Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive280

This is an archive page, last updated 22 August 2015. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>

, (new)(back)

Oh hey Craig is back

I missed his brand of fake insanity^img. --il'Dictator Mikal 16:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

That article is so obvious, even the sysops will pick up on it right away.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

When's someone gonna do Greatest Conservative Sports Cars (in the pre-Government Motors days Corvette would have had little competition) or Greatest Conservative Sports Bars? Whoover (talk) 19:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

How about Greatest Conservative Sports Bras? Vulpius (talk) 20:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd have to say, probably my kitchen table.--Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 23:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Sports Bras or Sports Bars? Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 09:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

BMcP: I'm not so sure. Parodists have got away with worse. And Craig has been going at it like this for a looong time, with no repercussions that I remember. The article might get cleaned up a bit, but key points will remain and Craig won't get so much as a warning. ^{ONE / TALK} 20:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

That makes the place just a little bit more pathetic today...--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 23:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I think CraigF is a pretty cool guy. Oldschool fun. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Does someone wanna go bang on Andy's cage?

Neutrinos don't move faster than light. Relativity has one less counter-example. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 23:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Did that CERN experiment ever have a conclusion? Stupid Troll Guy (talk) 23:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh. I read the headline of that linked article.

Nihilist (talk) 23:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Every engineer knows it's always a connector. Whoover (talk) 00:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I am predicting Andy would call it a cover-up by some conspiracy. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 00:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure anyone can rattle Andy's cage at the moment. I haven't seen a non-sysop make an edit all day. So either the internet lost interest in CP, or more likely, one of the brain trusts over there left night edit mode on again. --Inquisitor (talk) 02:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Neutrinos may not move faster than light, but Jesus' miracles still do. Checkmate, atheists. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Good thing Roger^img has edit rights so this news can reach CP even during all-day night edit mode. --Tabrcg23 (talk) 03:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

It's win-win for someone as insane as Andy. Neutrinos move faster than light, therefore Jesus. There was a flaw in the study showing neutrinos move faster than light? That's because liberal atheistic science is always wrong. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

"Data Mining" Would be Such a Good Name

But it already means something else. We need a name for the analog of quote mining where you present obsolete data to prove your point, the current data being quite different. Consider Is the popularity of Richard Dawkins plunging despite having mainstream media approval?^img Supported by an old Alexa chart^img. Today's data look quite different. They even compare favorably with guess what? Whoover (talk) 00:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

A lie of obsolescence?--Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 01:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it just a form of cherry picking? However, the persistent focus on obsolete ideas as in concentrating solely on the works of Darwin and Lyell being the totality of evolution or geological uniformitarianism is a form of straw man. Personally I would just go with "lying". Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 09:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Temporal Selection. I love the word "Temporal"X Stickman (talk) 12:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Vote: Is Rob the new Ken?

This discussion was moved here from RationalWiki:Saloon bar.

Should we change Rob's name to Ken, since he seems so intent on emulating everything else about him? ^{— Unsigned, by: RachelW / talk / contribs}

Yes, I've been getting them confused so much lately.	4	Vote
"No, I wouldn't want the QE train to plow into my house one of these days."	18	Vote
"You mean they're not the same person?"	37	Vote
"Goat"	26	Vote
"Stop fucking getting trolled by him you idiots"	31	Vote

"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you." - Nietzsche. --Night Jaguar (talk) 15:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

If Rob is a troll it's a total accident. Senator Harrison (talk) 15:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

What is a Quantitative Easing train?--^talk 18:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that's the official name for their QE Runaway Train.-- Seth Peck (talk) 19:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

It's a train with an effigy of Ben Bernanke strapped to the front. They've got them in Texas, I think. RachelW (talk) 19:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

A train full of prostitutes would be my guess. --★uːʤɱ structuralist 22:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

"Senselessly divisive question"?

Sure Andy^img, because god knows it's best not to find out what the candidates actually think on an issue. Debates should be about which candidate has the best hair, and says the meanest things about Obama. That's what you're looking for in a president, right? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it cute that they pull in a tame audience to watch these things. Then again, if it was a sane audience, you wouldn't hear the clown car of candidates over the collective facepalming and headdesking. Aldo, the Onion calls it: Handlers Constantly Reminding Gingrich To Stay On Uninspiring, Belittling Message. --PsyGremlinSermā! 17:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Obama's Plot to Neutralize Our Military Exposed

"Irrefutable proof the Obama Administration and liberal military commanders are making the U.S. military less combat ready"^img. Obama FDR has let women serve in the military. I mean, under Obama Bush the Pentagon created a program to get recent mothers back in shape. I mean, Obama command let male medics lead the classes. I mean, Obama somebody thought it would be a good idea for some of those males to know what their students might experience. This is what happens when you put the Antichrist in charge of the military! Whoover (talk) 17:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, you gotta admit, it sounds pretty odd. Whether it's sensible or not, I've no idea, but damn, that's weird. Must be Obama. Phiwum (talk) 20:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Terry on Intelligence

Terry's latest column^img, on why, despite studies showing the contrary, conservatives are really smarter than liberals.

Okay, I'm not going to dispute his issues with the studies; I'm just going to go after one of his points -- that liberals lack "common sense".

You know who used to make that same argument, Terry? The bullies who picked on me middle school. They knew I was smarter than they were, but they tried to make themselves feel better about their stupidity -- and they were stupid -- by convincing themselves they had "common sense".

What they meant was "I know I've got a life of working dead end jobs while you're going to have a great career, but at least I know how to {insert manual task}." (Imagine that said in a redneck accent.) One of them was quite proud of the fact he intended to join the KKK when he was old enough.

So, Terry, you're in good company. In all honesty, I have no idea what happened to said bullies. But I have little doubt most of them are complete losers. So you're in company with them in that, too. MDB (talk) 17:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Satoshi Kanazawa? Make it stop, please! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I think conservative culture has problems similar to those that plague black culture. Typically they are from poorer areas and they seem to have a mentality that it's not cool (or even useful) to be book smart. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

(ec x 3)Given the monumental stupidity Terry shows in the comments section of his blog (not to mention the main posts) I would think he's the last person to comment on intelligence. And yes Terry, we lack common sense. Which is why don't believe in an invisible Sky Daddy. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 18:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, as soon as I saw "Terry on intelligence" my first thought was "Not exactly a subject matter expert." --Fergus Mason (talk) 18:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Weird, I actually agree with Terry on this, except for the red-baiting (we spent a whole week on the dictatorship of the proletariat in neuroscience 101!) and part about "common sense," a term just as ill-defined if not more than "intelligence." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The real issue I have with this is not the challenges Terry brings up with the original research, it is his assertions later that liberals "lack common sense" as well as the claim that liberals live shorter lives, have more trouble managing their lives, and are unhappy in comparison to conservatives, without showing a shred of evidence or data to backup these assertions. He also states in a roundabout way that if you are intelligent you should be rich, assuming everyone's greatest goal is the materialistic accumulation of wealth (should be noted there is no indication that Terry himself is wealthy to any real degree).--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Isn't Terry's dismissal of the contrary evidence an example of cognitive dissonance, which in itself is probably evidence of lower intelligence. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 11:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

You use tumbleweeds...

but I don't think you know how they work.^img --PsyGremlinParlez! 19:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Stealing our joke? Loser. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 19:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

At least it looks better than Ken's memorable attempt. Vulpius (talk) 19:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Nothing on that page but tumbleweeds and a link to the list of infamous supporters of the homosexual agenda, like Fred Phelps and Hitler. Whoover (talk) 19:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

That is as much as JPatt could think of to say, anything else would require greater intelligence, such as that of a graduate of junior high.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The sad thing is, though he used a really shitty image, Kendoll's joke is better than JPratt's in that it at least makes sense. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

It's a sad indictment that Jpatt proves himself to be even dumber than a basement-dwelling, middle-aged, manchild. The only saving grace is that JPatt at least has a proper job. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 11:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Yep, Kendoll is a moron

Good work, Psy^img. There's no tale that sounds too unlikely for Kendoll to accept. Nor apparently does he pay attention to what went on in the past at Conservapedia. Where's TK when you need him? Oh... yeah. Right. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Christ, I thought my fake comment on AiG which made Ken piss himself with delight before would have turned him off of these silly pronouncements on the main page. Has he not learned his lesson? Turpis 3:16 (talk) 00:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Hahaha. Now he's scurrying around desperately trying to oversight all the evidence that he ever made such a dumb mistake. That's just precious. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 01:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The best part is the tip off--an "English Teacher" misusing "it's/its." Ken's unbelievable imbecility makes me feel warm and happy inside. GayGator (talk) 01:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Katomi T was Psygremlin's long term Conservapedia sock who claimed to be a Japanese English teacher living in South Africa (how Andy believed that backstory is beyond me). Ken should know this, he use to email "her" flirty messages. Pi 3:14 (talk) 04:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Did he try and keep the charade he is multiple people who may or may not be of indeterminate gender living somewhere in the universe? --il'Dictator Mikal 04:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

This was before then. He was in the habit of using fake (male) names, the surname he stole off other CP editors. Pi 3:14 (talk) 04:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

OMG! Kotomi rises from the grave to grace CP's main page once more. Beautiful. That's been sitting on the QE page since December and I can also confirm that most of those other testimonies are as fake as hers. And to answer the e-mail question: yes. Besides "conservative" Ken used at least 2 different male names when communicating with myself and the other sysops over there. --PsyGremlinTal! 04:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Even as a fake zombie-like entity that just keeps coming back, I still think she's cute. T_T Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 16:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Japanese girls... the gift that keeps on giving... --PsyGremlinFale! 16:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Tiger Woods

Should Tiger become a christian? I fail to see how that would help. Then again, I've been saying he should go back to banging 12 skanks at a time, so who knows?--Thunderstruck^{YOU'VE BEEN...} 15:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I love the suggestion. "Hey, just give believing all this shit a try and see how it works out." Only religion could come up with such cockamamie schemes. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's see, he became the world's greatest golfer without the help of Christianity, so surely logic dictates that now that's he's hit a rough patch Christianity is just the thing, right? Even using the most twisted form of logic, the only conclusion you can draw concerning religion is that other golfers ought to convert to Buddhism, at least for a few years. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 15:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The takeaway here is that you need to fuck anything with a hole in it and generally do whatever you want or you'll end up a pathetic overeducated crank or a mentally ill creep. When you hit a rough spot you look at your pile of money and life of leisure, go volunteer and donate, keep enjoying your junk, maybe buy another wife when you'll feel like it. He's doing fine. I'll follow my dick, thank you very much 16:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any top athletes who succeeded after converting to Christianity, so I think he should take after Cassius Clay and convert to Islam. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I love the implication that converting to Christianity will somehow increase golf skill. Just... what? Also, how do you "try Christianity"? Do you go all "Okay, I'll believe in God for a few weeks and see how it works out?" Here's a newsflash: RELIGION IS NOT SOME NEW SHAMPOO YOU CAN JUST TRY. --Sid (talk) 19:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Technically, you can just 'try' religions, but that's a pretty fucking stupid thing to do. Stupid Troll Guy (talk) 20:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Golf is stressfull if you go in stressed. How do you de-stress? BANG A BITCH. He gets his sex drive out of the way, he'll be golfing like its the late 90's/early 00's--Thunderstruck^{YOU'VE BEEN...} 20:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

