Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive303

This is an archive page, last updated 19 November 2012. 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>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <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)

Election Fraud. Andy and co's next Birther type crusade?

Im going to call it now that CP and Andy will go on record to try and "prove" that Obama and his muslim brotherhood backers were stuffing ballot boxes, intimidating voters, rigging voting machines etc and will spend the next 4 years demanding impeachment/prosecution. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 06:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

It has, unfortunately, become par for the course in the U.S. for the cranks on the losing side in an election to bawl about supposed electoral fraud. Left-wingers have been busily laying the groundwork for claims they could have used had Romney won the election. But since Obama won, we get the wingnut claims instead. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:43, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Andy's currently in denial, avoiding the now and making claims about how "the liberal media is in an inevitable long-term decline"^img and "liberal stunts have no long-term significance"^img. Hasn't mentioned anything yet about who won. You know he wouldn't be so silent if things turned out differently. Anger is next. Then back to denial and so on. These aren't so much stages of grief as stages of Andy. --Night Jaguar (talk) 07:28, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Obama in his acceptance speech mentioned the long queues at stations and said 'by the way, we gotta fix that'. You just KNOW that wnd, cp and the likes of the coultergeist will seize on that and distort what he said. For a Brit I am very pleased this morning. Well done US, you have made an old brit proud of you. Oldusgitus (talk) 07:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I also woke up this morning to a feeling of relief. I would like to hope that Obama now has four solid years ahead, with no learning period and no worrying about re-election, to actually make some changes. Unfortunately, the US will probably muddle along in the same polarized fashion. Генгис^unbelieving 09:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I especially liked the cranks in 2000 complaining about the Supreme Court deciding the presidency along obviously partisan lines. Ha! We all know that elections in good ol' America are perfect - no, sacred - displays of democracy. Q0 (talk) 09:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘And trump starts the bandwagon rolling Oldusgitus (talk) 09:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Good headline there: "Furious Trump..." The Real James Brown (talk) 11:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I thought of it last night after eating an enormous bowl of lentil soup. It definitely brought a smile to my face as my furious trumps rattled the windowpanes.--Fergus Mason ^{Thruppence I got for selling my coat, tuppence for selling my blanket. If ever I 'list for a soldier again, the Devil shall be my Sergeant.} 08:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

inspiration for an article proving liberal bias in mathematics

Would anyone like to enlarge upon this? 

LIBERAL BIAS IN MATHEMATICS II: WHY THE IRRATIONAL NUMBER SYSTEM IS AN ILLEGITIMATE AND FRAUDULENT LIBERAL CONSTRUCT

ABSTRACT We will show that any mathematical process whatsoever that either posits the reality of irrational numbers or (worse yet) claims to extract true inferences from them is demonstrably false. The field of irrational number theory is revealed as a house of cards- a fundamentally flawed liberal invention. It is a liberal fraud on the public, perpetrated at the public’s own expense by liberal mathematics professors, in the form of an artificial number system (created by the Jewish liberal mathematician Georg Cantor) which our Christian God Himself did not create, and which therefore has no useful connection whatsoever to the natural world. We will furthermore show that its very existence is formally untestable and most probably false. In typical liberal fashion, it is based on invalid premises upon which liberal mathematicians have reasoned illogically and with malice aforethought, the better to serve their liberal agenda. It is an indisputable fact that its study drove its own inventor to insanity and death. It is presently not known how many other students of mathematics since Cantor’s time who were forced to study this mathematical atrocity have unaccountably and tragically suffered a similar fate later in life.

Since it bears through and through the taint of liberal bias no less than do currently-popular editions of the Bible, a strong case can and should be made to halt this deadly and expensive fraud by systematically and dispassionately ridding mathematics of this specific instance of liberal bias and return it, like the Bible, to its natural and hence conservative roots. In so doing, we can not only save untold numbers of lives of innocent students but also thwart the corrosive social agenda of the cabal of liberal mathematics professors who have secretly controlled the development of their field and poisoned it with their liberal bias for the last two centuries.

please let me know- Leopardskinfez (talk) 23:45, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

You don't plan on putting that on CP do you ? Angry Sailor Bear and Kenservative frequent this page as well as other lesser pleebs. Don't say I didn't warn you Naca (talk) 01:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Conservapedia may host some interesting views on math, but I don't think they have any Pythagoreans. 184.61.193.172 (talk) 20:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

HMMM?

I reckon we all ought to have a proper place to discuss last night's results, but it seems to be happening here. Oh well, anyway I spotted a fascinating stat on CNN as I supped my ale in a pub this afternoon - apparently 20% of white born-again Christians voted for Obama. Which is strange. Surely this is exactly the size of the anti-Mormon vote? DogP (talk) 01:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

10% of the Tea party and 6% of republicans also voted for Obama; i saw these polls as well. --Mikal ^{Harass Follow} 01:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Let's say you're a Republican and a manager at a Jeep plant in Ohio. "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt / the bailout was my idea / the bailout is why Jeep is moving to China" is bound to make you determined to vote against the son of a bitch. Whoover (talk) 02:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe as part of their soul-searching/born-again-ness, they realized that the basic services (not the dogma) of Christianity (giving to charity, caring for the poor/sick/elderly, loving thy neighbor, judging not lest ye be judged, etc) were actually more in-line with Democratic values than Republican ones. After all, more born-again Christians than non-"born again" Christians understand that "God helps those who help themselves" is not the central message of the Bible. -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Also:

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

MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 18:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Order! Order! Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 20:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

There are, in fact, born-again christians who realize that Jesus' message was what he said, not what people who pretend to agree with what he said say he said. You know, stuff like kicking the moneylenders out of the temple, and the sermon on the mount, and all that other good stuff, as opposed to focusing on the parts of the bible that have nothing to do with Jesus - you know, the stuff in Deuteronomy that most ignore. Hipocrite (talk) 20:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget his endorsement of the dairy industry. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 20:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

BotP Andy tries again

Andy knows better^img than all those stupid "experts" why Romney lost, even if he does change his story every five minutes. Today's reason is all those blasted people voting in a disgraceful way. How exploitative it is for Democrats to allow people to vote at their own convenience. If only there were more ways to stop people voting, surely Romney would have won. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 04:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

If anything, early ballots are even surer than Voter ID laws and regular polling. Ballots only go to your address, and only if you signed up for it. He's just fishing for excuses, no matter how flimsy. I don't know what he thinks Democrats "exploited."--"Shut up, Brx." 04:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

It's quite simple, and you hear it all the time in first-person shooters popular with teenagers (Counter-Strike, Call of Duty anything, etc.) when they lose, complaining about hacks. It comes down to, if you beat me, clearly you must have cheated. News to no one: Andy and co have the mental maturity of age 13. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 05:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The link a couple of stories below is amazing. I'm not entirel sure its not a poe, but it does look like a respectable site. Why Romney Lost. Apparently Republicans are too nice, not partisan enough, too reluctant to go on about his fictional birth story and above all, didn't devote enough time to pointing out that Obama is evil and corrupt. I'm speechless. Damo^Hi 05:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

