• Russia is a major adversary of the USA
• Trump jokes about it

So my questions to you are - how can you be supportive of this and would you have supported this behavior if Obama had done the same. My question isn't about the Clintons, it isn't about Obama or communism. It is about Trump and Trump only. Do you, and why, do you support this? Rob, this is your moment to raise and defend a properly stated question. Deflections count as a loss. Not answering the question mean you lose. Now is your time Rob. Give me a cogent argument. If you have ever been to a university you'll understand how to structure and defend a position. Shine my man, show us your not a blind ideologue but an intellectual being with rational positions to stake out. The floor is yours....you defend your position and ask me to defend something you think I should answer. Like a proper debate. Off ya go...

Aceⁱ⁹ 10:26, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

You need to go to fake news detox.

• Russia tried, and failed, to hack into state election boards. Russia did not hack the DNC.
• Trump never denied Russian attempts to hack into state election boards. Trump never denied Russian Facebook ads.
• Bullying, harassing and murdering opposition is the stock in trade of Putin, Clinton, Obama, Brennan, Heinrich Himmler, and Felix Dzerzinsky. Obama particularly conducted a war on the First Amendment and freedom of the press.
• Trump's a slow learner on the job.
• Russia is an ally against (a) China, and (b) jihadis (Obama's pals).
• It is a joke if you believe any of the crap the media wrote about Obama since (1) he was elected, (2) the IRS scandal, and (3) Eric Holder took over the DOJ.

I am supportive of the Freedom of Information Act, a Watergate reform, which the Obama administration has violated since the day it took office. I support Trump because I support reform. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 14:28, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Eric Holder is indicative of the mindset of human rights abusers in the Obama administration. Holder stated in sworn Congressional testimony that the DOJ was founded in 1957, not 1870 as most text books state. Presumably, Holder is referring to the Republican 1957 Civil Rights Act, which created the DOJ Civil Rights Division, which Martin Luther King thanked Richard Nixon for, Lyndon Johnson opposed, John Kennedy voted against, and the Reagan era Democrat Majority Leader Grand Cyclops Robert Byrd filibustered against. Viewed from this perspective much of the convoluted and warped rational of Obama progressives begins to make sense. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 14:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

"If you have ever been to a university you'll understand how to structure and defend a position." Lol, not in modern times. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:7498:47D3:9C05:EF95 (talk) 16:27, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

OK Rob, parsing your comments because almost 95% of what you said doesn't address any of the points I have raised. These are facts (which I have to repeat):

• Russia deliberately meddled in the 2016 election as evidenced by the USA's own intelligence
• Trump openly denies his own administrations conclusions in support of Putin
• Russia has a long history, under Putin, of bullying, harassing and murdering opposition as well as the idea of freedom of press in service of the Putin government
• Trump openly joked about doing the same
• Russia is a major adversary of the USA
• Trump jokes about it

This isn't fake news because these aren't things the media made up. Your own government, Trump's own administration, has made it clear that Russia meddled in the 2016 election but Trump believes Putin over his own people. Trump, in front of the cameras, joked about it. This has nothing to do with the media. Actually address the main thrust of what I am asking you - How can you be supportive of this and would you have supported this behavior if Obama had done the same.

You also say - Obama particularly conducted a war on the First Amendment and freedom of the press yet Trump jokes about how Putin bullies and murders the press and by implication, wishes he could do the same. Trump will question, bully and belittle any news organisation that doesn't give him fawning praise. Even questioning Fox News for just interviewing a Democratic candidate. How is this not a war on the freedom if press? Do you not see you utter hypocrisy? If not, why not? Aceⁱ⁹ 21:20, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Ok, let's look at each claim:

• Russia deliberately meddled in the 2016 election as evidenced by the USA's own intelligence

• The January 6, 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment is currently under review by U.S. Attorney John Durham; evidence points to biased sourcing fed into a media echo chamber; (Choose any source)

• Trump openly denies his own administrations conclusions in support of Putin

• Interesting parsing of words; Durham has yet to make a report.

• Russia has a long history, under Putin, of bullying, harassing and murdering opposition as well as the idea of freedom of press in service of the Putin government

• So did Abraham Lincoln, King David, and many other heads of state.