How is golf stressful? You walk around a field for a few hours, occasionally thwack a ball with your mashie nibblick and then collect a cheque for a million bucks. It's pretty much the same as wandering around the countryside, except occasionally some random people give you a round of applause for it. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thats why I said "Golf is only stressfull if you are going in stressed." Maybe outside of golf, tiger wasn't getting any, and it was driving him nuts. Blue balls is a hell of a distraction in anything.--Thunderstruck^{YOU'VE BEEN...} 22:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Tiger should try Raelianism. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 22:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

You must be fucking joking, it's stressful as hell! You walk about walloping a bloody ball that refuses to go anywhere near the right direction and believe me there are umpteen bloody ways that you lose one of those little sods. Best shot of my life was when I once stood on the fourth tee at my local golf course, unlimbered the old 4-wood and then walloped it one. It soared up like an eagle, followed by my cry of "Jesus!", flew straight over a 50-foot tall oak tree and then vanished straight into someone's back garden, to be lost forever. An hour later I lost five balls trying to pitch one over a 30-foot fucking pond. I came very close to throwing my club in after them. I finally gave up when I went to college in Swansea. There's a links there that has the sea on one side and a main road on the other. I took one look and then started drinking and wenching like a normal person. Darkmind1970 (talk) 22:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Normal people climb in to the golf cart, start her up and then look at each other for a long moment before simultaneously bursting out with "Fuck this shit. Lets go go-karting." If you ever have the urge to actually play golf, you're sick in the head. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I was 15 when I started and I'd just been given the family bag of clubs (a mixture of my grandfather's clubs and my father's) so I thought I liked it. I still do like it, although only watching it on TV with beer next to me whilst my wife asks rude questions about Tiger Woods. Darkmind1970 (talk) 22:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I want to go go karting now.--Thunderstruck^{YOU'VE BEEN...} 23:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Since you asked, Ken...

Moved to Forum:Obama's wars 22:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Creation Superconference 2012

In one of his last evasions^img, Ken linked to the upcoming Superconference 2012^img of Creation Ministries International. What a treat:

“”There will be something for everyone! Supervised activities onsite, free music concerts, powerlifting performances, geology excursions, Q&A panels and more!

Yeah, they got their priorities right: by powerlifting they will overcome the pesky arguments of these atheistic weaklings!

And look at the nice picture of this happy family, with all the captions: Daddy: „My faith is strengthened. I am now confident in what I believe” - „[My family] enjoyed the camp very much indeed. The presentations were interesting, informative, even eye opening. All presenters are to be congratulated.” - „The children's program was a big bonus. We look forward to our children participating in the next one!”

And the family should know: they took the effort to visit CMI's circus coming from Bedford, Bedfordshire, UK - where they earn a living as tooth-models^img. This must be hard, doing so in England!

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 08:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Meh, you're giving Kenny unmerited attention; should be ignored until he does something actually creative or doesn't cower from debate in his bunny hole.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 09:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

That's not about Ken. That's about CMI not being able to present an actual family which has visited one of their conferences. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 09:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

And probably infringing copyright to boot. But that's a good point - they haven't got a single picture of a family attending a previous gathering. So they resort to theft? Very Christian of them. --PsyGremlinFale! 09:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

CMI has money, they can buy photo rights, it's not like they are trying to put together research budgets or anything... --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 10:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it's probably just a generic stock photo they bought the rights for. Of course, this means that this family likely never attended, making these endorsements likely fake, too. (To be fair, it's typical marketing, so fake testimonies and photos aren't exactly unique to CMI.) --Sid (talk) 10:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

After 5 days of creationists jabbering at me, I'd believe anything they say just so they'd let me go. It's an incredibly thin programme to be spread over a week though, it's almost like creationists don't have anything beyond their regular routine of spreading FUD about evolution. Certainly nothing like the esoterica any real science conference would devolve in to if you gave it five days. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 10:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd think that they payed the royalties: It seems to be taken from here - that's at least the picture of the attendees in the brochure. "Happy business people" larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 10:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it's great that a conference with thirteen speakers and twenty presentations is called a "Superconference". My, what a large production! They probably bought bagels and everything! Phiwum (talk) 12:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I see that they plan to go on some "geology excursions". Now these are places like Chimney Rock State Park whose own web site states "It took more than half a billion years to make Chimney Rock!". However, the CMI brochure says that their own guides will provide a 'free handout' so none of that old Earth rubbish contaminates the pure minds. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 13:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

See, at times like this I get this deep sense of satisfaction that, as an Australian, we would never be that stupid. Then I remember that Ken Ham is effectively our fault and go back to drinking. --Sasayaki (talk) 14:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

If it's any comfort, he obviously decided he couldn't get the money he felt his godbothering was worth in Aus. So you can't be that badly off. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

It was in Oz that I saw my first Chick tract. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 15:37, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Was it CMI who did such a geology tour before, tricking some local geologists into attending by passing it off as a legitimate tour only to spout YEC propaganda at them once they were there?. It was CMI or AiG, I need to find the article.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 14:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Was it this you were looking for? (tl;dr version - some creationists were allowed to "teach" kids for three days without letting the parents know). At this superconference, I'd expect them to have kids doing a "pray-off" contest or something. First to get their prayer answered wins!.... BUT THAT MEANS THEY'RE A WITCH/SORCERER AND MUST BE BURNED. CAPSLOCK. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 16:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The brochure recommends visiting Asheville? I used to live there, and it's not much more than an overpriced, hippie-themed tourist trap with a bunch of new-age crap, bead shops, and health food stores. It doesn't really cater to the conservative/creationist crowd... Elbow (talk) 20:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'm thinking: what do I do this year, Creation Superconference or TAM? Do I want to listen to a dozen wingnuts then go tour Hippieville with Ken and Karajou, or do I want to listen to fifty world-class scientists and sceptics then get drunk in a Vegas casino and do Skeptics in the Tub with a bunch of bikini-clad atheist chicks? Fuck me, it's tricky. --Fergus Mason (talk) 04:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I had the best sex of my life on church camp. I still miss Pastor Mike. --PsyGremlinPrata! 05:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

You had sex with Pastor Mike? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 02:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

"Mitt Romney's last chance to become president"

Is Michigan.^img Because, caught-in-the-Mitt isn't winning already… I guess Andy Schlafly's last chance to sound halfway sane has passed a long time ago... --★uːʤɱ pirate 22:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Theoretical Physics vs. Iron Age Text

More Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge from Andy^img....

“”Impossibility of a Grand Unified Theory Billions of dollars and millions of hours have been wasted by atheists in futile pursuit of a "grand unified theory" for physics. But Genesis explains that the creation of light was done in a separate, initial creation, free of darkness or entropy, and thus incapable of unification with matter.

Stupid atheists spending time and money on scientific research when you should be blindly following an ancient text. --Night Jaguar (talk) 01:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Think about how many hospitals that money could have built instead? Senator Harrison (talk) 02:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Andy was perched on the toilet when he pinched off this insight. --Inquisitor (talk) 02:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Classic; "disproven" because an ancient holy book says so (in a roundabout, disputed way). Imagine if we got people into power who would actually defund scientific research just because it didn't jive with verses from ancient holy texts! Oh...--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 05:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey it worked in the past; how can you say it doesnt work now?!il'Dictator Mikal 06:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I'mma rip off Tim Minchin on this one: Swing your daughter by the hand, but if she gets raped by a man and refuses then to marry him, stone her to death! (Hey, it worked two thousand years ago in the Middle East, why the hell shouldn't it work in modern Jebusland?) -- 11:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Incompleteness theorems may come into play on Andy's side in this one. Once again, Andy may be right in spite of himself. --12:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Huh? Incompleteness theorems seem utterly irrelevant to physical theories, near as I can figger. Oh, it could be that Andy is right simply because the physical universe cannot be described by a GUT, but incompleteness theorems like Goedel's got nothing at all to do with that. Mathematical provability and aptness of scientific theories are two very different things. Phiwum (talk) 12:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the point with incompleteness theorems may have been related to the idea that, even if someone comes up with a GUT that seems to describe everything, we can't be sure that the universe really works that way because there are infinite other mathematical formulations that could produce results consistent with what we see. Though that's apparently not what Andy was saying. 184.61.193.172 (talk) 19:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm kinda surprised that this is a "proof" of the impossiblity of GUT; it reads like a denial of relativity: light can't be unified with matter. Why isn't it another counterexample to relativity? It's as strong as the solenoid one. Whoover (talk) 19:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The Bible only mentions light. Were the W and Z bosons and gluons also created separately? Why doesn't the Bible mention them? That would have been fantastic evidence that it was a book written by the creator of the universe and not the mythology of superstitious primitives. --Night Jaguar (talk) 20:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Everyone knows W and Z bosons are just made up by liberal, atheists, baby-eatin' so-called "scientists", just like neutrinos! Unless these bosons also can be used for a counterexample to relativity? Ehh? Ehh? *Nudge* *Nudge* Say that they are, and Saint Andy, the keymaster to all things legitimate in physics will bless them into true conservative science with open arms! Just like he did with the once shunned sinful neutrino!--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 23:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Is Andy going to hate on nurses now?

How dare they try to prevent a newborn being removed without authorisation.^img It's also interesting what he left out - the "physician bystander" also happens to be a friend of the Kennedys.

Oh yes, and it's Douglas, not George. Clearly Andy's been watching cheesy 80s comedies again. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 13:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

A Psy, you may be misreading that; What are "Nurses orders"? nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 14:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

At a guess, given my grasp of the English language is equal to or above that of a child in kindergarten, orders given by nurses. Or do you think that nurses can never, under any circumstances, give any orders of any kind? 81.151.253.57 (talk) 15:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

It's like wp:Contempt of cop. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 15:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

You're (and Andy) having the misreading problem. The nurses orders are that "no one was allowed to remove newborns from the maternity unit without permission from a medical authority or a discharge order." In other words, it's an instruction from the hospital to the nurses. Plus, in a ward, the nurses' word is law, especially one like maternity. So if some uppity Fox reporter wants to do whatever the hell he likes, then they can take him down. Then again, it was in a stinking socialist public hospital, which was probably paid for by atheists, so the only reason the nurses wanted to keep the baby there, was so they could eat it later. --PsyGremlin講話 15:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that update. I had no idea we in the United States were living is such a police state. Perhaps Amnesty International should be alerted. Do you have any more vital information you can communicate, before Obama takes complete charge of the internet and represses our rights further? nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 15:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

But Taub said both nurses had not recognized Kennedy as the child's father and intended to protect the baby, who apparently had not been discharged. They were trying to enforce hospital rules, Taub said Senator Harrison (talk) 15:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

But it's a Kennedy. Since when do they have to follow any law? nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 15:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

He got charged... It sounds like Kennedy's friend is throwing the nurses under the bus. Based on the facts in the article, the nurses were doing their jobs and Kennedy got physical instead of calmly working it out. Senator Harrison (talk) 15:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

A Fox News reporter got belligerent and self-righteous? I refuse to believe it! -- Seth Peck (talk) 15:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The record doesn't look good for these nurses. The doctor that prescribed the drugs that killed Douglas's brother, wp:David Kennedy was accused of murder by Ed Koch, was prosecuted for something or other. Or does the name wp:William Kennedy Smith ring a bell? wp:Martha Moxley? Michael Skakel? Jimmy Hoffa? nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 16:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Obligatory mangled George Kennedy quote: "Andy had a 50/50 chance of being right, but there's only a ten percent chance of that."