In other words, Fox News for President. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 06:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Much worse than Fox News. The person that wrote that article is seriously unhinged. He would give Terry, Andy or Karajou a run for their money. --Damo^Hi 07:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

No, the author of the article is not as unhinged as it's possible to be - read the comments underneath. E.g. don't let black people or poor people vote and make women take an IQ test before they're allowed near a ballot box. I'd like to think that Andy cringes at the attitudes of some of the people who call themselves conservatives because I'm pretty sure he's not a racist; I'm less sure about some of the weirdo admins of his ensyklopeediyah. Cardinal Fang (talk) 15:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Cmurphynz packs up and leaves.

editors at CP in Oct 2012

K thanx bye. Oh better check your list of tunes. ^img Naca (talk) 06:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Captured for posterity before it can be memory holed or "corrected".^img Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 06:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

CMurphyNZ was Ace. You fools. Damo^Hi 07:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I guessed that, who else from NZ would bother editing or using CP ? Naca (talk) 07:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Nobody, obviously. --Damo^Hi 07:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

He came 6th in the number of edits last month and was in the Top 10 of active users over the last three months. --larron (talk) 07:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Da fuck? I haven't edited CP in a year under any handle. Aceⁱ⁹ 08:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

All Germans are Sid, you are all antipodes... --larron (talk) 08:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

And all Kiwis are Ace. On this site as well. Damo^Hi 09:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Project 200+ vague blog posts

I see Kendoll is at it again^img. This is going to be just like the fictional booklet isn't it, only this time its going to go on forever. Instead of a blog post after every fantasy chapter, it'll be a blogpost after every fantasy group joins. But strangely he'll never link to any of these groups, nor will any of them acknowledge they've joined a great new coalition of creationists. Kendoll, this charade is as transparent as glass. Stop already. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 07:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Would it be possible to create a creationist group site that he would chuck up on mpr/mpl that could be made to redirect to rationalwiki ? That would cause many lols. Naca (talk) 07:15, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Still waiting for the Ides of November... and the booklet... and Flying Fortress... Ken is going to run out of clever names eventually and start having to pick random adjectives and nouns. I predict 2013 will see the appearance of a Kenproject titled "Operation Indominable Snail" as he paints pipe dreams of crushing fat gay atheist animal-fucking bachelors for the Nth time. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 07:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

He even proudly says, "We also had a New Zealander say he wants to join our upcoming online forum". So, less than a week after its creation, it looks like the goalposts for Project 200+ have already been shifted. You don't even have to be a group to join. Some lone Kiwi will do nicely.--Spud (talk) 15:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I think this Project 200+ will be lucky to find 200 people in the world. But of course if that ever happens it will be a bad day for evolutionism and atheism and I will probably curl up in a corner and die. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 18:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Capturebot back?

Is capturebot working again? My latest WIGO just got captured.

If so, can we get rid of the warning about it at the top of WIGO:CP? MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 13:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Capturebot's been working for almost a month. I just took it out. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 13:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

No reaction from Terry and Co.?

Well, I'm disappointed to find that none of the NJ teabaggers could summon some appropriate vitriol for the (putative) second term president or the American people in general. Everyone in the CP orbit seems to be unable to even say the words "Obama won", perhaps they fear that saying it will make it real. Or perhaps they're just still hungover from drinking their sorrows away last night. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Or they've done a Heaven's Gate.--Fergus Mason ^{Thruppence I got for selling my coat, tuppence for selling my blanket. If ever I 'list for a soldier again, the Devil shall be my Sergeant.} 19:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Give them some time, they'll have some posts prepared blaming the loss on demagoguery, fraud, and hack Republicans. Salanitri may well use this to further promote her idea about a viable third party. Wouldn't that be lovely? Two major parties for conservatives. Dems would win everything across the board.--"Shut up, Brx." 19:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

There are three parties for them now, Republican, Libertarian, and Constitution. However, under our electoral system, a third party will not make any serious gains until a fair number of people are convinced that there is no meaningful difference between Republicans and Democrats and do not care which of those two parties wins. We had some brief tastes of this in the 1990s with Perot and Ventura, but I do not see it happening now. ListenerX^TalkerX 19:21, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

(EC) They probably need to replace their computer screens before they can type something up. But make no mistake, the bile will flow. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 19:23, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Libertarians are no more conservative than liberal, at least as far as we Americans use those terms. Phiwum (talk) 19:28, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. The core of the U.S. libertarian movement consists of cranks longing for the Good Old Days of the Gilded Age or the Jacksonian era. Then you have the issue that the Libertarian Party has drifted closer to mainstream conservatism, causing the Objectivist Party to break off of it. ListenerX^TalkerX 20:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

The Libertarian Party is a joke in American politics and the Objectivist Party is even a bigger one.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 21:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

@ListenerX: I mean a party with a chance of winning big in national elections. Maybe Salanitri will absorb into the Constitution party, maybe she'll do her own thing. I don't think she'll get anywhere, but she's been talking about the possibility of a third party, citing dissatisfaction with the GOP--"Shut up, Brx." 20:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Ooops, I spoke too soon

The putative isn't even in brackets now. He's blaming the moochers (read black people) and Romney's strange lack of fixation on the fabricated "scandals" that so obsess his teabagging set. Plus of course the lack of god in American culture, as if that's a real thing. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Four years of entertainment from CNAV. Thanks Obama! haha. --Revolverman (talk) 20:05, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

"...half the voters are moochers and thieves at heart." Blacks don't comprise 50% of the population. He's calling all Democrats thieves. At least it's not a racist sentiment. Whoover (talk) 20:10, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I beg to differ. See also O'Reilly's "not a white majority". --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Fuck. Reading CNAV is like watching some gross horror movie, you know it's disgusting but you can't look away. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 20:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Conservapedia and CNAV have it wrong; Romney didn’t win because he did so poorly among non-white voters. Bush managed to get some 44% of the Hispanic vote when he made his presidential runs. Obama managed some 67% of the Latino vote 2008 but the Democrats only just 60% in 2010, despite this, Obama got 75-79% of the Latino vote this time around. It’s easy to see why, while Obama came out with the DREAM act, conservatives and the Tea-Party set within the GOP refuse to budge on immigration reform and instead stand by the whole idea of militarizing the border and kicking those who are not legal immigrants out in some nativist tirade rather than be rational and find some way to integrate them into American society as citizens. We need a fair and sensible comprehensive immigration reform and Republicans need to get behind that, better yet, initiate it. Forget the idiots like WND, the Tea Partiers, and Savage who believe we should just crusade to arrest and deport all the illegal immigrants, it is never going to happen and it would never work even if they tried; the GOP needs to embrace immigration reform, and listen to Latino & Asian concerns. Also just drop kick all the racists and Birthers out of the party in general, thanks.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 21:45, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm actually disappointed