• Trump openly joked about doing the same

• BFD. What exactly is the job of a head of state? Is there a defense to what Obama did to cp:Sharyl Attkisson? Who killed Andrew Brietbart? Vladimir Putin? Louis Mensch, one of the first to spread Trump-Russia fake news thinks so.

• Russia is a major adversary of the USA

• The 80s are calling. They want their foreign policy back

• Trump jokes about it

• It is a joke, to take any of this bullshit seriously. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 22:16, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

What I think you fail to recognize, as is typical of both American intelligence operatives and the gullible American media consuming public, is that Spygate was a very amateurish operation. Brennan, Strzok, and all the other perpetrators are proud of their work, and feel they deserve a pat on the back for trying to save the NATO alliance and global trade deals from Trump. But it was destined to fail from the outset precisely because of their amateurishness. But you'll never convince "the greatest law enforcement agency" in the world or "greatest intelligence agency in the world" of their amateurishness. How far back do we have to go? U2? Bay of Pigs? Golf of Tonkin? Saddam's WMD? Iran 1954? Chile 1976? and that's not even discussing domestic law enforcement, Al Capone? Whitey Bulger? etc. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 22:49, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

While you're Gish Galloping all over the fucking place, let's just pick an easy one to start with: Andrew Breitbart. He drank way too much, ate way too much fantastic food, and was famous for tearing rages. Like many guys in their 40s with heart disease who do this and do not relent in their lifestyle or rage, he had a heart attack and it killed him. So to answer your question, Andrew Breitbart killed Andrew Breitbart. Party of personal responsibility, and all that. Does anyone die of natural causes in your world? Semipenultimate (talk) 15:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

That's an interesting (perhaps rhetorical) question you pose, @Semipenultimate. I know of at least one indigenous population whose traditional belief system had no conception of natural death: every death was believed to be sorcery based. Are conspiracy-based Christians actually practicing primitive religion, or some sort of sorcery/Christian syncretism? Bongolian (talk) 17:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I think that conspiracy theory provides a lot of the same comfort as Christianity in the sense that it claims to be able to explain everything wrong with the world and point the finger at the 'real' culprit(s). Also CTs and Cs share the whole joy in feeling hard done by, in that 'Oh, they're attacking me, so I must be in the right' way. That way, you've turned the way of the world into this poor thing that would be right/perfect/good, if not for the actions of those who are stopping it from being so, rather than accepting it as the imperfect place it inherently is and trying to make the best of it. Semipenultimate (talk) 21:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Brietbart or his personal life. At the time I was under the impression Brietbart was hit by car. Years later, Trump-Russia conspiracy theorist Louise Mensch claimed Putin whacked him. Lots and lots and lots of people believed Louise Mensch, not limited to CNN and Never Trumpres. Why should I believe some line of crap now years after the fact? nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 18:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

This is just *chefs kiss*

Also @Ace McWicked I respect your presentation of the facts, but Messir Smith obviously has no interest in objective truth.RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Nobs, I find that both Occam's and Hanlon's razors are handy for keeping my life stress-free and firmly grounded in reality. Alex Jones, for example, was wrong with his assertion that 9/11 was an inside job, and that earned me the stinkeye from a lot of my liberal friends who wanted to believe the worst about their political opponents. But it never made any sense compared to the already-existing system, which requires no conspiracy, whereby if you are already investment-class wealthy, you can just keep doing that and make out like a bandit without the cumbersome unreliability and potential consequences of vast criminal conspiracies. Alex Jones has been wrong, and will continue to be wrong, because - and this is the part where you really need to listen - he does not understand what motivates his opponents, and never will. Because his presumptions are bullshit, so is the fruit of the tree, and the tree that grows from that, ad infinitum. The wrongness gets fractal as contradicting theories build up without having their contradictions analyzed or taken seriously. The point is to ask, does this match up with what was said last week, or the week before, is there any consistency as the trapeze act flies from conspiracy to conspiracy? This is why I continue to bring up Hillary's vast murders, because they're part of the underlying bedrock of straight-out-lies-and-fabrications that forms the basis of the last 25 years of the modern conservative movement - that your political foes are all conducting human sacrifice, or that the NAACP is a secret attempt by Democrats to bring back slavery. Semipenultimate (talk) 21:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Whew. Wow. I don't know what Alex Jones or 9/11 Truthers have to do with me or this discussion. Non-sequiter.