BTW I love how a Google search for "George Kennedy " (with the trailing space) brings up this page first. -- Seth Peck (talk) 15:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Sadly, I have to agree with Andy here, for different reasons. Neither hospitals nor nurses, nor doctors have the right to "order" you not to take your self, or your child out of the hospital at any time. You may be going AMA, but 'policy" does not trump your right to make your own medical choices. GodotGrow a vagina 16:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

But remember, this is a maternity ward, they have stricter rules (or at least ours do) plus they didn't recognise him as the baby's father. They had every right to stop somebody they didn't recognise, carrying a baby and without the necessary permissions. I suppose if the baby was kidnapped from the ward, we'd all be yelling at the nurses for not doing anything? --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 17:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

So it's got nothing to do with medical choices, and everything to do with preventing kids from being kidnapped? GodotGrow a vagina 17:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

In this case, yes. --PsyGremlinPraat! 17:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, nurses have an obligation to act and liability for failure to act properly. The question is whether they have the right to assault a person, presumably. And in this case, assault a parent defending their child. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 17:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

That's right. It looks like Andy is siding with the Kennedy's (his Harvard elitist kin). Looks like PsyGremlin got this one totally wrong. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 16:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Fucking nurses, they deserved to be kicked and harmed for not knowing the man taking the baby away was the father, and that he defied hospital rules by taking the child out of the maternity unit, trying to get "fresh air" in NEW YORK (seems legit!) as compared to that nasty shit-bog fecal breeding room of the hospital. That's right, Psy, you're wrong, and will forever be wrong for all eternity. Case closed. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 17:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Fine. I'm wrong. That means I have to murder a cute puppy now. And it's your fault. --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 17:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Good, as long as it isn't a cute widdle kitten. :3 Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 17:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

It's obvious the father was defending his child from a crazed assault by a woman more in fear for her job than the safety of the child. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 17:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Rob, how about fucking off and coming back when you have something intelligent to say? --PsyGremlinParlez! 17:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Nah, I'm having too much fun seeing you take on the Kennedy klan with their Harvard lawyer, Andy Schlalfy, defending them. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 17:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, if Teddy can get away with murder, why not this idiot. of course, if I had my way, the Kennedy's would be amongst the first up against the wall when the revolution comes. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 17:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ You know, on Teddy's death I was in a difficult position in writing his epitaph; Conservapedia:RJJensen wanted to call ol' man Joe Kennedy a conservative democrat and anti-communist, which is true (and he passed on to Jack & Bobby, Ted probably not). Andy didn't want the word "conservative" attached to the Kennedy klan at all. So I sided with Andy and wrote the text attacking their personal moral lives and character which won the argument with Andy, and slapped Prof Jensen down. I still feel bad about it. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 17:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

So either you have absolutely no spine, you actually dont feel sorry about that; or you are a terrible person for sacrificing you're own beliefs in order to appease il'dictator Andy. --il'Dictator Mikal 18:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Or he's trolling you and you should really just please stop responding. An American Nihilist (talk) 18:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

By pure coincidence, I cleaned up some of my objections with Prof. Jensen just yesterday. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 18:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

RJJensen was one of the best editors CP ever had, he gave it a sense of legitimacy that it never had before, since he was a real historian, author, professor, etc., with a good reputation, and made reasonable edits. If I recall correctly TK was one of the main reasons Prof. Jensen left CP. Refugee^{talk page} 21:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Greaseless

When bored, I am often inclined to wander over to the Madhouse and click the Random Page button for a while. It's always astonishing to realize just how much of nothing the 'Trustworthy Encyclopedia' is filled with - the vast majority of results are barely more than one or two sentences long. Anyway I blundered into this wonderful disambiguation page just now that had me smirking - neither of the entries exist, having of course been deleted many years ago. So now we just have this useless stub of a page that goes nowhere. Moral of the story - don't go researching lubricants or musicals at CP. DogP (talk) 02:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Theres still a large amount of pages that consist soley of bird templates i think--il'Dictator Mikal 02:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Yep..GO KARABIRD! And Travolta doesn't need an entry in the trusworthy encyc anyway.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 02:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Photoshop redux

I'm a bit late to the party, but I just used photoshop for the first time today. Here's my "Photoshop Andy" submission. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 19:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

...

ok?--il'Dictator Mikal 19:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

This is certainly among the scarier things I've ever seen. -- 20:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Mother of god... you have managed to place Andy one step closer to the Slenderman in terms of sheer creepiness. Congratulations Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 20:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

So, uh...hi. There's a reason we have "NSFW" replace some images. Please look into that. 99.50.96.218 (talk) 23:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Why is it "NSFW"? Schlafly's not THAT horrific looking. --Fergus Mason (talk) 23:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Well we sorta got a precedent here. [1] nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 23:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, if nobody else does it, I'm gonna say it: Seriously? Inserting Schlafly in a picture depicting children in warzone running away in terror and for their lifes is funny? WTF? --★uːʤɱ anti-communist 23:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

What, too soon? Turpis 3:16 (talk) 23:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

No. A real, unPhotoshopped picture of Schlafly doused in flaming napalm would be funny.--Fergus Mason (talk) 23:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't get this. Plenty of real life examples to choose from if you want to pan the guy; like his "example of liberal math insight". No need to do this. Andy's self-shootings in the foot are far, far funnier.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 23:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe at some point they were, but now they're just sad and monotonous. He's long exhausted any source of humor he or his site had, and I don't get how you people can continue to find the same tired bullshit amusing after five years. Fallacy² (talk) 23:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

You're right. That's why I defected. Now WTF you give me shit for? nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 00:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

You're a troll -- but, eh, I kind of have a special place in my heart for trolls, so whatever. Stupid Troll Guy (talk) 00:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Defection would have implied you didnt come back a few months later to attempt to resume life as normal. --il'Dictator Mikal 00:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Nihil, Calling me a troll means you can't hold you're own in a pissing contest -- Why don't you try standing up for what you allegedly believe in? nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 00:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Like what? I haven't really been paying attention to what you've been saying, so give me a topic and I'll give you what I think of it, if you care. Stupid Troll Guy (talk) 00:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

See my recently refurbished user page and say what you think, here, there wherever. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 00:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh boy! a bunch of graphs that are 7 years out of date! So worthy of debate!--il'Dictator Mikal 00:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Shopped. You can tell by looking at the pixels, I should know, I've seen a lot of shops in my day. (had to put this meme in...the pixels, in this case, are VERY bad) -- Seth Peck (talk) 20:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

You made one of my least favorite pictures even worse. Wow. Just... wow. Senator Harrison (talk) 00:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Rick Santorum on Koran Burning

Rick Santorum: Obama Wrong to Apologize for Koran Burning ... 'This was something that happened as a mistake.^img I watched Mr. Froth on the Sunday talks and he said the same thing. Since when do you only apologize for something you meant to do? BP? Bhopal? TMI? Why would you tell the survivors you're sorry? Shit happens. Does he really think that their loonies wouldn't be rampaging if they had been told "man up" instead of "sorry"? It absolutely kills me that the "liberal media" honchos like David Gregory never think to ask a question like that. Whoover (talk) 00:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

It's honestly sickening to see so many Americans bigoted against other religions. I remember seeing the highest rated comments on a Yahoo article about Obama appologizing being things like "the soldiers should be praised" or "we shouldn't allow Muslim immigrants". Mr. Anon (talk) 00:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Internet commenters are like talk radio hosts. Both have to hide like cowards before they spout their idiotic drivel. Senator Harrison (talk) 00:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

This is Santorum playing to the conservatives in the Republican primary in hopes of winning Michigan. He knows the Christian, social conservatives will eat these statements right up, even though they would also be just as understandably upset if the military was found tossing Bibles into the incinerator or otherwise being disrespectful towards it, even as an accident.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 01:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Obama's already did that. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 01:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you have evidence that he supported such actions? Mr. Anon (talk) 01:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Who's the Commander-in-Chief? nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 01:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I had the bad luck to be at ISAF HQ when those bibles turned up. Their presence in theatre was a violation of ISAF policy and US Armed Forces General Order No. 1. It is forbidden by HQ ISAF for ISAF soldiers or civilians to proselytise to the Afghans, and for US service personnel it's forbidden by their national regulations too. Yes, Obama knew the bibles were being burned, but the decision was made by COMISAF. The real question is, why wasn't the chaplain who brought the bibles into theatre court-martialed? The whole Pashtu bible incident was a major PR screwup for ISAF and heads should have rolled for it. --Fergus Mason (talk) 01:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I gotta say, our fundies could teach a good lesson to Islamic fundies on how to handle your holy books being burned. You act all indignant, you bitch and whine about what a huge injustice it is, you complain about how horribly oppressed you are and what an egregious act of intolerance it is, and then, at the end of the day, you go home and jerk off to Kate Upton's Sports Illustrated Swimsuit centerfold, and eventually a new day begins. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 02:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm amused that THIS is the reason why he thinks Santorum will win in Michigan, and not because of Romney's flipflopping/corporate friending (not saying Frothy won't win...in fact, I really hope he does). Yes, Michigan. The state with some of the largest Muslim/Arab/Persian/Pakistani communities, participating in a religion that is generally MORE conservative than Christianity. Nice reasoning there. -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Conservapedia right agi... oh, wait.

"Leftists will likely pick George Clooney, a long-time supporter of liberal causes, as "best actor" at tonight's Academy Awards. Followed by homophobic rant.^img Of course, they gave it to a Frenchman, which is even worse. And Meryl won for Maggie, ergo Santorum will win the election. I like how Andy calls it a farce, but the fact that The King's Speech defeated The Social Network last year, was the single biggest reason that Palin wouldn't run for President. --PsyGremlinSpeak! 04:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

And, of course, it's liberals' fault the Frenchie won.^img --PsyGremlinTala! 05:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

You forgot how Obama arranged through his Hollywood friends to give Best Foreign Language Film to Iran. That outta assuage them from building nukes and attacking our ships. I mean, can't we all jus' getta long? nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 05:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

My god are you actually this big of a fucktard or does the Acadamy need a new category for best text based performance on the internet? Pi 3:14 (talk) 06:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I just want to be clear about something. You are asserting that Obama himself, using his Hollywood connections, deliberately altered the outcome of the Academy Awards to appease Iran? That is what you're saying, right? --Sasayaki (talk) 09:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, it could have been Hillary & the State Dept.; the Clinton's have been big donor recipients over the years. So there's built in deniability. But the bin Laden snuff tapes having been leaked to Spielberg for his year-end full feature of Obama's finest hour exposes the bit-to-cozy ongoing relationship with the current incumbent. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 12:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Wait... the bin Laden "snuff tapes" were leaked to Spielberg? Citation, please? All I can find is a single paragraph in that beacon of American journalism, The Fort Morgan (Colorado) Times. And incidentally, Spielberg could not make a major movie about the bin Laden killing quickly enough to get it out in time to influence the election. Perhaps they should try Señor Spielbergo, his non-union Mexican equivalent. MDB (talk) 13:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe he is just trolling you; I took his original statement as a joke.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually the story was leaked to Maureen Dowd and the New York Times. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 18:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow, you and Andy have about the same level of reading comprehension. The movie is by Kathryn Bigelow and Mark Boal (of The Hurt Locker fame). Steven Spielberg is not mentioned in the article. (Nor is Señor Spielbergo.) Nothing about the "snuff tapes" being released, either, just claims they're getting access to highly classified info.