If Romney had won, it would have been fun to see their rhetoric change from "limited government" to national security, patriotism, and the rest of the crap we got from conservatives during the Bush years (making fun of the president is TREASON!!)--"Shut up, Brx." 22:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I hope you're joking. Or would you actually have liked to see Romney win, lead America down a dangerously regressive path full of failed policies, and likely harm many other countries through botched international relations and indirect economic effects, all so you can get a little more entertainment out of a third-rate blog? --108.59.252.58 (talk) 19:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that I'm missing out on the silver lining had Romney been elected.--"Shut up, Brx." 11:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Wow yeah! It would be great to live in far-right theocracy with no respect for women's rights or gay rights just so we could laugh at Conservapedia! Cool! 194.75.171.33 (talk) 11:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

You're dense--"Shut up, Brx." 13:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

And you're a fuckwit. 194.75.171.33 (talk) 13:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Terry's waifu?

I think we found the perfect woman for Terry. NSFW: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLoqti0lzAw&feature=player_embedded --Sasayaki (talk) 00:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

It's gone private. Is it safe to say this was the 24 minute video of a crazy bitch blaming all her facebook friends for Obama winning? That video has been doing the rounds today. --Damo^Hi 00:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

That's the one. --Sasayaki (talk) 01:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

It's available again. And as with all conservatives, I see comments and ratings have been turned off. Given this chick's anger management issues, I think she'd be a better pairing for Karajerk. --PsyGremlin^Speak! 09:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Wow... I think Im in love again. Odd are she is merely vocalizing what is running on loop in tossy's head, albeit with less screaming about damn darkies and atheists Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 01:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

She couldn't be Launchbooty's waifu, she spent some five minutes of the video ripping on Birthers and those who believe Obama is a Muslim and rips on them hard, calling them worthless and morons; so she has that going for her.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Based on the incredible level of anger that she directs at the people who don't share her videos, she certainly seems to have the inflated sense of self-importance that CP/CNAV possess. άλφα^Ταλκ 04:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Karajou must be desperate...

...if he revives "Comments on our Republic" after more than a year of zero activity just to whine about the election.

Maybe Kara should hand over the keys to Ken? At least Ken writes more than one post per year...

(Before the question pops up: The RSS feed was still in my reader - you can probably imagine my surprise when my "Dead/Archive" folder suddenly coughed up an unread item!) --Sid (talk) 20:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Even for rightwing thought, this is illogical. Conservatives lost because they weren't conservative enough? How does that work? Die hard conservatives just gave up and didn't "vote against Obama/senator/representative" because the other guy wasn't conservative enough? I know this is a lie he's telling himself, but this is a doosie. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

"They chose to act like they wanted to be liked, instead of acting on the principles set by Abe Lincoln."

Of all the bullshit sprayed around by the misogynists and racists in the modern Republican party, this is the lie that goes unchallenged far too often. Lincoln was a great politician precisely because he reached out to his rivals and brought them on board (Seward, Chase, Bates, Trumbull, Judd, etc). The modern Republican party is an entity that tells 47% of the country to go fuck itself. Lincoln might have been a Republican president, but today he'd be a Democrat. The continued attempts by the bigots in the modern Republican party to claim otherwise is an insult to Lincoln's memory. rpeh •T•C•E• 20:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The Conservative base is getting delusional. Aceⁱ⁹ 20:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

If they want to follow Abe then they should heed his words:

“”The Bible is not my Book and Christianity is not my religion. I could never give assent to the long complicated statements of Christian dogma.

Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 21:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Thoughts and such on America from us in Conservapedia - what a moron. Генгис^mutating 21:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The Bible is not my Book and Christianity is not my religion. I could never give assent to the long complicated statements of Christian dogma. Do you have a source for this quote? I couldn't find anything reliable - it seems to be made up. --larron (talk) 10:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

No, I saw it had been removed from the Abe Lincoln article, evidently Wikiquote says it's a misattribution. Генгис^{Gum disease} 11:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

That's the problem with quotes on the internet. --Tabrcg23 (talk) 20:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Jpatt's hilarious/seditious tantrum

Quoted verbatim^img:

“”We lost, I get that but Democrats have made us enemy #1. Not Al Qaeda, not Russia, not China. Democrats have made Republicans enemy #1 and I choose to call them the enemy and defeat them. I will remain patient. They remain clueless when it comes to what America stands for, they don't understand exceptionalism, economics and liberty. Ultimately their brand is finished, their ideology will be short lived. Just remember the American Revolution pitted the most powerful army in the world against a rag tag group of settlers. We know who won. Part 1: The implementation of Chicago politics, nationwide, must be stopped. We will not let them rig the system for future Democrat politicians. Recognizing this is the first step in defeating them. Part 2: The media is the enemy of the rightful owners of this country. I will not rest until they are defeated as well. Fox News makes the list unless they ditch the establishment. Part 3: The first 10 amendments of the Constitution are made for the people. Use it against the government as they try to steal liberty. So I end this with a congratulation to Democrats. You weren't proven right, you only won an election. We choose to fight as God as my witness.

I love the Christian cross with 'Conservapedia' written across. He's called for a military coup of an elected official in the past. Why not commit blasphemy? --Night Jaguar (talk) 02:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Were liberals this bad after 2000 and 2004? I remember Micheal Moore having a whinge at the Oscars (and in Farenheit 9/11) so maybe we were. It always annoys me when people go on about how wonderful democracy is, but when it gives a result you don't like you get your knickers in a twist over the system. Oh well, bless the little angry man. --Damo^Hi 02:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Holy shit, that's awesome. I really hope this is foreshadowing for some really exciting work over there. I'm so excited I just peed a little. Liberals were bad after those elections, but I don't really recall quite as much talk of armed revolution. Mostly it was whining, coupled with empty promises to move to Toronto. Hiphopopotamus (talk) 02:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Time for some glorious spiritual warfare from the good flock at Conservapedia. --Revolverman (talk) 03:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Poor old JPratt. He's really taking this hard, isn't he. I think he really believed the spin from Rove and co. pre-election about a Romney landslide. Now he's so butthurt about it that even Fox News isn't conservative enough for him. Maybe he'll get his news from the voices in his head. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 05:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

(Also, for reference JPratt, the most powerful Army in the world at the time would be the French army. They were on the yankee side.) --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 05:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