I do know that Alex Jones did not cause a Special Counsel investigation of a sitting president by insinuating the president was in bed with a guy Louise Mensch claimed to have whacked Andrew Brietbart. If you look on the webserver right here, Rationalwiki, you will find a whacked out conspiracy theory first spread by Louise Menscch, that the Special Counsel himself says is bullshit. But a lot of RW's editors and readers still believe it. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 22:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

The point with Jones is that you have to put a particular analysis on fast-talkers who are short with the facts, especially when they're saying things that are pleasing to you and confirm your biases. It doesn't matter who says what about the death of Andrew Breitbart - absent additional -actual- evidence, the man died of heart problems. Otherwise you're just counting coup for bragging rights on the Internet, which, yeah, that and $2.50 gets you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. I just want to find the actual truth. Semipenultimate (talk) 22:23, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Another non-sequiter. When you said "fast talkers," I thought you were going to mention Robert Mueller. Instead it appears you are re-emphasizing the slow in-depth analysis talkers, Rachel Maddow, Don Lemon, John Brennan, James Comey, etc. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 00:11, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Not to get sidetracked, it was Alex Jones and Roger Stone who first reported on the coup attempt and use of the 25th Amendment to overthrow Trump in real time. In fact, they were the only reporters. It took two years, numerous investigations and Congressional subpoenas , to get WaPo and NYT to report it. So, who were Jones' and Stones' sources? and why did YouTube delete the video evidence? nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 00:17, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

That's not what a coup attempt is, nobs. Installing Pence as president is on exactly nobody's agenda; not that it makes any difference, since the president's own party controls the Senate. I imagine Jones' sources were the representatives talking openly about looking into the 25th amendment since this is not and has never been a secret, and as we all know, keeping everything out in the open is key to a successful coup. I also imagine that Youtube 'deleted the evidence' (see prior comments re: poison fruit) when they purged all of Jones' content from their privately-owned free service. This is the Internet age; nothing is ever really gone. It's still all on Infowars. Semipenultimate (talk) 17:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Holy fucking shit the fact that this needs to be said is bonkers.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:22, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ The 25th Amendment is a cabinet function. It is not the job of the FBI to poll the cabinet. The author of the Introduction of the Mueller Report, Alan Dershowitz, calls it a coup. And no, there was no public discussion among representatives on or before May 16, 2017, (day before Mueller was appointed), the day Mueller and Rosenstein met Trump in the Oval Office; Mueller "forgot" his cell phone in the meeting, which likely was the "wire" Rosenstein and McCabe discussed. The phone had to be retrieved later. From CP:

• Roger Stone and Alex Jones warn of Deep State coup plot to remove Trump via the 25th Amendment. Lisa Page corroborates McCabe's testimony that Rosenstein was not joking about his proposed coup plot.
• Andrew McCabe later confirms Alex Jones and Roger Stones' account.

When Mueller testifies on July 17, he'll be asked these questions:

• Were you aware President Trump was under investigation prior to your conversation of May 16th, with President Trump?
• Were you aware of the nature of the investigation, prior to May 16, 2017?
• Were you aware of the possibility of being appointed ‘special counsel’?
• Did you take any recording devices into the Oval Office meeting?
• Did you own the cell phone you left in the Oval Office on May 16, 2017?
• Between the afternoon Oval Office meeting and the next day announcement to the Gang-of-Eight by Rod Rosenstein and Andrew McCabe, when exactly did you agree to become special counsel?
• How did Rod Rosenstein contact you between May 16, 2017 and early morning May 17, 2017, about becoming special counsel?
• Did you immediately agree to become special counsel when asked?
• How much time transpired between Rosenstein asking you to become special counsel and your acceptance of the position?

Again, who were Stone and Jones's sources in a meeting that consisted of Rosenstein, McCabe, Lisa Page, and possibly unknown others before Mueller was appointed? nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 22:43, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Wow. Ok, none of that is true. You are referencing your own work, which while hilarious is not an objective source of information. Rosenstein also admitted the wire thing was in jest, as well there is a difference between the obstruction of justice investigation and the counter intelligence investigation, neither of which would require any level of surveillance of 45. Also Alan Desherowitz is not neutral, he has thrown his hat in with 45, and he's also not the best choice about whether something is morally right. I have no doubt that some of those questions will come up, but they aren't really within the scope of the investigation.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:15, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Sources are cited. Lisa Page corroborates McCabe's version of "wearing a wire." McCabe reported on the forgotten recording device cell phone. Dershowitz was selected by WaPo, who received the contract for publication of the Mueller Report.