And I'm too damn lazy to hunt up the title, but didn't one of the cable networks do a fawning movie about George Bush's actions on 9/11? One that practically portrayed as wanting to personally spearhead the hunt for bin Laden? MDB (talk) 18:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

H.R 2819 was introduced to "stop the Obama administration from spending taxpayer money to share information about the killing of bin Laden with Sony Pictures, which is looking to release a film about that event in October 2012." nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 19:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Which still says nothing about the "snuff films", or Spielberg. And ignores the long history of the military cooperating on films that portray them in a positive manner. Oh, and the bill has gone nowhere. 19:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

(EC) A dead-issue bill with no sponsorship to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Brilliant. The same representative had no problem with government funds being used to sponsor NASCAR teams. October 2012 release to influence the elections? Didn't Michael Moore try the same thing in 2004 and it didn't work then (it didn't tip the scale of the election, nor were Republicans successful in completely delaying its launch)? This "issue" is about as stupid as the people who protested against the release of The Two Towers because they believed it to be a 9/11 reference, or those who protested against Star Wars II & III because they were commentaries on the War in Iraq and the Patriot Act (which they kind of are, only after the fact—but it's stupid not to tell a story). Hollywood values indeed. -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

See also House Committee on Homeland Security concerns "regarding ongoing leaks of classified information regarding sensitive military operations." nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 19:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Once again, nothing about the "snuff films". Or Spielbe... oh, why the fuck am I bothering. MDB (talk) 19:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Um, what does Assfly mean by "upset"? Wasn't Jean Dujardin(am I spelling that right?) the favorite to win best actor? _transResident Transfan^form! 06:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you're spelling his name right and a Best Actor win for Jean Dujardin was certainly not a surprise to anyone, not even Dujardin himself, genuinely delighted though he obviously was in his acceptance speech. But since when has anyhting that's been going on in the real world had any relation to what's going on inside Andy's head? --Spud (talk) 07:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Just to be completely clear on this, he predicted George Clooney would win because liberals, then Jean Dujardin wins because liberals? Somewhere, there is a psychology student trying to kidnap Andy for use as a case study. -- 08:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's face it, whatever the outcome, Andy would make some political point out of it. If he doesn't agree with the result, it's because liberals; if he does agree then it's a triumph for conservatism; if he's ambivalent, then he tosses a mental coin and goes with that. I think that last year the King's Speech could have gone 'because liberals' if he'd decided it was a British triumph.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 10:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

This may be a dumb question, but then all questions in these politically correct times are dumb, Is the best actor a man or woman? nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 12:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

At the risk of feeding the troll, I will say this. Jean Dujardin is a man. "Jean" is a French man's name. The Oscars still have seperate awards for Best Actor and Best Actress, the Best Actress award being won by Meryl Streep this year. It is true that many women in the business prefer to be called "actors" not "actresses". That's their choice. --Spud (talk) 13:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused now; I thought Meryl was Best Female Actor. "Actress" has been consigned to like using the "N" word. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 13:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Rob, I try to avoid personal attacks, but after that post? You're a fuckin idiot.--Thunderstruck^{YOU'VE BEEN...} 13:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Rob, from oscar.com "Actress In a Leading Role." Now STFU. --PsyGremlinPraat! 14:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Rob, have you ever seen a doctress? What about a paper written by a physicistess? And you lament the fact that "nigger" is too politically incorrect to use any more? Take action and write to the Academy blasting them for not having a category for Best Negress Actress.--Brendiggg (talk) 14:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The LA Times says "Actress No Longer Used, January 18, 2009. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 18:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Guys, you do realize Rob isn't being serious, and this whole "Obama rigged the Oscars so Iran won" is his attempt at humor, right? Turpis 3:16 (talk) 14:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

When you're dealing with someone from CP, it's hard to tell. I still occasionally wonder if CP itself is the greatest parody of American conservatism in history (that's managed to keep it's parody status quiet.) MDB (talk) 15:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

That's the last time I risk feeding that particular troll. --Spud (talk) 14:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Rob is coming off in a very Andy Rooney kind of way. There are too many words on cereal boxes these days. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I think I got Rob figured out: he's Otto from A Fish Called Wanda. He really wants to be an intellectual, he goes through all the motions and read some of the right stuff, but at the end of the day he just falls far short of the requisite brainpower. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 15:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Just as a note to Rob:

• The central philosophy of Buddhism is not "every man for himself."
• Aristotle was not Belgian.
• The London Underground is not a political movement.

(I know these things, I looked them up. Just not on CP.) MDB (talk) 15:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

WIGO WTF... WIGO FTW…

Any particular reason that "Andy shows us why it's stupid to look at the world through only a biased liberals v. conservatives myopic political lens" appears to be an ad for a book on Amazon?-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 10:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I noticed and was confused by that too. Especially since it seems to be a book about absolutely nothing to do with the subject matter. I mean, hey. I have a Science Fiction novel up on Amazon too, all chock full of Iranian atheists and Chinese atheists and Australian atheists; maybe I should shamelessly WIGO that too. --Sasayaki (talk) 11:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, failed to copy the right link, didn't catch it, need to proof better. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 16:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Eh, people have made bigger mistakes. --Night Jaguar (talk) 18:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Passive-aggressive Joaquin

After his vicious smackdown by Kendoll last time he attempted to put his own stuff front and centre on the main page, Joaquin sneaks his world monument photos^img, apropos of nothing, in to some of Andy's droolings hoping that Kendoll won't notice it wasn't the dear leader's idea. CP should give Rob his front page posting privileges back so there's an even bigger war going on over the space, and he doesn't have to spam his graph shit here instead. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Jesus fuck

I've not been on CP for a while other than to check my clickbot's progress (as I was thoroughly bored with the antics over there) but I swung by today and found the wonderful section entitled Examples of Liberal Math. Whilst talking about fucking maths, Andy states that "A liberal claims to know almost everything. A conservative recognizes that the liberal actually knows almost nothing of value". Those who watch CP regularly become desensitised to just how fucking crazy the Assfly is, (and how easily the parodists yank his strings) so returning after a CP sabbatical I feel like I did when I first discovered the madness. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 14:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Andy, the man who knows everything about everything, claims that "a liberal claims to know almost everything." Oh wait... I suppose there is a subtle differene. We know almost everything. Andy knows everything - including what the Bible is supposed to say.

--PsyGremlinSprich! 14:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

This is one of my favorite bits of Andy insanity. If there's any field of human knowledge that almost has to be unpolitical (in a liberal vs. conservative sense -- I'm sure there's plenty of academic politics), it's math. There's just nothing political about it -- it's pure fact.

And note Andy just added this gem -- that engineering is probably the "most immune to liberal bias". (Oddly enough, his undergrad field.)

Okay, as a fellow electrical engineer, I'll grant engineering is less political than lots of fields of study. I don't think I can remember any of my professors getting political in class. (We might have chatted about politics with the friendlier ones "off-line", but that's different.) But as much engineering work is done for the government, engineers are going to be pre-disposed to support large government spending, especially for Defense. And pretty much any aerospace engineer is going to love the space program.

Plus, you can get into the ethics of doing defense work, a big deal for a wide range of engineering disciplines. MDB (talk) 14:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

"Once the rockets go up, who cares where they come down. That's not my department says Werner Von Braun." And you ought to know where the quote is from. Jack Hughes (talk) 16:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Didn't the engineers fuckup the Katrina Levee for which the politicians took the heat? nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 18:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

No, politicians were generally blamed for the failed response. ("Heck of a job, Brownie!") MDB (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

And, for those who don't - [2] Jack Hughes (talk) 16:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I once sang this for a devoutly Catholic friend. He laughed at it. I asked, "you're going to have to go to confession for that, aren't you?" He said, "yeah, but it'll be worth it." MDB (talk) 16:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

most susceptible? "Women's studies and english lit". one wonders if he actually ever went to class. on anything. GodotGrow a vagina 16:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Liberal bias in math? Come on, that's an easy one. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, Lehrer was a big liberal and he sung about math. Therefore, liberal math exists. QED. --Night Jaguar (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

There's also liberal bias in chemistry. --Night Jaguar (talk) 17:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Lolwut? Andy calls Godel's incompleteness theorem conservative when it was appropriated and misused by (notoriously liberal) postmodernists. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Has Andy attacked imaginary numbers lately? MDB (talk) 17:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Hobbes, the ultimate troll. -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I thought that was Swift? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I think Swift is the ultimate Poe. -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Or maybe the Colbert of the Enlightenment Era? --Night Jaguar (talk) 18:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

CP proven right about Jeb!

Conservapedia is proven right about Jeb Bush entering the race! And by that Andy means a crazy woman said it might happen^img. Oh and his citation says this as well:

“”The conservative author, who is supporting former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, said that a Jeb Bush candidacy would be a disaster. "I think on closer examination, Jeb Bush would be the worst of all candidates to run, for one thing," said Coulter. "We don't need another Bush. That would be embarrassing to the Republican Party."