And most of the British Army was busy fighting the froggies elsewhere. The forces they actually committed to the Revolutionary War were tiny.--Fergus Mason ^{Thruppence I got for selling my coat, tuppence for selling my blanket. If ever I 'list for a soldier again, the Devil shall be my Sergeant.} 08:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, don't forget when Charlie sent Uncle Sam scurrying away. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 08:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Hate to question you, Fergus, but where were the British fighting the French in 1776-83? Yes, the British army was split between Spain and the US in 1812 - and still burnt down the White House - but I thought the Revolutionary War, coming on the heels of the Seven Years War, was a quiet time between England and France, the time of the Grand Tour.London Grump (talk) 09:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

You're right that there was no direct conflict between 1763 and 1778, but troops still had to be kept in the UK to deter a frog invasion. There were also troops deployed in India (Regulars as well as Company troops) where they were fighting the First Mahratta War and keeping a grip on former French colonies they'd defeated in 1763. Add in the garrisons in the Med to contain Spain and that was a fairly major drain on an Army that only had 48,000 men. Which is about what it'll have by 2015 if Cameron keeps on the way he's going... --Fergus Mason ^{Thruppence I got for selling my coat, tuppence for selling my blanket. If ever I 'list for a soldier again, the Devil shall be my Sergeant.} 10:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Jpatt is just a silly toe-rag but what's worrying is if his sort of gross stupidity is common among Tea-Partyists, of whom there are now several in Congress, including the Senate. The world economy, not just the USA's, desperately needs the USA to sort out its fiscal problems. If the Tea Party persuades the Republicans to obstruct a sensible solution by not cooperating with Obama and the Democrats (and some of them have said they will never compromise with Obama), it could be very bad for all of us. Cardinal Fang (talk) 12:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Hooray for another imaginary war the conservatives seem intent on fighting! I wonder how many billionaires' millions they'll get to fight THIS one. -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

And now something that makes some kind of sense from Ken

well more sense than Assfly, Karajerk or Jpratt^img Naca (talk) 09:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

That... makes sense. And it's from Ken. I'm scared. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 09:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

It happens sometimes. Perhaps a sane member of the collective occasionally gets his hands on the keyboard?--Fergus Mason ^{Thruppence I got for selling my coat, tuppence for selling my blanket. If ever I 'list for a soldier again, the Devil shall be my Sergeant.} 09:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

You may not end up with Hamlet but the monkeys will turn out the odd coherent sentence. Генгис^evolving 09:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Apart from "Ook ook"?--Fergus Mason ^{Thruppence I got for selling my coat, tuppence for selling my blanket. If ever I 'list for a soldier again, the Devil shall be my Sergeant.} 10:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

No, apart from "pjojsht h'pjn hhj't eoh 'e". Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 10:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Given Ken's mental health issues, it's likely that he's actually, literally medicated but does what some people in that situation do. Take the meds, feel better, stop taking them, think everything is okay for a bit, intervention from outside forces, back on the meds. Go to #1. --Sasayaki (talk) 10:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

You guys must be new around here. Get Ken off of religion and/or evolution and he can be remarkably lucid. Most liberals would still find plenty to disagree with him about, but he is not a dogmatic ideologue about economic or foreign affairs. He needs to keep up his image though, so for the most part he either ignores these issues or repeats what others say. --Damo^Hi 10:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. I just felt snarky. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 12:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Red Telephone for Ken

I see your little friend, Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, lost his election bid in New Jersey. I'm guessing God didn't want a creationist in the legislature after all. --PsyGremlin^Tala! 15:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Did Ken even mention the Rabbi's campaign?

From this paragraph:

The Orthodox rabbi, author and media personality was defeated handily in his effort to unseat Rep. Bill Pascrell, a Democrat. Boteach mounted a longshot run as a Republican in the heavily Democratic northeastern New Jersey district.

it sounds like he was just put up to run against a sure Democratic winner. That's not uncommon in the States when you've got an officer holder who is pretty safely entrenched; the other part just finds some guy to throw against him just so he's not running unopposed but they have no expectation of winning.

I remember one guy from my hometown who ran against a very well liked House member. He didn't even bother to submit his photo to the local newspaper, he was so disinterested in campaigning. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 17:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The same thing happens in the UK. When I was active in the Lib Dems in the 90's I stood in a council election and just managed to get out of standing for parliament in Scotland by getting a job in London. There was always a determination to get local, well-qualified candidates in all the seats but come the election we always ended up casting around for anybody who wouldn't mind getting killed at the polls. rpeh •T•C•E• 18:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Obama "weeping for himself"

Obama wasn't "weeping for himself." He was crying when he was talking about his staff and all the great things they're going to accomplish. Now, who was it who was crying when talking about his own accomplishments? --Andy^{not Schlafly} 18:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I saw it as being emotionally overcome by gratitude for the work done by his supporters unlike Romney cutting of his supporters' credit cards before they could even get home. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 20:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I am the entire population of Australia

My dear fellow seafarer, Karajou, continues to block poor unfortunates from Australia who seek to edit Conservapedia on the grounds that they are me. The most recent victim in what is becoming a long line of unfortunate innocents, was one AndrewBlack. I confess to being a little flattered. It is as if Kara thinks that I am the only person here and am pretending to be 22-odd million people. All this attention! I begin to feel like some sort of master criminal. I must get myself a swivel chair and a cat. --Horace (talk) 02:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget the lair built out of a volcano with your face carved on it and some frick'n sharks with frick'n "laaayzors" on their heads.--Tygrehart

I am all of NZ and, at one stage, Italy. Aceⁱ⁹ 03:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Then again, between Horace, myself and probably a handful of other people it's unlikely that anyone from left-leaning, union loving, secular Australia wants to edit Conservapedia at all (vandal, helpful contributor, or otherwise) although the same is true for almost all of the world including the United States. --Sasayaki (talk) 03:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

In what passes for Kara's mind all Aussies are Horace, all NZers are Ace, all Germans are Sid, all Saffas are me and all Yanks are Ames. Maybe he thinks we're playing Risk or something. PsyGremlin^Parla! 04:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Lots of Germans appear to be me as well, although Kara thinks I am SamCoulter so that's the name that goes on the block.--Fergus Mason ^{Thruppence I got for selling my coat, tuppence for selling my blanket. If ever I 'list for a soldier again, the Devil shall be my Sergeant.} 08:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

By the sounds of it, there are plenty of conservatives that are heading over to Australia keen to be under Australia's Christian President, so I would think that Conservapedia would need to address their anti-Australian policy. --Damo^Hi 04:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

You mean Julia Gillard the open atheist? --Sasayaki (talk) 04:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Seems they have a few aussies there. AlanE and Dvergne both seem to be australians, however they seems to be having a little spat at the moment. All hail dear leader Bob Katter ! (CP needs a bob katter article btw if anyone keen to burn a sock) Naca (talk) 04:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