I note you can't answer the question, How did Jones and Stone learn of the DOJ/FBI discussion (nite of May 15, 2017) of persuading cabinet secretaries to invoke the 25th Amendment?

And then a bigger question: When was Mueller asked to lead the Special Counsel investigation, before or after his May 16, 2017 interview with Trump? This question will answer whether or not Mueller was involved in the treasonous activities of sedition, coup, and overthrowing a constitutionally elected president. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 00:25, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Nobs sets the standards for intellectual credibility, don't question him, bask in awe of his genius. — Oxyaena ^Harass 07:19, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

The question about Alex Jones is a red herring, of course. Jones gets all his information by inhaling gay frog innards. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:5D52:E700:16FC:2A2C (talk) 07:22, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Nomination

You've been nominated to the RationalMedia Foundation election. Please accept or decline here; if you accept, you may wish to campaign.

71.3.195.138 (talk) 22:57, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I want to see if you fuck things up horribly again or not. — Oxyaena ^Harass 07:18, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Retiring

You're leaving? Oof. I hope you spend the rest of your days happy with your family. Farewell, Nobs. — Oxyaena ^Harass 01:31, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh good. Fuck off Rob. Aceⁱ⁹ 05:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

There is a 99% chance that "spend more time with family" is a euphemism for something unpleasant. Bongolian (talk) 06:45, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Well yah. You know how politicians never get prosecuted for corruption and bribery, they just resign to spend more time with family. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 07:17, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

So was it corruption or bribery in your case? Bongolian (talk) 07:20, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

It's just a graceful exit. "Return to teaching" is another oft used phrase. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 21:41, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Omar says hi

She's an American citizen, where would she go back to? This is her country. — Oxyaena ^Harass 08:46, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

She's a naturalized Somali refugee who's committed various sorts of fraud and shares some shady contacts with Tlaib. She might be eligible for denaturalization. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:D52E:397D:C058:1BEE (talk) 08:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Bullshit. Provide reliable citation or you'd be guilty of slandering Congresswoman Omar. — Oxyaena ^Harass 12:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Ilhan needs to go back to Minnesota. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 16:08, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Epstein and Trump

Do you, like Karajou, think the Epstein/Trump party video was edited? Aceⁱ⁹ 00:51, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I mean there's no signs showing that the tape was edited. This hypocrisy is becoming ludicrous at this point. — Oxyaena ^Harass 03:01, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

And just flat out ignoring the continuous lying, pretending it’s all a deep state conspiracy but investigating the Obama administration for the Benghazi fuck up over and over and over. Utterly without principles. All their integrity, conservatism and fiscal responsibility talk was just that - talk. I actually respect honest conservatives who maintain their integrity. I don’t agree politically but I respect the position. Not anymore, they all sold out for power. Aceⁱ⁹ 03:50, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

No, I don't think it was edited. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 04:05, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ This shouldn't be an ideological debate. I'm turning over the germ of an idea for an User:RobSmith/Essay:FOIA.

Mueller

The wp:FOIA was probably the singular biggest post-Watergate major reform (among 4 or 5 major pieces of post-Watergate legislation). The UK passed its own version of a FOIA, I think, in the 1990s.

After studying numerous of these government reports, like the Morganthau Diaries, the Institute of Pacific Relations report, the Warren Report, the Watergate reports, Tower Commission Report, BCCI report, Whitewater report, Moynihan Commission report, Chinagate report, 9/11 report, Benghazi report, Mueller report and others, I got something to say.

Let's take Iran Contra and Benghazi reports, for example; the "official report" is the official coverup, in both instances. For 50 years I've mocked the Kennedy assignation conspiracy theorists. The past 5 years or so, I'm beginning to have my doubts about the sanctity of the Warren Commission Report. The Mueller report is groundbreaking, in that, the conspiracy against Donald Trump was so poorly executed by amateurs, Mueller is wishing for a way to get his name off it. It will never withstand historical scrutiny. It's already falling apart like paper maché in a tub of Drano.

Back to Benghazi. In the Benghazi investigation, like the Mueller investigation and Iran Contra, the actual facts of CIA activity was ignored by a bi-partisan consensus, while certain vulnerable scapegoats were offered up for human sacrifice.