Embarrassing to Republican Party, unlike the candidacy of Perry, Bachmann, or Cain. Maybe "proven right" isn't meant to be "shown to be correct" but "shown to be a right-wing idiot". --Night Jaguar (talk) 16:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

"Proven right" - yes, if that's right as in wing rather than right as in correct. Sophie^{because liberals} 17:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, shit. I agree with Coultergeist. I need to go wash. With battery acid. MDB (talk) 17:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

So he's either (a) deliberately quote mining, or (b) only read the headline—Hanlon's Razor breaks on this one. The fact that he likes anything Coulter might say is unsurprising, but I'm a little shocked that he considers her conservative enough given some of the stopped-clock statements she's made in the past. On the other hand, she is kind of like his mom in her vitriol, and significantly hawter...still, my guess is a revert is pending. On a related note, I think a RationalWiki Predictions page is in order, possibly a Fun, Discussion, WIGO or Voting page, based on what we expect people to do (part snarky parody, part "Oh, we saw this coming, some people are so predictable" stuff). -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Fuck, I'm an idiot. This goes back to my "signature soup" story, which I'm not sure if I've told or not. -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I enjoyed the part about "liberal objections that he's not running", which, most notably, would be the objections by Jeb Bush himself. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Silence, liberal! Andy Schlafly clearly knows more about Jeb Bush's intentions than anyone else, Jeb Bush himself included. MDB (talk) 18:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

You know, at this stage in the game, Jeb is probably somewhere between #3 anad #5 in terms of likelihood of being the nominee. If it isn't Romney for Santorum it's going to be a brokered convention, in which case Jeb is on the shortlist. So Andy's not crazy for ranking him somewhat high for the time being, he's just crazy for ranking him #1. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 18:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

History teaches us that the longer a republican candidate for president campaigns the less likely they are to win anything, so I wouldn't be surprised if they pull one out of their ass for the two minute drill. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, grabbing an unprepared governor at the last minute and putting them on the ticket worked so well for them last time..... --Night Jaguar (talk) 18:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Ha, are you talking about the woman trying to run for president since 2008? Occasionaluse (talk) 18:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

You 'betcha! --Night Jaguar (talk) 19:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Rob is getting intolerable

and, for me at least, he's making this page less fun. He trolls masterfully, which I kinda admire, but god dammit it's working. He turns jovial, peanut gallery banter into borish, lengthy and frustrated argument. I could go on, but I just want a quick straw poll to see if anyone else is as bothered as I am, or if I'm just being a whiney little bitch:

What? Rob makes the page more fun.	" 15
Meh. (this is also the "goat" option)	" 5
I wish he'd fuck off, but let's do precisely nothing.	" 19
Ban him from the page.	" 6
TrollCollapse all his tedious bullshit.	" 13
Encourage everyone to reply to every single one of his comments with "what's that got to do with the price of fish?" until he gets the fucking point.	" 69

^{ONE / TALK} 19:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

You've got to troll him back or ignore him. Otherwise, you lose. Two people trolling together makes for great fun, do I don't mind having Rob around too much. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Not really. It's pretty stupid, in fact. Nihilist (talk) 19:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we really needed a poll for this. To summarise, FUCK OFF, ROB. THIS IS ANOTHER WIKI WHERE YOU AREN'T WANTED TO ADD YO YOUR COLLECTION. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind having rob around; i just want him to strop derailing so many conversations into himself and whatever he ranted about.--il'Dictator Mikal 19:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

You mean, you wish he wouldn't be such a troll, the very thing we are decrying him for? An American Nihilist (talk) 19:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

You don't like the inside scoop on Andy, Ken, or Prof. Jensen? WTF is this page all about? I can only tell you from personal experience, fuck. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 19:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Rob; what inside scoop? What inside scoop have you provided we didnt already have? This entire page is a document to you lying right there. --il'Dictator Mikal 19:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

There are several on this page if you bothered to read: Andy on Ron Paul & isolationism; Andy on the Kennedy's & conflict with Prof. Jensen over Joe Kennedy being a conservative. Need I go on? nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 19:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don't think you need to as such, but you so often do that I think maybe you can't help it. While we're at it, has anyone considered that Rob in reality is subscribing to Three Worlds Theory? LowKey (talk) 01:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it's a fair trade. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I didn't recognise Rob's "inside scoop" because it was so similar to what we call "complete bullshit" in this part of the world. Rob, none of that stuff is a) Real, or b) Inside information. It's just your speculations, and we can happily do that ourselves without your conspiracy theory interludes. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. At the risk of running on somewhat, above I stated, "my dispute with CP wp:Stalwarts is sort of the GOP implosion in microcosm." Now we can forgive non-US participants here on CPWIGO for not being fully informed about the intricacies of US politics -- to them issues are divided according to a hard & fast, left-right, conservative-liberal divide (similar to how Andy & Ken see the world). They are unaware the GOP has serious divisions between brainless social conservative fucktards and genuine economic conservatives concerned about the future of the planet. So I just say to them (our fellow First Worlders living in the hinterlands), "backoff, let me do my job". nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 20:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

what's that got to do with the price of fish?il'Dictator Mikal 20:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

(EC) Lookit, we know NZ is first world, but please stop making it look like its got a Third World educational system, at least as far as political education goes. Thanks. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 20:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

what's that got to do with the price of fish?--il'Dictator Mikal 20:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

what's that got to do with the price of fish? Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 20:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Damnit all, I read that option as 'what's that goat to do with the price of fish?' It's the non-sequiter of goat and fish together in the same sentence that's seems like the perfect answer to Nobski's usual stercore de profundum.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 20:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Go ahead and use that one then :D--il'Dictator Mikal 20:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Ban him. That's what we do around here, right. 21:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Check the logo. We are rationalwiki. Not conservapedia.

Side note, how many polls on robsmith have we created in the past few days?--Thunderstruck^{YOU'VE BEEN...} 21:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Congrats, Rob. Both CP and RW have found you intolerable. It's quite a feat getting those two Wikis to agree on something. --Night Jaguar (talk) 21:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ How many polls? I don't know. Let's vote. How many polls on robsmith have we created in the past few days? TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 21:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

1	2	Vote
2	1	Vote
e	7	Vote
3	1	Vote
Pi	9	Vote
Many	3	Vote
Lots	3	Vote
Goat	51	Vote

We could divert all his garbage to forumspace, creating two simultaneous threads - a fun, peanut-gallery-banterish one here, and a tedious trollfest that nobody cares about over there. Every time he comments on a thread, duplicate in forumspace and delete anything he says here. Sophie^{because liberals} 21:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you go fuck yourself. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)}

What's that got to do with the price of fish? Sophie^{because liberals} 22:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

My suggestion of a private padded cell WIGO:Rob still stands. Vulpius (talk) 22:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

New online chocolate teapot for creationists

There's a spectacular piece of wilful creationist ignorance on MPL today: "CMI is excited to announce Genesis Verse-by-Verse, a new Bible study tool ... blah blah blah ... answer your questions about the Bible ... blah blah blah ... quickly find relevant information that supports the historicity of the Genesis text." (Who writes this tosh? Kenny boy...?) Then it continues, "Of course, atheists and Darwinists are too primitive in their thinking to create a database management system tool to counter CMI's Genesis Verse-by-verse. [Omit gratuitous abuse of R.Dawkins] No doubt a clunky website that lacks something as powerful as Genesis verse-by-verse ... blah blah blah."

So let's start with the entire research effort to discover the evolutionary record of life. As shown by non-primitive web projects like Tree of Life. Well, that would require creationists to read, perhaps even to think. Mr Gently Benevolent (talk) 23:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh hey that's great! You just commented to point out the idiocy of a dishonest and profoundly mentally ill religious zealot talking obvious rubbish. And you found an awesome site to counter said dishonest and profoundly mentally religious zealot's obviously silly factual claim about "Darwinists" and their "clunky website." I know you struggled to come up with something so relevant. You're very cool! 23:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Sadly, as cool as that is, it's not relevant. They will call the clodograms "baramins," maybe argue with a bit of placement but say "yep, that's what God did, all right." They would want a "database" (really an index of propaganda) that organizes, what?, to prove evolution. You probably wouldn't want to start with Genesis. But whatever you started with, it wouldn't matter. Let's say it was thousands of fossils of transitional forms. Their response would be "La la la la. I can't hear you. By the way, no fossil of a transitional form has ever been found." They're trolls. Look the other way. Whoover (talk) 00:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Now, now. Don't flame the newbies. Save the scorn for Rob. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll bite my tongue and save my scorn for Mikalos. 03:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

(there is no chocolate here. bad header!) would it surprize any of you that the CMI geneis project is bunk - does not include any major linguist, does not include any renown theologian, and does not involve a single hebrew scholar? didn't think so. GodotGrow a vagina 03:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Credentials are for elitists except when you're Dr. Don Batten, Dr. Carl Weiland, and Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, in which case they're why you're qualified to authoritatively pronounce on whatever the fuck you feel like even if it's outside your field (mission from god and all that). I'm sorry but I just spit out a little beer when I saw "hebrew scholar," as if the mere existence of even a "single hebrew scholar" anywhere in the galaxy could conceivably have any bearing on how these guys read Genesis. Prosh. You're talking about CMI. As a group, they're just barely above the likes of that Paluxy Tracks clown and Kent Hovind on their worst days. Of course they don't have any legit academics doing their Genesis eisegesis. 03:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Point the first: it is not a "project" it is simply a reference tool to link from verses to related articles. That's it. You know, like html or wiki-markup. The rest of your emanation hangs from that error.

Point the second: funny to see the old chestnut given a new twist. These guys are now unqualified because their Ph.D.s are in hard sciences. Clever. (Although btw they do have theologions and scholars in Hebrew).

Nutty, this isn't about law, so you are not qualified pronounced on it. See how that doesn't work? LowKey (talk) 03:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Andy versus Facebook, part umpty-seven

Really, Andy...

Facebook is a glorified means of communication, nothing more. The face someone posted disturbing messages on it before committing a horrific act does not make it evil, any more than the phone is evil if someone uses it to make a bomb threat. (Actually, I have little doubt that if Andy lived a hundred years ago, he'd be penning angry letters to the editor complaining about the telephone.)

And the cp:lamestream media "continue[s] to protect Facebook"? CNN mentions it. You don't get much more "lamestream" than CNN. MDB (talk) 13:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Lamestream. God damn it, andy needs to stop acting 5 years old.--Thunderstruck^{YOU'VE BEEN...} 13:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

You mean CNN caved to Andy's pressure over their liberal facebook conspiracy? Score one for Andy! Occasionaluse (talk) 14:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I enjoy the fact that every time Andy claims the mainstream media is "oppressing" the truth or protecting some organization or company he doesn't like, the source link he provides is either inevitably some mainstream news site, or can be found on some mainstream news site at the same time.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 14:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm hoping some brave soul brings it up so that we can see Andy's next attempt at deception. I'm guessing that Andy would have liked CNN to go a step further and place blame on facebook for the shooting. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Remember, Andy knows more about subjects then those involved or those who went to big nameeschools for the purpose to learn how to do it. And as the proprietor of the only real christian conservative wiki, he cant be wrong! --il'Dictator Mikal 15:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, that silly old lamestream media is focusing on complete irrelevancies like a possible history of violence in the alleged gunman's family, not the all-important fact he used Facebook.