AlanE is a kiwi, dunno about Dvergne. For those who missed the reference, I was referring to tweet that was going the rounds. Damo^Hi 05:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

You omitted the gender mistake in that poor girl's tweet. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 08:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah well lets not beat up too much on her. I understand she is 18, had fuck all followers and was just venting. It's not like she called for insurrection to 1.8 million followers. Who knows, it might have even been a poe. --Damo^Hi 09:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I fully appreciate that she is really just symbolic of all those Americans who have no clue about the world outside their own borders and so "took one for the team." Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 09:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it's Telstra mobile that gets auto banned by the bear as "that idiot" Horace. Let's test why not .... Ruddager (talk) 08:59, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

You may be right. However, none of my IPs are through Telstra mobile. (That idiot) Horace (talk) 05:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Well it looks like he has gone on a Horace Banning Binge^img. Are all those socks yours or are some of them other people pretending to be you. Naca (talk) 06:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I almost want to register an account on CP and then figure out a way of blanking about 500 pages all at once, across multiple tabs or something. But that sounds like too much work just to ruin Karajunk's afternoon (or whichever sysop gets to clean up). Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 07:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

@Naca - yes the numeric Horaces - up to somewhere in the mid-forties - are mine (others are not). Kara went a little nuts after I gently tugged his tail by leaving this^img absolutely truthful post on his talk page. I confess to a slightly childish delight in being able to push his buttons so easily. I should be ashamed. --Horace (talk) 21:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Gonna Be a Tough One

David Petraeus resigned as head of the CIA, citing an extramarital affair. How does CP play this one?

He was hero of the right for the surge, attacked by the left as "General Betray Us," so this is a tragedy, right? But wait, he took a job in the Anti-Christ administration, so he's really a Commie, right? But the CIA was thrown under the bus for Benghazi, so he's a martyr, right? But the CIA enabled Obama and his Muslim Brotherhood friends assassinate Americans, so he's a murdering bastard, right? And he violated the sanctity of his marriage, so he will burn in hell, right? But it was with a woman, so we should turn the other cheek and not cast the first stone, right? I'm so confused. Whoover (talk) 20:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Man, we really need to get over our massive hangups about sex. He had an affair. oooh, big deal. --Revolverman (talk) 20:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

As kids today, say "^ ^ That!" France's president had a 20 or so year long live in with a socialist who had his 4 illegitimate kids. big flipping whoop. I've read that nearly 80% of all marriages will have one or the other spouse (if not both) have an affair. why is it the military's business. --Godottout sont finissent- dormir encore 20:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Chiming in with a "+1" on this...dumbest ever reason to resign from a post. -- Seth Peck (talk) 21:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don't know anything about the statistics of extramarital affairs, but I regard them as a big deal personally. I don't think it's having a "massive hangup about sex" to regard marital vows as essential, and breaking these vows deeply regrettable (I'm speaking here of traditional marriages, of course -- if the spouses agree to an open marriage, then it's not the same thing). That said, generally speaking, I don't think that extramarital affairs disqualify one for most positions. I don't know if head of the CIA is an exception to this rule, but private matters are, generally speaking, private, and the fact that I think extramarital affairs are morally significant doesn't mean I believe that they are matters of public concern. Phiwum (talk) 20:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think you can lose a security clearance over an affair (even as a regular employee of a place like the CIA), because someone who knew about it could have leverage over you. While ordinarily I wouldn't care, this is one situation where there's at least a case to be made that it's appropriate for him to step down... --Benod (talk) 21:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

There can only be leverage if you think it is important to deny it. So the less importance that you attach to sexual matters then the less of an issue they are for security. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 22:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but so what? The fact is that most persons in this society view monogamy as an essential aspect of a long term relationship and make vows to one another to this effect. As long as this continues (and I, for one, think that monogamy strengthens one's relationship, generally speaking, because I'm one of those neanderthals who think that sex matters), extramarital affairs are a sign of moral failure (presuming, again, that both parties involved pledged to remain monogamous). You can view this opinion that sex is more important than dessert as antiquated. Seems to me that, on the contrary, sex is a deeply personal experience with deeply emotional components and should be treated with care. (Of course, when I was younger, I didn't do so.) Phiwum (talk) 22:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Look, we've gone through this before. Can you please stop with the "What will CP say???" posts? This is "What Is Going On At CP", not "What Might Go On At CP If They Behave As We Might Expect?" While I'm sure it will be cast as a Liberal or Conservative event at some point, right now it's just an event. rpeh •T•C•E• 21:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

That's right. Rpeh demands that you entertain him in only the approved ways. He implores you to treat CP-watching with caution and dignity; what you say while watching a turd slowly dry out is very, very important.  ^{ni eb}namuħ   22:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have started on the Scotch quite early tonight. rpeh •T•C•E• 07:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, it turns out that Petraeus could be forced to resign if the affair was with a subordinate, or with a foreign national, or he lied about it during a security interview. I'm sorta hoping it was with a guy, cuz then Andy's head would explode. Simple (talk) 00:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

If the dude can't keep an affair with one other person a secret, why should he be the head of the goddamn CIA? It's just fucking sloppy. It's like keeping your kinky videos folder on your work laptop - the kink isn't the issue, the lack of judgement is. Resignation was the right thing to do. If the affair was going on before he took over at the CIA, he should either have turned down the job, fessed up at the outset, or been better at covering his tr(i/a)cks. --Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 02:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

New Kookery for Terry's Calling Card.

Terry Hurlbutt, birther, climate change denier, conspiracy theorist and now tax protester. Apparently, income taxes are "an unconstitutional bill of attainder, and always has been." He's always keeping his larder of lunacy fresh, that one. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Somebody should pop in and tell him that income taxes were added as an amendment to the constitution, and are therefore very much constitutional.[1]--"Shut up, Brx." 03:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, he's claiming that taxes on the rich is a "bill of attainder," and therefore unconstitutional. Slightly different. So he is saying that taxing the rich specifically is unconstitutional--"Shut up, Brx." 03:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Good old glorious leader of Aynistan. --Revolverman (talk) 03:54, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh I hope he backs this one with action; he won't of course. All their courage ends the moment their stance would cost them anything.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 05:20, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Chuckarse won't but skin disease just might. That would be hilarious. rpeh •T•C•E• 07:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I kind of hope this is a slow transmogrification into a FOTLer, because those are always entertaining to watch in their short, bright trajectories downwards, like whiny, disgruntled meteors hurtling towards the inevitable consequences of reality. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 08:20, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Someone reminds me of Jpatt

except with more profanity (audio, NSFW): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLoqti0lzAw&feature=g-logo-xit . This came up on the youtube homepage and I clicked through it for a minute or two. I shy away from diagnosing people over the internet, given the inherent difficulties and oh so many trolls, but nevertheless, this is still sad. άλφα^Ταλκ 03:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Already posted on this page. --Revolverman (talk) 03:55, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Wow, I completely missed that. άλφα^Ταλκ 04:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't cry for me Argentina - TK says hi! --76.188.25.61 (talk) 23:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Meanwhile, over at CNAV

Some seriously weird posting from a guest editor. Highlights include:

• Women – more unemployed than ever before, his own administration pays 70% on every dollar paid to men, rising gas, rising food costs but they are just vaginas so who cares
• Gays do not sit at the back of the bus and drink from segregated fountains, and they can love whomever they like, but x+y is not the same as x+x
• Just as the leftists had bush/gore to embolden them, our same mandate is to get up and fight! Like Washington’s Army, like at the Alamo, like World War II. But to all who had doubt before, you must now accept the reality that is is a fight!
• The only problems in America are deluded and ignorant women, men, blacks, whites, gays, Latinos, seniors and youth.