I could go on, but its best to leave it for an Essay. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 04:42, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I think you mean - the conspiracy by Donald Trump's team was so poorly executed by amateurs which is why some of them are in jail and Mueller stated in no uncertain terms that if he wasn't president he could be charged with obstruction. But you'll twist the whole thing to twist your increasingly unlikely analysis. You're a buffoonish hack and hypocrite of the highest order. Aceⁱ⁹ 05:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh, are you saying Brennan and Comey can avoid jail time? Flynn, Manafort, and Papadopolous will be pardoned for their non-Russia collusion crimes. I used to think Trump should wait til Nov. 4, 2020, the day after Election Day. However after today, I'd have had it done by 4:00 P.M. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 06:04, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

After today when the it was read, again, the first line of the report which stated Russia did influence the election and how Mueller said that Trump would be indicted had he not been president. Do you have some part of your brain that is immune to the reality of the situation? What is it about Trump that you are so willing to lie to yourself about? Why are republicans so blase about protecting your electoral system from Russian interference? Rob, here's where it doesn't make sense - if any Republican or Trump himself thought Russia influenced the election on behalf of or for the benefit of Clinton they would be all over it making sure it never happened again but they aren't doing anything - because they know Russia again will help them win. Second hand of course with plausible deniability but every shred of integrity has been striped from your conservative christian base. What a hollow shell you have become. Aceⁱ⁹ 06:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Mueller said that Trump would be indicted had he not been president

Not true. See (a) Mueller/Barr Joint Statement May 29, 2019 and (b) Mueller HPSCI Opening Statement, July 24, 2019. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 13:43, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

You mean the one where Barr lied his ass off in his spin on the report? — Oxyaena ^Harass 13:51, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

This one: “The Attorney General has previously stated that the Special Counsel repeatedly affirmed that he was not saying that, but for the OLC opinion, he would have found the President obstructed justice. The Special Counsel’s report and his statement today made clear that the office concluded it would not reach a determination — one way or the other — about whether the President committed a crime. There is no conflict between these statements," a joint statement from DOJ spokeswoman Kerri Kupec and Mueller spokesman Peter Carr said. [12]

If Mueller found obstruction of justice, he would have written it in the report and left the findings to Congress to indict. He found no evidence. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 14:02, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ These are the facts:

• Russians attempted to hack into state election boards (notably Illinois, Georgia and others) and failed;
• Russians legally exercised a guaranteed Constitutional First Amendment protected free speech right on Facebook and in organized rallies on American soil;
• The extent of Russian government involvement has not been established;
• Russians did not hack the DNC;
• Russians did not share DNC emails with Wikileaks.

Now the real Russia investigation begins. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 14:14, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

You fail on a number of points but Russians, in Russia or anywhere else in the world, do not have First Amendment rights and no one has the right to free speech on Facebook. Big fail Rob. Aceⁱ⁹ 02:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Are you telling me an illegal alien doesn't have First Amendment rights? Why? Cause their skin color is different from yours? nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 03:03, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I don’t know if illegal aliens have First Amendment rights. But no ones talking about illegal aliens - we are talking about your stupid suggestion that Russians in Russia have first amendment rights (they don’t) and the First Amendment covering things like FaceBook (it doesn’t). So 2 stupid claims and a dumb non-sequiter about illegal immigrants. You’re hopeless Rob. A stone cold idiot. Aceⁱ⁹ 04:51, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, I got news for you: Russians in Russia and the United States, both online and offline, have a First Amendment right to express their preference for or against a candidate for president. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 05:04, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Rob, the First Amendment doesn’t apply to foreign citizens in foreign countries and you have no freedom of speech on Facebook. Facebook decides its own policies of speech. You have no first amendment rights on a private site like FB, Conservapedia or any other privately held business. So you’re still wrong. Aceⁱ⁹ 05:11, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

(a) Free speech rights are given by God, it doesn't matter what country you live in; (b) Facebook took money from Russians to exercise their free speech rights, which is kinda the goal of globalism, which is sorta the thing Trump opposes, which is sorta the reason why people call him a fascist. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 05:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Except for the fact the 3 Commandment explicitly forbids freedom of speech. And unfortunately no matter how much you blather about God you have no freedom of speech on a platform like Facebook. And isn't it ironic that Rationalwiki, a site maintained and built by atheists has greater freedom of speech than Conservapedia? Also your own president tells people who criticise him or the US that they can get out and leave. What a wonderful champion of free speech. You're own personal god doesn't dictate freedom of speech laws, Rob. Aceⁱ⁹ 07:29, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