Seriously, though, at this point saying that a teenager who does something horrible used Facebook is about as relevant as pointing out he drank sodas or watched television. It's so common among teenagers it would be more notable if he didn't. MDB (talk) 17:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Guns in WIGO

Andy didn't say that it didn't have anything to do with guns, so why does the WIGO imply that he did? --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 17:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

oh ken

whats sad is know people who would use that logic^img--il'Dictator Mikal 15:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Good old Pascal's wager - because the Great and Magnificent Oz God would never know that you believe in her and go to church "just in case." Scum like Stanley are far worse than any atheist. --PsyGremlinSpeak! 15:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

When Pascal's Wager is your best argument for Christianity (and let's face it, it probably is) your arguments are pathetic indeed. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 16:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Nice circular logic in there too. Ken never fails to disappoint. -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

God is like a school inspector who just needs to see the attendance records. Pongo^{Orangutans are sceptical} 16:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

That reminds me of my relatives vs. myself on these topics. Confirmation, churchgoing on holidays, praying and I've come to the point were I ignore Christian holidays completely (Yes, that includes Christmas). That's what comes back to you if you teach your children to act on what they think and don't let themselves be forced into stuff they don't want to do, at some they are going to give you the finger and go "Fuck you all! I'm outa here." But, hey than you can still say that kid just has to do it because you really, really want him to. God, I fucking hate my relatives… --★uːʤɱ kant 19:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

"If Richard Dawkins is truly is an agnostic (and not merely be the God hater many Christians know he is)" <-- It's nice to see that Andy lets blatant idiocy like this remain on the main page. --Sid (talk) 17:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I can't figure out how someone might think hating God is more plausible than being agnostic. Okay, Conservative's obviously deranged, but still: "That all-powerful, divine creator of all there is? The loving, all-good being? Man, he just gets under my skin. What an asshole. Just to show 'im, I'm gonna pretend I'm not sure whether he exists or not." Phiwum (talk) 17:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

It's times like these I zigzag wildly between "Bravo, User:Conservative is a master parodist/group of parodists!" and "... what a sick, sad, pathetic little man." --Sasayaki (talk) 17:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Feh, it doesn't matter if it's plausible. The Bible says so, so it's true. I've often wanted atheists who talk to Ray Comfort in person to tell him flat out they don't believe in god, and then ask him if he thinks they're lying. I'm never entirely sure if the atheists hate god spiel is something these guys really believe or just something they tell each other so they can feel more secure in their own faith. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Its sad that they cannot understand what agnostic atheism is and how it isn't a contradiction in terms. Yet again they probably do understand but are using the public's ignorance on what it really means in order to push the false idea everyone is not only a secret theist but a secret Christian theist.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, CP inconsistencies are a dime a dozen, but...

It's bad to "declare" a winner early, though making predictions is okay. Oh, and kudos to CP for declaring the winner early in two primaries.

I know this hypocrisy has been obvious from the start, but at least he pretended that CP predicts, so that's better than the other folks who "declare". But he plumb forgot this distinction on the CP-proven-right page.

Of course, given his nonsense that Wiles's proof of FLT is liberal, while Goedel's incompleteness proofs were a conservative rejoinder to Russell (usually, people regard Goedel's theorems as more directly related to Hilbert's program), this is a kinda dull observation. Phiwum (talk) 15:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The best thing about this? Three weeks ago Santorum was RINO, today he is new Saint Conservative™. But it's all just a preview for Romney. --★uːʤɱ atheist 19:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of which, this made me smirk today:

The weird thing is Andy really thinks we're all for Romney because he's a RINO liberal with no chance to beat Obama, while we're all laughing our arses off that Santorum (who really is as electable as herpes) could possibly be the nominee. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Really -- the Obama campaign staff has to be practically drooling over the prospect of Santorum getting the nomination. Obama could approach a 60%-40% win. MDB (talk) 20:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I would call that estimate conservative. I'm also reminded of this:

-- Seth Peck (talk) 20:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

From what I've read, political scientists say 60-40 is about the biggest swing you'll see in a remotely competitive election. Even Reagan in 1984 didn't beat 60% (he got 58.8), and that's widely regarded as the apex of modern landslides. MDB (talk) 23:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Anything is possible in our current political climate. I did not think it was even remotely possible that W. could be re-elected in the U.S., and yet it happened. Yea, Yea, I know, Florida and chads, blah, blah... But the fact remains that W. did serve a second term. Jimaginator (talk) 21:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

That's because most of the country couldn't identify with a wealthy Massachussetts flip-flopper...oh wait, sound like anyone we know? -- Seth Peck (talk) 21:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Latest reports out of MI say that 10% UPDATE:FORTY-ONE PERCENT of the people voting today were registered Democrats (or independents), and, if my MI tribe is any indication, they ALL voted for Santorum, so if it's really tight, Andy will be right, but with an asterisk. -- Chilling with a Red Stripe in Kingston. Irie.

What Andy Hears: Blah Blah Blah Blah Bullied Blah Blah Blah

Andy: He posted a chilling rant on Facebook two months ago, but the lamestream media try to portray him as victim of bullying instead.^img

Actual citation: 27 paragraphs of stuff, followed by

"FBI officials would not comment on a motive. But 15-year-old Danny Komertz, who witnessed the shooting, said the gunman was known as an outcast who had apparently been bullied."

"Other students disagreed that the student was a victim of bullying or an outcast, saying he was just quiet."

followed by 11 paragraphs of other stuff. Whoover (talk) 21:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Facts are for libruls and queers! -- Seth Peck (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Seeing someone referred to as a facebook user in this context is so ridiculous I have to chuckle, which almost makes me feel a little bad. "The death toll tragically rises to 3 from the murderous rampage by the Facebook user". I'm just trying to think of all the things you could substitute for "facebook user". "pants wearer". "hand washer". "music fan". I'm also thinking about Andy meeting Mark Zuckerberg and how long it would take MZ to motion to his bodyguards for help. Occasionaluse (talk) 22:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

If anyone needed proof that this whole "lamestream media hiding important info on killer's true motive" is just projection: Andy just deleted information on Anders Behring Breivik being an anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant right-wing extremist^img, which might seem important given that he targeted the country's labour party. He however keeps the fact that the guy played World of Warcraft there. Also, "young mass murders"? The guy was over 30 when he committed the massacre. --Night Jaguar (talk) 22:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

But he looked young, and played video games, so what does his actual age prove? Fieka (talk) 22:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

McVeigh was 27 when he killed 168 in Oklahoma City. But conservatives are mature for their age so he doesn't make the cut. Whoover (talk) 22:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Dosn't count, He was an Atheist. Also, the whole "conservative" thing is a "left wing conspiracy theory".--Thunderstruck^{YOU'VE BEEN...} 00:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Ron Paul

I'm curious as to what Conservapedia's stance on him is. I remember they once called him a "Conservative", even though he has a significant number of liberal supporters and supports things like gay marriage. In fact, what opinion do they have of conservatives in general? Are they also supportive of other fiscal (but not social) Conservatives like Milton Friedman and Karl Rove? I'm really looking for Nobs' response here. I know I can just check this stuff on conservapedia, but since he's like their official representative here, it would be nice to here his opinion. Mr. Anon (talk) 00:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

the definition that andy uses for "Conservative" is the same definition just about nobody else uses: completely conservative with not a single "liberal" action ever. Remember; George Orwell was american conservative! --il'Dictator Mikal 00:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe they are generally against Ron Paul; Schlafly n' Co. wouldn't support a candidate who is for gay marriage and legalization of drugs. They support conservatives: people without a drop of liberalism. Remember, Lamar Smith became liberal after SOPA.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 01:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I always find the aNti-SOPa stance andy took to be hilarious. --il'Dictator Mikal 01:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not. SOPA protects the elites in the RIAA and the liberal music industry, so of course he would oppose it.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 01:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

They like Ron Paul whenever it is political expedient to do so in accordance with their ideology.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 01:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Ron Paul is a Libertarian. He ran against Reagan as such in 1984. Libertarians big issue is drug legalization, so I doubt Andy's sympathetic. And I'm not CP's rep here -- in fact, my dispute with CP wp:Stalwarts is sort of the GOP implosion in microcosm. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 01:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I always got the vibe that Andy respects Paul, but also respectfully disagrees with him. I guess he knows that for Paul freedom is the most important point, while for Andy god's rule is much more important. --★uːʤɱ atheist 02:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

There is a kinship there. Andy comes from the isolationist/nativist wing of the party, traditional "America First" (remember mom wrote, Kissinger on the Couch, a critique of Republican Internationalism). Andy fundamentally shares Paul's isolationist foreign policy, perhaps not as extreme as Paul, though. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 02:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't Andy share the irrational love of Israel that all other fundies seem to have? Occasionaluse (talk) 14:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Andy's boner for the Iraq War sort of throws his alleged isolationist stance out the window. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 14:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I think sometimes Andy's conservatism is more defined for him as not-being-liberal-ism, therefore if liberals are against it a good conservative has to defend it to his last breath. --★uːʤɱ heretic 14:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree with that; in the late 1980s, I felt Ronald Reagan & other cp:classical liberals had gone a long way to rehabilitating the word "liberal", as other free market democrats emerged, Boris Yeltsin, for example. I was in favor of branding American liberals as what they were -- "socialists" (albeit, in the US "socialist" caries the connotation "traitor" with it.) I blame the rise of Rush Limbaugh in the late 80s for re-demonizing the term. Andy certainly grew up in a household that probably regarded the term "liberal" worse than "communist" or "socialist", and I don't mean to be factious in saying that. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 18:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Funny, in Europe socialist carries "intelligent" with it and liberal/free-marketeer a bit of "naive dreamer". I find it quite ironic that in the US of all place a term derived from the Latin word for freedom carries such notions for some and that in a country that started with a violent revolution "conservative" is much more popular. Ahh, just the little things that make me chuckle. --★uːʤɱ sinner 21:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Conservapedia predicts...

True Conservative Santorum will defeat evil RINO Romney in Michigan and Conservapedia will be proven right once again!

Just like when you declared Santorum was a stalking horse for Romney and you were so confident Gingrich would win the nomination you were picking out his Cabinet?

Yeah, I know, Andy's predictions are old hat, but still... MDB (talk) 15:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

But heres the thing, those were predictions, those can change over time! (not lying, this sums up his answer to somebody asking why he keeps changing it with the political winds)--il'Dictator Mikal 15:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Wait, wasn't Santorum an evil liberal a few weeks ago? That's a mighty wind for sure. -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

he was til he started winning some stuff. then he became jesus 3.0--il'Dictator Mikal 16:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

There's an easy way out of this; Romney appoints Gingrich Chief-of-Staff and Gingrich selects cabinet appointments. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 17:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

What's that got to do with the price of fish? -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

First of all, Rob, that would never happen. Secondly, since when is the administration named after the chief of staff? I don't recall Emmanuel, Card, or Sununu administrations, do you? In any case, Perry as VP and Palin for State are some of the most ridiculous predictions I've ever heard. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 18:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Perry as Veep might make sense, depending on who gets the nomination. Palin at State... I'm not even convinced she'd want the job. I can see a Republican President making her Secretary of the Interior, perhaps. MDB (talk) 18:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

(EC) He was a stalking horse as recently as Florida, where he was trying to give the race to Romney:

"As Conservapedia has long predicted, Rick Santorum continues to be a stalking horse for Mitt Romney, this time in Florida as Santorum criticizes pro-life Newt Gingrich. [91] Over his career, Santorum may have campaigned harder to help pro-abortion candidates than Planned Parenthood has!" (From [conservapedia.com/Main_Page/Previous_Conservapedia_Breaking_News#January_30 archived breaking news]).