Ahhhh, I love the taste of pure crazy. Time for a civil war...Aceⁱ⁹ 23:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

"As a Latino ..." And I love how Terry bills him as a conservative Latino. I take it his cred is based on a great-great grandfather from Portugal. Whoover (talk) 01:14, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not written by Terry. Aceⁱ⁹ 01:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

No, it's written by a guy with a Portuguese name. Whoover (talk) 01:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Andy just outright lying?

Usually, Andy lies by omission, by twisting words, ignoring this or that, but in this case^img, is he just outright lying? Does anyone have any insight as to why Andy thinks Romney won Florida? I can't imagine the escape hatch I know he thinks he has. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Andy is delusional, as always, and is really spitting bile now.^img The next 4 years are going to be FUN! And Scott is a douche - he's even seems to be telling the voters who voted against the proposed Amendment in Florida "Fuck you!" More GOP "of the people, for the people" governing. --PsyGremlin^Speak! 15:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Well it looks like Obama only won 49.9% so technically, a majority of Floridians is against him... But yes, Andy's being his usual awful self. He knows his team lost badly and is going to sit in the way, refusing to do anything to help for four years. rpeh •T•C•E• 15:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Floridans voted for Romney; Obama's votes came from illegal immigrants and felons which don' count. Генгис^evolving 15:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I think rpeh hit the nail on the head. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Good thing he was doing bugger sodding all to help in the first place then. --جئت ورأيت أنا القرف ^{gross, isn't it?} 20:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Either lying or confused, they voted for Obamacare or voted not against it. Or something. - π 11:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Probably a RINO

but it may be a good idea for CPers to read this. Not that they will, of course. Because it's from the communist gay baby-eating BBC. Ajkgordon (talk) 16:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

It's actually from an editor at The American Conservative. Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 17:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, yes. But because he wrote for the BBC, he's now a Muslim liberal anti-American. Still, it's a good article sadly lost on the likes of CPers. Ajkgordon (talk) 09:34, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, I think most of them are perfectly happy with their own view of the world. It is fun and perhaps even therapeutic to have someone/something to blame for all the problems that you yourself are powerless to solve. Deep down I reckon most of them probably do read and find articles like this interesting, but when they get onto Conservapedia they like to overstate their zealousness and their beliefs. I know I certainly do similar things when I post on forums around the place. --Damo^Hi 09:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Best vandalism I've seen in months!

A true artist must have done this.^imgUmichcynic (talk) 18:31, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Ack, capturebot didn't get it, [2] this was on Andy's talk page. Screw it.Umichcynic (talk) 18:34, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

A giant image on Andy's talkpage. Pretty banal. --"Shut up, Brx." 18:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

take 2^img credit to user::HarryBoehnerUmichcynic (talk) 18:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Hurray...?--Mikal ^{Harass Follow} 18:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Wake me up when we get to the good part. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 19:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

UmichCynic, it's possible that you're easily amused. Perhaps by your own lameass vandalism. But even if it wasn't you, this was a truly dull driveby. Phiwum (talk) 20:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

So you did something to a publicly-editable website that its owner didn't like, and could easily correct. Ho hum. Run along now. Sophie^Wilder 00:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I've noticed that whenever someone posts "look at this awesome vandalism" it's always something they themselves have done. No one else ever thinks the vandalism is funny or unique or clever. Vandalism is just a nuisance. On the other hand, reasoned, intelligent debates that are thought-provoking are interesting, and make you think about the issues. There isn't much of that going on, just some arguing about whose point of view is correct, but vandalism is a pointless waste of time and energy. Refugee^{talk page} 01:36, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe the OP was being ironic? Doubtful, but let's leave them this grace--"Shut up, Brx." 02:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Nearly as stupid as the peeps over at liberalpedia that started bitching when a user was blocked for abusing Reagan on their userpage. Naca (talk) 02:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

yes, because coming over to say something silly, and not back it up is so clever, amirite?Brenden (talk) 03:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

"Umichcynic" (recreate your account with your real first name and last initial), your open letter displays the high word-to-substance ratio common to liberal thought. It is the anathema conciseness. I wasted time with your unsubstantial additions and I did reflect on how your 'experts' perceive American conservatives, and I've concluded they are clueless, so it's painfully obvious that you're not an American. Open your mind and admit that gun ownership stops genocide. Do yourself a favor and admit that I'm an engineer. GPS has nothing to do with Relativity. Now run along and contribute something substantive.--Andy Schlafly 06:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Kübler-Ross

It looks like Andy's finally reached the acceptance stage of his shock and grief over Obama winning a second term and the Republicans failing to gain the Senate — It can all have been predicted, and the election result explained away, by the fact that the Jets' won't let Andy's bestest-ever-man-crush play.^img
In related news — It now almost seems certain that the Republicans as a whole are going to decide that their failure to win the presidency isn't as a result of them or their policies, it's because the electorate is the wrong kind of electorate, and so it's all the electorate's fault. I seem to remember Tony Blair saying something like that once as well.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 11:34, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Which is exactly why things like the voter ID laws were being passed - the GOP knew their policies did not appeal to vast swathes of the population, so rather than try and be a political party, they just tried to disenfranchise those most likely to vote against them. Which is something Coulter was saying they should do a long time ago. It would appear as if they still think this is the route to go - the elctorate is wrong, therefore the electorate must not vote. --PsyGremlin^Parlez! 12:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Dear f'in goat, from the article assfly linked to it's time for Tim Tebow to take the reigns under center in the Big Apple.. The REIGNS, the sodding REIGNs. If journos can't be arsed to learn the language they are trying to write in what the hell hope is there for the rest of the population. Oldusgitus (talk) 13:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

What I think is pathetic is Andy's fantasy that Democrats everywhere said to themselves, "You know, Mitt is the better man for the presidency, but I'd rather see the nation sink into despair than vote for a conservative!" And that football coaches reason, "Tebow's the better QB, but as a typical, liberal NFL coach, I don't want to start an ostentatiousoutspoken Christian who might convert millions of currently damned heathens to Christianity, so let's go with the other guy instead." Phiwum (talk) 15:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