(The Founding Fathers upheld a doctrine of natural rights (see Declaration of Independence, first line). The Bill of Rights simply lists a few of these rights explicitly, it doesn't create them.) 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:D52E:397D:C058:1BEE (talk) 06:48, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

The the originalist intent of the First Amendment refers to political speech, not nude dancing or baking a cake . In the case of Facebook, we are referring to contract rights - under globalist monetary and trade doctrine and agreements, Russians have the right of entering into contracts with Facebook to exercise free speech. This sort of activity has in fact been the policy of the U.S. government since the end of the Cold War. The United States government has actively encouraged expanding trade agreements with the former Soviet Union since 1993, for example, U.S. businessmen building hotels in Moscow.

A voluntary contract between Facebook and Russian advertisers exercising free political speech differs from involuntary contracts promoted by American communists, such as Obamacare, bakers required to bake cakes for gay couples, or bikini waxers required to wax a transgender's balls. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 15:05, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

A voluntary contract between Facebook and Russian advertisers exercising free political speech No Rob, just no. FB is not a place where you have free speech. Facebook dictates what is allowed on Facebook. Conservapedia dictates what is allowed on Conservapedia. Free speech does not apply. I don't know why you keep talking about bakers or waxers. Some weird fetish of yours I guess. Like little miss Kara Duhe. Remember that - we all had a good laugh. Aceⁱ⁹ 04:44, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Why are you proposing the US government intervene to limit the political speech of foreigners? This is some crazy imperialist shite you're advocating. Hasn't the US oppressed enough people yet? 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:D52E:397D:C058:1BEE (talk) 04:54, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand it either. KGB agents can cross the Rio Grande illegally get a free sex change operation in the United States as a human right, but Russians can't purchase ad space on Facebook to express their political views. Doesn't make sense. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 05:01, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Now you’re just talking nonsense. You can’t stay on track for longer than a couple of comments. Reading comprehension and ability to stay on topic is not your strong suit. Aceⁱ⁹ 11:28, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

So when it comes to the gist of your legal demands you don't have an answer. Predictable. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:A522:4425:C33D:25EF (talk) 15:51, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

The answer is quite simple, and exposes the totalitarian nature of Leftist thought: Healthcare is a human right, whereas free speech is not. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 16:23, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

To be clear everything nobs said about the Mueller report is false.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:58, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Are you denying the finding by the independent Department of Justice Inspector General that James Comey violated the law, which created the basis for Mueller's appointment? nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 17:12, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes because that is false.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:57, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

John Solomon is the source. IG Michael Horowitz will confirm shortly.

I could go into details; the DOJ assistant director who leaked the information was already disciplined back in May. It may be easier to wait til the IG report becomes public to prove your posting, claiming "that it is false" is false. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 17:06, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Here'sthe facts so far as is known:

• Dir. Comey leaked classified information about conversations with the President.
• The leak led to the appointment of a special counsel.
• Inspector General Michael Horowitz determined the leak was illegal.
• IG Horowitz made a criminal referral to the DOJ.
• The DOJ (D.C. U.S. Attorney Jody Hunt) declined prosecution.
• An FBI Deputy Assistant Director has been disciplined for leaking the non-prosecution decision to John Solomon.
• Speculation exists that U.S. Attorney John Durham, who is investigating the origins of the Crossfire Hurricane, "has bigger fish to fry." [13]
• We'll have a clearer understanding when Horowitz's FISA abuse report is released. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 17:47, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Your source for this information is not credible and you've fucked up the history of events. Comey's memo were released after Rosenstein appointed the SC. Also Rosenstein's order doesn't mention anything about said memo's. Your full of shit and your sources are trash.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:12, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

If Twitter and Facebook can set the terms of service to do business with whomever they want, why can't a Christian baker or bikini waxer who refuses to wax a transgender's balls?