On Jan. 21, we learned, "Santorum, while claiming to be pro-life, has a long history of endorsing and campaigning for pro-abortion candidates, and Santorum may endorse Romney before long in the race." But now, of course, Conservapedia supports (and has always supported) Santorum as a conservative. Phiwum (talk) 17:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

And if Newt ever becomes the designated not-Romney again, Santorum will be back to RINOhood so fast we'll all get whiplash. What a strange world it must be inside Andy's head. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Meanwhile, in the real world, Romney sweeps Arizona, Michigan primaries. --PsyGremlinParlez! 09:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The world in Andy's head? A maze of twisty little passages, all alike. I wonder what would happen if you said xyzzy to him. (And if you get those jokes without having to look them up, you're an old school geek like me. MDB (talk) 13:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Kudos to JamesWilson

I just want to give my kudos to whoever is running JamesWilson. His posts are not only completely absurd, but virtually indistinguishable from Andy's. I doubt anyone could do better than 60/40 deciding who's post is who. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I liked this:

"Baobab", you do not know how the citation system works here. The onus is on the person who wants a citation up to find that citation.

That's CP citation policy, courtesy of Popeye "scour the deserts!" Karajou. ^{ONE / TALK} 22:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I just burned my bridge to that fucking place and I am so glad. I used to think that if I argued hard enough and wore them down, I could do something over there, but fuck Andy and fuck Ken and fuck them all. God, all of the time I spent over there arguing with a brick wall when I could've been watching midget porn or doing cinnamon challenges. RachelW (talk) 05:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I see that Popeye has just permabanned you. With his usual reason "Sockpuppet/Abusing multiple accounts". Without specifying who he thought you were a sock of. Same way he banned me most recently. Were you a sock of anyone? In any case, you're welcome to come to Ameriwiki. You'll have lots of friends--other CP refugees. SamHB (talk) 05:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

When Rob initiated his glasnost attempt, I seriously considered giving the place another so, especially since they removed my parodist instituted ban. However when the hard-liners sent Rob to Siberia and clamped down on any thought outside the approved ideological dogma, any desire I had was quickly extinguished. The final straw was Kenny's Tour de Bestial; I have absolutely zero desire to ever be associated with a place that had dedicated dog dinking as a major topic series--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Andy and his family have had an ax to grind for generations. No amount of reality can change that. If you're going to participate in CP, you need a different endgame (e.g. lulz, parody, vandalism). Occasionaluse (talk) 16:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Classic Andy

Some great examples of Andy's delusional thinking on display in this thread^img.

Even Fox News' reality is too liberal for Andy^img. What we really need is a TV channel that reports no facts, just ridiculous opinions like Andy's. Maybe he could be trolled in to getting a public access show?

Democrats voting for Santorum? Those were Conservative Democrats^img who really like Santorum's brand of Jesus fuelled demagoguery.

Plus of course an obligatory instance of Karajou censoring reality^img so his master can better maintain his delusions. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 10:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe those channels exist, Jeeves: TBN, CBN, CTN, Daystar, GOD TV, BYU TV, Sky Angel, Three Angels, Worship Network, EWTN, History Channel and many public access channels...I probably missed a few. As far as the "conservative Democrats"...all I gotta say is LOL. -- Seth Peck (talk) 14:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The History Channel is obviously not conservative. They refuse to declare that the Nazis were liberals. Phiwum (talk) 14:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Response was in regard to "reports no facts, just ridiculous opinions"...Ancient Aliens, Da Vinci Decoded, etc. -- Seth Peck (talk) 15:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Damn these nerds

Fuck space exploration.^img Fuck Mars.^img Who needs living space for several billion people, if you can look at sediments at make an argument from beauty? Who needs more resources for a struggeling species? Who needs scientific knownledge? A bronze age book an illusions is everything you need. Oh and an insult that hasn't been offensive for several years…

God, I want to punch that guy in the face so hard right now. What an imbecile little child.

And for dessert: The picture he is using^img comes from NASA; its Mars exploration program nontheless. --★uːʤɱ federalist 10:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I know what you mean. Ignorance is one thing. This sort of proud and deliberate ignorance, a fucking celebration of ignorance, is quite another. Kendoll is a walking, talking illustration of everything that is wrong with religion. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 10:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Remember when these guys actually loved America and laud her achievements? Now all they do revel in any potential or real setback for the nation; they really must hate the United States.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 11:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't that "Evolutionist nerds..." article really be in Essay space? Not that I'm complaining, anything that makes CP look like a madwoman's shit scrapbook rather than an encyclopedia is to be welcomed. Pongo^{Orangutans are sceptical} 12:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry. After 30 edits and three hours work Ken will probably delete it now that someone here has noticed it. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 12:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

LOVE THIS ARTICLE. But at the same time let's hope Newt Gingrich wins so he can build a moon base and claim the moon as the 51st state! -- Seth Peck (talk) 14:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that these revel in their ignorance. Science has no room for God, ergo science is bad and must go. There's a wonderful article from LaunchBooty, in which he masturbates over what the world would be like if creationism was taught in schools. It would basically drag all scientific fields back to the 1600s... and he's happy about this. --PsyGremlinTala! 15:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh hey I know it's easy to lose perspective when you're feeding an addiction but you all realize you're hanging on the rants of a profoundly disturbed man who thrives on negative attention and goes on day long editing sprees to get it? That's awesome!! Can someone make a colorful banner for the top of every page on the site that links to WIGO CP? I'm confident the healthy detachment and good natured tone of this page will figure prominently in the RWF's efforts to attract grants and large individual grants. As some of you say, keep it classy. Everyone likes seeing mentally ill people with middling IQs mercilessly ridiculed. It's just the right thing to do. 15:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

While Ken is clearly an idiot, I have to admit I won't be terribly lamenting cuts to Mars exploration at this time. When we have budget issues of this caliber things like exploring other planets are something of a luxury. It's not like colonization is feasible. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 16:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Ken and the like simply have no imagination. This translates as a desire to be subservient to authority and no inquisitiveness - perfect for YEC. Ajkgordon (talk) 16:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree with La Roux: there's not much to be gained from picking up on every single one of these drivel-fests. Let's all support the Rational Wiki Foundation a bit better by attending to more serious and worthwhile matters.-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 17:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Not a lot goes on these days worth commenting on; unless you want us to be dominated by Andy and Terry on here. --il'Dictator Mikal 17:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Andy is really the only one worth commenting on these days. Even with Conservative's stuff, far more interesting than their "content" is the fact that Andy is actually allowing them on his website.-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 17:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Andy and Karajou, I'd say. Everybody else is either begging for attention or a parodist. Vulpius (talk) 18:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Aside from all that, who wants to join me on one of these hymn singin', Jesus praisin', gas-guzzlin' river raftin' Grand Canyon trips mentioned there? Singing at the canyon walls, hearing bullshit spouted at you all day long, what could be more entertaining? DogP (talk) 17:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Would that be the same Grand Canyon that was formed when the Great Flood waters receded at several times the speed of sound in order to carve out a trench that would normally take millions of years of erosion to form? -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I get what La Roux is saying. Normally Kenny's dribbles on the front-page are not worth commenting on, no matter how hard he constantly tries to get our attention. What makes this bukkake of Ken's particularly egregious (and worthy of note) is that it is a perfect microcosm of YEC and fundamentalist thought towards space and planetary exploration in particular, and any science that may challenge their dogma in general. It is a direct look into the YEC mindset, and what would happen to science funding if they ever manage to get the reigns of power.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Khant & Nutty: In this instance the stupidity outweights the feeding. @Nutty: Great, next thing we get is a boobjob. --★uːʤɱ netlabelist 19:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Really? It's the same sort of thing that Ken has been saying for -- what, years? I mean, yeah, it's completely fucking stupid, but is that really worth pointing out for the 500624th time? Weaseloid (talk) 22:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

To be fair to him though, that Grand Canyon image is an (intentionally) funny one. So the article isn't a 100% failure as a "satire" or whatever. If all his articles were up to the standard of this on and "Ponies vs Atheism", perhaps evolutionism really would be dead on the internet.-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 12:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I might be amenable to asking the foundation to pay for UHM's new tits if she's willing to share them as beacons of rationality. UHM, send me some pics and we can set up an interview. 14:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

What a difference a month makes!

Andy (Jan. 12^img): Santorum, while claiming to be pro-life, has a long history of endorsing and campaigning for pro-abortion candidates, and Santorum may endorse Romney before long in the race.

Andy (Jan. 22^img): Over his career, Santorum may have campaigned harder to help pro-abortion candidates than Planned Parenthood has!

Andy (Feb 29^img): Endorsed by the pro-life Susan B. Anthony organization, he is currently battling in the 2012 Republican Primary.

Andy is adorable. Cute as the dickens! Phiwum (talk) 04:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

He reminds me of my sister. Back when we were kids, we would watch the old Nick game shows like "Legends of the Hidden Temple", and I would root for, say, the green team, and my sister would say "I root for the one who wins". So after the show she can say "See, I told you they would win." Always drove me insane.--Thunderstruck^{YOU'VE BEEN...} 14:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

My grandad, when watching a quiz show on TV, will say "B!" or "It's C!" when the question is asked. Then when the answer is given he'll say "I mean (correct answer)!" really quickly, as if trying to trick you into thinking he was going to say it before the answer was revealed. That's basically how I see CP operating when it comes to this kind of stuff. X Stickman (talk) 17:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

CP proven right

OK, this page has been bugging me for a while. I mean, I get that Andy's got an ego that is far too big for his own safety and all, but having a page on an (attempted) encyclopedia about times they made predictions that happened to be right is just ridiculous. Does anyone else reckon that setting up a CP proven wrong page on here might not be a bad idea, or would it be one of those projects like Fred Phelps' list of hated things that will never be complete? And also, would it technically count as troll feeding? Last time I checked, Kenny still makes infrequent visits to this site and the last thing we bloody need is for him to be encouraged. -- 08:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I wouldn't bother since it would indeed be troll-feeding. Andy's "predictions" are either early calls (Relativity and Neutrino speed, Gingrich's victory) insane cherry-picking (the "correlation between atheism and underachievement" based on England's relative performance in a single World Cup), statements without any grasp of cause and effect (Palin, Facebook, King's Speech), or things that were actually proven wrong (frequency of large earthquakes). --Sid (talk) 09:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't worry too much. We are the only people outside of Conservapedia who read those pronouncements. Of course any time they are proven wrong, those pronouncements quietly disappear into the night^img; but we know and we record. I just hope for Andy's sake, that he's been practicing his "Romney is the true conservative!" lines; he is going to need them.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 11:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see Andy taking the "Romney is the true conservative" route. He'll support him over Obama (obviously), but when he loses in the general he'll be ready with "we would have won if we nominated Gingrich!" In fact, I expect we'll see a prediction that Romney will lose the election for being insufficiently conservative, while a true conservative like Gingrich would have beat Obama. When Romney loses this will become another example of being "proven right" (ignoring the fact that Gingrich would have done terribly). Turpis 3:16 (talk) 16:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Seems they already have a CP proven wrong page, though it was just created yesterday and I fear it's not long for this world. Cow...Hammer^time! 16:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