It permeates everything Andy believes. The whole BotP, for instance: "the public and I don't believe what experts say therefore the experts are wrong and the Best of the Public are right"; and "most of the public disagrees with me therefore they've been indoctrinated". For all that people like Andy and Chuckarse talk about "we the people" what they actually mean is "We the people like us, and fuck the rest of you". rpeh •T•C•E• 16:24, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, given that most of the whiners are white middle class males, the GOP have been following the right path in trying to restrict the non-white vote. Because if it was just up to them, Romney would have been swept in on a tsunami of support, their real problem is how to stop all those stupid women from voting. Генгис^pillaging 16:46, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Not that I disbelieve the maps, but where do they get the statistics for it when all votes in American elections are done in secret? --Revolverman (talk) 16:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Exit polls. So they won't be 100% accurate but you can get them pretty close. rpeh •T•C•E• 16:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Do they usually lock the place up when they go cry?

I can't seem to edit any of the pages on CP, despite it being normal editing hours. Did Andy go off and have a good cry, or are they just sticking their fingers in their ears and going "lalala?"

Andy just had to defend a comment^img that read "Uninformed bimbos (supposedly a little more than half of female voters) supported Obama" by comparing^img the author (Sysop Lite DMorris, a valued contributor) to idiotic wandals who post mindless obscenities for the lulz random, unnamed, and possibly invented liberal assholes who say even worse things about conservatives. Give him a break - he probably had to lock up to take a look in a mirror and go "My God, what have I become?" --Sid (talk) 21:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

"Uninformed bimbos (supposedly a little more than half of female voters) supported Obama because of the so-called "war on women"; they want to be able to murder babies and they want the government to pay for it" - DMorris. Every time I read a comment like this from these guys I just think "virgin" because seriously, what woman would want a guy that misogynistic?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 21:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Er, an uniformed bimbo? Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 21:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I didn't know bimbos had uniforms. I must say I'm very curious to see what they look like. DickTurpis (talk) 23:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

If you'd been following DMorris you'd know that his uniform of choice is a cheerleader's costume. (In actuality, the iPad autocorrect strikes again.) Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 07:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I chose to use the bold term bimbo because I was angry that night, angry that so many people could be so gullible that they put that idiot back in office. I did reply to DJ's question though, as you can see. By the way, I haven't seen anything on any wikis from the wannabe cheerleader person lately, I think (s)he's moved on to other things (and hopefully I'm correct). And just because I was friends with all the cheerleaders in high school doesn't mean I wear cheerleading uniforms; closest I ever came to that was wearing the pirate mascot at ROTC functions. 67.214.170.226 (talk) 17:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Boldly...sexist? That's even more self serving than Andy, and that's saying a LOT. There's no connotation or definition of the word "bold" that I would ascribe to a man calling women bimbos. --75.156.26.134 (talk) 09:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

So just because somebody refers to a particular class of women as "bimbos" makes them sexist? You idiots need to research what the term "bimbo" means, and here's Wiktionary for you. 199.201.89.77 (talk) 16:13, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Did you even read the definition before posting that? "A physically attractive woman who lacks intelligence." or "A stupid or a foolish person." And you think that's not sexist? rpeh •T•C•E• 16:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

DMorris was clearly obviously using the "women as airheads" definition. That's sexism. No one would use that word in any other sense, unless they were being archaic or obtuse. Normally I don't respond to people who pull a Schlafly when it comes to links not saying what they seem to think they say, but that was a bold example. --Yossarian^{Speak, Memory} 19:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but not every woman is a bimbo, not even every female Obama supporter is a bimbo, but there were reportedly one issue voters that, in my opinion, fit the criteria of "unintelligent women" and probably enough to sway the vote in some places. The "bimbos" I refer to are unintelligent college girls that know nothing about politics and only heard that Romney was running a "war on women" and wanted to take away their ability to legally kill unwanted babies and that Obama supported tax payer funded contraception and abortion; all they can think about is having sex and nothing else is more important to them than having sex. That's not even saying all college girls are "bimbos" (I personally know plenty of college girls that went for Romney), that's just saying there are dumb women that went to vote, just as there are dumb men that went to vote, but they say that women are the one's that went for Obama and I believe probably at least 10% of the female Obama supporters are sluts "sexually promiscuous females" enrolled in some liberal leaning university. I'm not a sexist, I'm believe in sexual equality, but I was raised by a single mother and a widowed grandmother, both of whom use terms like "slut" and "bimbo" so you can take your politically correct way of life and shove it up your ass. 216.245.196.10 (talk) 22:30, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

You sound like you're very concerned with all the sex people that aren't you are having. Sure you're not just jealous? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 23:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure I could if I tried; I tend to be kind to girls and girls tend to be kind to me. Words like "bimbo" I reserve for real idiots, and I don't toss them around liberally (there's a pun for you). 216.245.196.10 (talk) 23:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

So here's probably something worth noting so you don't get the wrong idea. I've known a lot of intelligent women of all ages. I generally treat women the same as men, except I give them a bit more courtesy (they call that chivalry) and some of them are attractive to me whereas men are not. I've even known liberal women (and even men for that matter) whom had an educated choice to support liberalism rather than conservatism, most of them middle aged individuals, blue collar workers originating from the northeast. It's the fools that support Obama just because he's black, because he's (supposedly) cool and sexually overactive ladies that only care about sex, those are the one's I'm calling bimbos. You don't vote for someone to be president because you think he's "cool", you vote for someone to be president because you think he's going to be a good leader. It's like if there was one token African American in a place of employment and people made him their union rep because they thought he was "cool". 216.245.196.10 (talk) 22:59, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh what a precious, lovely, little boy you are.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 00:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Morris, you can't claim to not use the word "bimbo" liberally when you brandy it against large swaths of people you have never met, nor ever will meet. Your initial claim insinuated that the majority of the women who voted for Obama were single issue voters; I can take that as a result of the passion of the moment, but even here, the only real defense you can have for that statement is to back away from it. Informing us that you know intelligent women does not automatically ensure that you are not prejudiced, either. I think that the bulk of your argument here is a flawed one, and it's something that you as a conservative would benefit from snapping out of. One of the primary reasons for the Romney campaign's failure was the fact that he was running purely as a referendum candidate. The principle argument he would deliver to women and minorities, that his surrogates would state, and that his supporters on Fox news and (occasionally) CNN would offer was "yes, we know that Romney has offered positions that are not supportive of you, but the economy is bad. If you don't take this election as a referendum on the economy under Obama, you're stupid." In effect, this was a non argument, and the results of this election showed that this argument was not persuasive. You can persuade outsiders that minorities should vote for you because you are simply the "better candidate," but to the people that you are alienating yourself from, such a strategy will lend you not a modicum of sympathy or support. Romney's apparent willingness to offer any position that his advisors thought was politically profitable and his apparent isolation from the realities of the average American only compounded the situation. Your contention that women voted against Romney based on his stances on abortion isn't exactly a strong one, especially in light of Romney's performance in Missouri in comparison to Todd Akin. It's also flawed to assume that women are sluts simply because they support reproductive rights, and I find that argument to be shameful..but that's another fight for another day.WilliamR (talk) 08:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh what a precious, lovely little bimbo you are. Just kidding. 70.38.78.206 (talk) 01:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