Hmm? nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 20:47, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

What of transmen? — Oxyaena ^Harass 05:32, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Are you calling Yaniv a transman? This seems out of character for you. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:D52E:397D:C058:1BEE (talk) 06:58, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Who? — Oxyaena ^Harass 12:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Cops

Would you support the death penalty for cops who shot unarmed civilians in cold blood? — Oxyaena ^Harass 12:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes. In uniform or out of uniform. On the job or off the job. It would however be extraordinarily difficult to prove. And like the Deep State coup, the Clinton body count, or the Jeffrey Epstein case, it would be difficult to find prosecutors willing to bring charges. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 14:52, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Censorship and lies.

I can keep cutting you out of the conversation indefinitely. Or you could suck it up, admit you were wrong, and apologize. You know, like a man. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 23:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Rob, in the past when I've made errors as large as yours, I apologized. Surely you, as old and experienced as you are, can do the same? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 10:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Nobs is above the concerns of mortal men. — Oxyaena ^Harass 12:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Good

to see you're still a sellout to Trump. Evangelicals stopped being Christians when they sold their souls to a decidely unchristian man. So much for "traditional values." RIP. — Oxyaena ^Harass 11:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

The only "Traditional Value" they care about is white men in power.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:39, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Gimme one pro-Trump diff I've posted this past week anywhere. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 20:03, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Apology

I do apologize. The exact language is "repairing historic oppression of indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth (referred to in this resolution as “frontline and vulnerable communities”)". It was hyperbolic on my part and I apologize. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 16:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I do have one question though; How does the U.S. federal government repair historic oppression of youth who weren't born yet? nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 16:07, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Adequate. Now we can see that the actual text you're referring to, while clearly and explicitly not being even remotely about slavery reparations, and in fact, describes a secondary(well quinary) aim of the proposal, and not an action that supports the main aim. We can have an honest conversation. Doesn't it feel good to be honest? You can see how the "vulnerable and frontline communities" text is used elsewhere in the document. "ensuring that frontline and vulnerable communities shall not be adversely affected" sure seems like a reasonable request. As does "directing investments to spur economic development, deepen and diversify industry and business in local and regional economies, and build wealth and community ownership, while prioritizing high-quality job creation and economic, social, and environmental benefits in frontline and vulnerable communities, and deindustrialized communities, that may otherwise struggle with the transition away from greenhouse gas intensive industries;" Man, it's almost like it's trying to unify a strategy to help the poor and struggling who have their livelihoods tied too closely to fossil fuels. That'd be crazy, wouldn't it? Being aware of the potential unintended consequences of a bill.

(EC) your question is dumb and relates to assuming your conclusion. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Well good. Let's have a discussion just like in a congressional committee. I doubt the language, as written, will ever make it to the floor for a vote.

The main thrust here, however, is this bill is predicated on science,

• Whereas the October 2018 report entitled “Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 ºC” by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the November 2018 Fourth National Climate Assessment report found that, et seqq.
• Resolved, That it is...the duty of the Federal Government to create... resiliency... see Beto O'Rouke, First debate... to promote justice and equity by stopping current, preventing future, and repairing historic oppression [the bill does not define oppression]...

I'll stop there for right now. It's pretty obvious this proposal uses hard science to mask social spending. It's not unlike a debate in the 1950s that got the federal government to pay for school lunches. But there remains no scientific evidence that reparations to historically oppressed communities will reduce carbon emissions, which is what the science of this bill (“Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 ºC” ) is predicated on. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 16:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

It literally calls itself a fucking "new deal". Of course it has social spending. The fuck goes through your head? She's not a technocrat like obama looking to tweak incentives, she's trying to set up a government program that changes a core component of our entire economy. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 17:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

What scientific evidence do you have that "repairing historic oppression of indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth" will keep global temperatures "below 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrialized levels"?

Secondly, why are men not a "frontline community", whereas women are? nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 18:06, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Rob, your level stupidity is bringing back my omnicidal urges... It's also reinforcing my anti-theism. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I gitit. Men caused anthropogenic global warming by oppressing their wives and children and forcing them to eat farting cows from before pre-industrialized times and after. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 18:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

if i say that's correct will you shut up? БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓^(T|C) 18:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I know it's right, for the purposes of this bill, which obviously abuses legitimate climate science in the service of junk science. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 18:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