It's been almost 24 hours...and some of those updates are fairly recent. How much longer will it last? Now taking bets! -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I see Andy throwing his support behind Romney 100% if Romney is the nominee, while touting him as "a real conservative". What then will happen will be one of two things: A Romney victory with Andy crowing about how Conservatism triumphed and that liberals should just "give it up"; or an Obama victory with Andy chucking Romeny under the bus and claiming the RINO establishment prevented the true conservative majority from having their candidate who certain would have won. Andy doesn't know loyalty, he just wants to be painted as the bellwether of conservative thought. As soon as anyone he backed fails in some way, Andy will turn on that person and burn the evidence he once supported them; that is how he rolls.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

"England's relative performance in a single World Cup" - we've underachieved in nearly all of them, actually... *cringe*... Sophie^{because liberals} 17:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

If Andy were a consistent man, then the Conservapedia proven wrong page would stay. Right. Phiwum (talk) 19:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

BWAHAHAHAHA!!1! Andy: "Conservapedia is repeatedly proven right, and even when its predictions are slightly off the underlying point is still proven true." He then goes off to add an "Explanation" column to the table, rationalizing away the clearly false predictions. If this guy was a fictional character everyone would find him too unbelievable. --Night Jaguar (talk) 21:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, so 'Conservapedia proven wrong' remains, but Andy guts it by editing it. Since no one can overrule him, it says what he wants it to say. --Night Jaguar (talk) 21:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Picking A versus actual outcome B is being "slightly off." I love CP logic. Whoover (talk) 22:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure it's funny to see a catalog of Andy's incorrect predictions right there on his own blog, but now that he's letting it stay and actually contributing to the page himself, seeing him defend things he obviously got wrong is bringing great bonus lulz. --Tabrcg23 (talk) 04:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I think Andy is going make himself dizzy with all the spinning he's doing. I really love how he went all Princess Bride and claims that Fidel Castro is pretty much "mostly dead". --Inquisitor (talk) 04:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I sure hope that someone is saving every single difference, because this is precious goods right here. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 05:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I can't help but think of Baghdad Bob after reading Andy's terrible rationalizations of the clearly false predictions.--Night Jaguar (talk) 23:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The article has turned into the Two-Face of CP: "We here at Conservapedia would like to point out that we can occasionally be wrong NO WE'RE NOT WE'RE JUST RIGHT IN A DIFFERENT LIGHT and we would like to offer this list as a running track record. Item 1: We claimed that Castro has been dead for years, but IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE? HUH? NO THERE ISN'T! BECAUSE HE REALLY IS DEAD, SO THERE! ONLY DIRTY LIBERALS CLAIM HE'S ALIVE! Item 2:..." --Sid (talk) 09:05, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Birtherism. The thing that just won't die

Almost a year after the birth cirtificate was released, its BACK I weep for the stupidity of this man and all who follow him.--Thunderstruck^{YOU'VE BEEN...} 02:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Now his draft card is also a forgery? The conspiracy is getting larger and larger... next, I bet he was never even in the White House - it's all been photoshopped! --Sid (talk) 08:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Both Barack Obama and Fidel Castro are played by Fred Savage. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 08:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

With Rex Hamilton as Abraham Lincoln MDB (talk) 12:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I cant wait for that guy to actually challenge the government so he can shut up...--il'Dictator Mikal 13:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no amount of evidence that will convince these people Obama was born in America. Its sad that these people hate the preident so much. It would actually be pretty funny to sneak into their houses in the middle of the night, put up an Obama poster, and video tape their heads EXPLODING.--Thunderstruck^{YOU'VE BEEN...} 14:05, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

We got a good lesson on hate toward presidents from 2001- to 2008. 4 More Years! ... for Obama to provide his real birth records!--99.37.210.171 (talk) 14:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

JPratt, you could be shown the real birth certificate all day, you have in fact been shown it, and all you'll do is come up with endless excuses why it's a fake, why there's a vast conspiracy to hide the truth, why it should have been your guy in the whitehouse. Reality called, he said that any time you want to come over is fine. Just leave your crazy friends at home. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I am for Obama keeping all his records sealed from the public. How else can he keep the drama going? Reality called, Obama created this game and we get to play with the puzzle pieces. --99.37.210.171 (talk) 15:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

When a puzzle only has one piece and you can already see it then it's not really a puzzle, is it? We call that a painting, or perhaps a document. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

But... layers! And why didn't Hussein invite Andy Schlafly (noted expert in birth certificatology) to the White House to examine the document himself? WHAT DOES HE HAVE TO HIDE? --Sid (talk) 17:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

It's Relevant now!

Some insane sheriff thinks its fake!^img, so now birtherism is all official and respectable! A reminder of other things this guy supports--il'Dictator Mikal 02:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Chuckarse coins a phrase

Hurlbottom is such an arch-birther that it pains him even to address Obama as president. So he now has a neat little phrase "The Man Now Holding Office as President", which can easily be remembered using the acronym TMNHOAPOTUS. Simple, right? OK, maybe not. I guess us scatter brained liberals can save time by calling him The Artist formerly known as Obama. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

It's just racism really. A quick google search shows seven former Presidents of the United States to have at least one foreign-born parent; [3]

• Andrew Jackson - both parents were Irish,
• Thomas Jefferson - English mother,
• James Buchanan - Irish father,
• Chester A. Arthur - Irish father,
• Woodrow Wilson - English mother,
• Herbert Hoover - Canadian mother.

They just can't stand that a (half) black man is in office. We should really feel sorry for the people of the birther movement and just how petty, small minded and racist they really are. Garçon^coffee! 15:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Racist, oh dear, I hope this doesn't become public. How embarrassing for conservatives to be called racist by the other side.--99.37.210.171 (talk) 15:22, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Has Terry mentioned the guy who's claiming Obama isn't eligible because he's a mulatto? Either even Terry has some standards, or he realizes this just shows what everyone knows anyway -- there is a racist element in the birther crowd. MDB (talk) 15:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

My dear BoN, I'm apathetic in self-identifying as "liberal" or "conservative" and claim no allegiance to any "side". I do believe racism to be a driving factor in the anti-Obama birther movement; as I mentioned above, there were seven former (obviously) white presidents with foreign-born parents who suffered no major controversy about their eligibility as president. As far as accusing all conservatives of racism, that would require every conservative to be a birther and vice versa. Garçon^coffee! 16:05, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing that the whole "birther" thing has a bit of racism mixed in with it, but don't try to use those presidents in an argument with actual birthers. Jackson was born in the US before the Constitution was adopted, so he's grandfathered in, just like Jefferson. Wilson and Hoover's mothers became citizens due to various acts of Congress, that did things like declare all women residing in the US and married to citizens as automatic citizens. You might get a little distance out of Arthur. Unless I'm mixed up, Buchanan might be worthwhile too. As I recall, there's some question as to whether or not his father technically became a citizen before James was born, because, well, history doesn't always store all the little details you'd like to use to bury people you hate. Birthers dismiss him as a precedent because, "the weight of the evidence", indicates he was naturalized by some law or treaty or other. When a birther suggests that they can dismiss one theory because there's less credible evidence for it than an alternative, I usually have to lie down. - Ellipsoidal (talk) 16:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, we all knew it was coming...

... But you've got to laugh anyway^img. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I heard there was a conspiracy theory about that already. They do realize that his own website reported that he died of natural causes, right? Cow...Hammer^time! 15:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

That's what THEY want you to think. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah good old Popeye, rising from the bilges to make CP look even more ridiculous. Hey Kara, when are the conservative masses arriving to flesh out your bird templates? Let me see, we've had WND, now CP. I'm sure CNAV will be leaping on the bandwagon shortly. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 15:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey, two can play at this game. Breitbart is known for faking up pranks, right? So maybe he faked his own death in order to frame CIA agents in the employ of the sinister and enigmatic Obama for his assassination. He'll probably turn up alive and well after the election and resume his normal douchebaggery. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, part of the theory is that Breitbart said he had some "college videos" of Obama.

1. If every adult who went to college had videos of their school days exposed, no one could ever run for President.
2. Are these videos kept with the Michelle Obama "whitey" videos that were always just about to surface during the 2008 campaign? Maybe they're nest to the photos of Kitty Dukakis burning the flag.

MDB (talk) 15:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I bet cocaine was involved (look at him, seriously). If the drug test comes back "Coke", I can't wait for the post "Did Obama sell Breitbart the cocaine? And did Breitbart have the REAL birth cirtificate? Give it up liberals.--Thunderstruck^{YOU'VE BEEN...} 15:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Meh, you clueless lieberals are to scared, obese and atheistic to accept the truth. Breitbart was in fact being blackmailed by Obama (due to Obama having Breitbart's Collage Videos) into making Real Conservatives look bad, and to prevent Breitbart revealing Obama is really a sleeper agent planted by the British during the war of independence, so Breitbart staged his own death, emailed the truth to Andrew Schlafly, who will now use his lofty position as CEO of the most trusworthy media ever created to spread the truth to the nation, while Breitbart escapes via a sewer line to a beach in Zihuatanejo to spend his remaining days with Morgan Freeman. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 17:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

It's a simple change of events: The liberal U.S. Airforce flew Elvis to Breitbart's undisclosed location (actually Cheney's basement) in the repaired saucer from Roswell. Elvis flew into a rage because Breitbart wouldn't give him a medal for uncovering the pyramid power that brought down the World Trade Center. Elvis "accidently" hit him with the Arc of the Covenant, and it was all over. Jimaginator (talk) 18:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Ahem. OK, here's what we've got: the Rand Corporation, in conjunction with the saucer people, under the supervision of the reverse vampires, are forcing our parents to go to bed early in a fiendish plot to eliminate the meal of dinner. We're through the looking glass, here, people... --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Save me Jebus!} 19:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

AAAAAARRRGH REVERSE VAMPIRES!? Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 20:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Yup, reverse vampires EAT GARLIC!!!! Oh the horror! Darkmind1970 (talk) 20:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Reverse vampirism goes against God's will. Also, everyone knows reverse vampires vote Democrat. --Night Jaguar (talk) 20:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

It's a shame we'll never know the truth about Breitbart's death - he's being examined by the county coroner from liberal cp:la la land. Undoubtably when the evidence of foul play is discovered, it will just be covered up by liberals. --Tabrcg23 (talk) 23:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the biggest surprise from the NPR article was that Breitbart had dinner with Bill Ayers and Bernadette Dohrn several weeks ago. How must that conversation gone? Aboriginal Noise ^{What the ...} 00:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The county coroner bit gets worse/better: If he does find something that indicates foul play, CP will use that for "Conservapedia proven right once again!", coupled with the always-hilarious "Liberals finally admit X! What took them so long?" line. --Sid (talk) 00:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The scary part of this is that once again Kenny is the voice of reason at CP, referring to Ockham's razor in attributing his death to being unhealthy (albeit it goes give him another opportunity to decry fat people). Turpis 3:16 (talk) 00:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

He could have still died even being in good health if it was a brain aneurysm or something such as aortic dissection, in either of those cases you could be otherwise very physically healthy and just a bad set of circumstances lead to a fatal result.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 01:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Trying a different approach that doesn't involve trolling. GSV:Quietly Doing My Bit (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)