How is Rob even alive at this point? I mean, with clinical brain death his organs should have shut down already. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Hey, c'mon. Why do you think they use the gendered language, "anthropogenic" rather than "homopogenic?" Everybody knows men, by historically oppressing women, youth, the unhoused, people with disabilities, the elderly, the poor, low-income workers, depopulated rural communities, deindustrialized communities, migrant communities, indigenous peoples and communities of color and forcing them to eat meat from farting cows is causing global temperatures to rise above 1.5 degrees Celsius. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 18:46, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Rob, you fucktard. The preface "anthro - " isn't gendered. It relates to human or human-like. It isn't related to gender at all. Aceⁱ⁹ 07:20, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Anthropos is Greek for human, andros is Greek for man. #TheMoreYouKnow 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:BD5D:3C9F:496E:B17 (talk) 17:18, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

So who fucked up, me or the Romans when they mistranslated andros to anthros? Are you saying Android is gendered language? nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 18:48, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

How do you feel

It looks increasingly likely that Trump has something to hide in his taxes given how much effort his putting into stopping the release of the information. Suing, stone-walling, misdirection...if the returns were released and it showed categorically that Trump was a crook would it change your opinion of Trump and would you continue to support him? Stay on topic please. Aceⁱ⁹ 07:14, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

@Ace McWicked Of course Rob would still support Trump. Rob is good little partisan doggy, following orders from on high and toeing the party line. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:18, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

To prove my non-partisanship, I will be glad to discuss with anyone President Trump's taxes. Just email me (link above) the past five years of your own personal tax returns, state and federal. I promise the information will be kept confidential. Upon receipt, I'll need a brief period of time to review. When that is completed, we can have an open public discussion on President Trump's tax matters drawing on whatever verifiable open source material is available. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 18:44, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Jawohl, Mr. Puppers! And you are a tax expert, right? Just to be fair, like Trump, make me President first, then you can examine my tax returns… but only under court order… possibly. Bongolian (talk) 18:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Trump is not a private citizen, we have a right to information that may show he's flouting tax law and using his position for financial gain.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:14, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

First off (a) I have a PTIN number (Paid Taxpayer Identification Number) and (b) I'm rusty on personal taxes as I've focused on business taxes over the past two decades. Secondly, your phrase, "Trump's taxes" is meaningless; are you referring to Trump's personal taxes, or the hundreds and hundreds of different taxpaying entities he's involved with? If Trump is a part owner, say even a minority owner of a taxpaying entity, does that justify violating the Constitutional and privacy rights of majority owners? nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 22:34, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Rob, you are so full of shit. If Obama had gone to these lengths to keep his taxes hidden you'd be (justifiably) mad about it.You know that's what you'd do. But Trump...meh. Aceⁱ⁹ 04:23, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Also, you've stated before that you have no qualifications or experience to analyze taxes. You are an fool and a time waster. Bongolian (talk) 04:39, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Huh? I been doing tax work for 46 years, before you were drip sliding down your mommie's asshole. nobs^{Die fascists! Make America Great!} 06:10, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations

Dunning-Kruger Award

for

tirelessly working things out with a pencil, and tiresomely making character assassinations under the veil of conspiracy

Bongolian (talk) 23:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm truly horrored. Now why would you take a provable fact - that I've been doing tax work before you were drip sliding down you mommie's assole, and turn it into an ad hominem attack claiming I'm to ignorant to know I'm ignorant? Is this a supposed 'intellectual' way to insult somebody? I know I'm stupid. You don't know you are stupid. But I know we both are stupid, which makes me smarter than you. nobs^{Die fascists! Make America Great!} 05:27, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

You also get free pie. — Oxyaena ^Harass 07:33, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Please. Don't delete robrails

They serve a vital purpose. You may not know this, but you are insane. Not in some diagnoseable specific mental illness sense, but just disconnected from material reality and completely up your own ass. You tend to derail relevant constructive dialog with irrelevant tangents that only matter if you share your particular obsessions, and it really helps keep discussion on track to keep you collapsed. If it weren't a continuing pattern, it wouldn't be necessary, but you do the same thing over and over and you should stop expecting different results.

Thanks.

ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 20:12, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

When used correctly, RobRails result in zero harm. In addition, they also expand, should one desire an education about their contents. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:18, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

You’re a fuck-tard.... but...

There has been some talk about blocking you but given you’ve done nothing wrong to warrant a block email me via the email user link and I’ll unblock you if you can’t do it yourself. Aceⁱ⁹ 19:41, 14 August 2019 (UTC)