On a side note, where are all the young ladies that supposedly voted for Obama? I see more young ladies publicly supporting Romney/Ryan, and of all walks of life, including honor students, cheerleaders (I can never make fun of cheerleaders again, not even the punk ones that vandalize wikis, it seems 90% of them voted for Romney), young mothers, working class, etc. I do see some in support of Obamaunism, but it doesn't seem like 60% like the exit polls say. 70.38.78.206 (talk) 02:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Where do you live? If it's a red state, or even a red county, you don't have much of a point.--"Shut up, Brx." 03:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

They say Florida's a blue state, my friend. 198.12.71.103 (talk) 00:09, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I say it's a swing state, with conservative districts--"Shut up, Brx." 00:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I live in a red county but know people who live in a blue county, many of whom supported Romney along with their friends from other blue counties/states. The blue counties I refer to are Hillsborough (Tampa), Leon (Tallahassee), and Orange (Orlando), all three being college towns.

Was Ken helping the Romney campaign?

I just read about "project Orca", a trial of Team Romney introduce a semi-automatic "get out the vote" effort. I was instantly reminded of Ken:

“”From the very start there were warning signs. After signing up, you were invited to take part in nightly conference calls. The calls were more of the slick marketing speech type than helpful training sessions. There was a lot of "rah-rahs" and lofty talk about how this would change the ballgame.

“”So, the end result was that 30,000+ of the most active and fired-up volunteers were wandering around confused and frustrated when they could have been doing anything else to help.

--larron (talk) 21:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

No, no. If it was Ken, he'd just pretend there were 30K volunteers fired up and ready to go. Then, on election day, he'd suddenly announce that an unfortunate flu epidemic had sprung up and that none of them could go to the polls, but in 2016 they'd be totally ready to destroy the Democrats for good. Olé, Olé, etc. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

30,000? If Ken managed to attract just 30 genuine non-parodist adherents to one of his amusingly pointless projects he’d ejaculate so hard he’d propel himself backwards at a velocity sufficient to cause serious injury, if it wasn’t for the cushion of empty pizza boxes behind him.

For his own sake, as well as Spanish ladies everywhere, don’t make the front of Ken’s trousers explode. JumboWhales (talk) 08:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Man, is it just me, or do all these references to Ken's ejaculations just a wee bit more disgusting and more common than they need to be? Phiwum (talk) 00:55, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Especially when we could be discussing Ken's cute misunderstandings of English idioms. "by in large"^img! He's so cute. Phiwum (talk) 01:08, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I’m open to criticism, straits I am, gov’nor, and on refection I agree that my reference to anything beyond Ken’s slightly raised pulse on his unlikely gaining of more than 30 adherents was unseemly, common and base. I’ve learned my lesson in decency and from now on, at a push, I will only refer to Ken’s rantings as dastardly and caddish in intent, or the ramblings of a cunt.

Still, that at least keeps me just above those who criticise and point and laugh at people with lower IQs or lesser educations for not correctly reciting common idioms such as “by and large”. Such critics are humourless and needlessly smug, and people clap when they’re drowned in a bucket of vomit. JumboWhales (talk) 08:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Ken claims to have tutored college students in English language and routinely mocks the spelling of athiests so he is fair game for scorn when his own transgressions are exposed. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 11:55, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I reckon Jumbo has a point, but I had never seen that particular misstatement of an idiom so it caught my eye and struck me as funny. Later, I googled it, and evidently it's fairly common. Funny that I've never seen it when grading student essays or exams. Phiwum (talk) 14:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

"By enlarge" is the more common error, according to the Eggcorn database (which tracks mistakes caused by re-analysis of spoken English, of which of course "eggcorn" for "acorn" is the prototypical example). It's arguable whether "By in large" or "By enlarge" are really eggcorns, since the re-analysed versions, if that's what they are, don't make any more sense to non-nautical folk than "By and large"; for now though that's the best classification we have. You should politely correct this sort of error when editing or reviewing another person's work, but you probably shouldn't get uptight about them in finished works. The mechanism by which someone acquires an eggcorn is basically the same as the means by which you get most of your vocabulary, you hear someone say something and quite unconsciously you deduce the probable meaning and spelling for the word or idiom, without ever seeing it formally defined or spelled. Being humble reduces the opportunity for embarrassment, "I always thought it was spelled Giantic from the word giant?" makes the response "No, it's definitely gigantic, try a dictionary" less crushing than if you'd said "This is wrong, there's no middle G in Giantic". 82.69.171.94 (talk) 22:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Although I sail, I had no idea of the origin of the phrase "by and large". Those are not terms I've learned, and I don't think that they're in common usage at all. Phiwum (talk) 00:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I've had an International 470 up on a feisty foaming plane, cruised the Chesapeake with a crew of half a dozen, and puttered around in various snot-nosed boats in between, but only ever found "by and large" in the excellent storytelling of Patrick O'Brian. Still, "both by and large" makes perfect sailing sense, if you think about it... Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 01:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

• Well, at least one Conservapedian was part of Project Orca, and that one was me, DMorris. And I went through the same exact thing, except I actually had more than one person from the Romney campaign (including the legal team) helping me, and when ejected from the polling place, I improvised and found a way to do it outside of the polling location. But it was still an interesting experience despite the problems, I would recommend participation in similar programs to anyone wanting to get involved. 216.245.196.10 (talk) 23:16, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
• On the other hand, I finally got to block someone on Conservapedia from within the local public school system's network, through a public hot spot at the elementary school I was at. :P 216.245.196.10 (talk) 23:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The analysis I've seen suggests that Orca was maybe just someone connected with Romney seeing an opportunity to get rich and taking it. There are a lot of companies making shitty web software for a sky-high price and usually their fear is that somebody figures out the scam before they get paid and they end up not making their percentage. So Orca was set up so that the "deliverable" wasn't going to show up until the Big Boss, Romney, doesn't care any more. By election day morning when Orca was supposed to be online it's too late to recoup the money and spend it elsewhere. So if some nerd comes up to Romney at ten AM on polling day and says "Orca is a bust, they screwed us" why should he care? What's he going to do, sue them? It's a hazard with any political party and I'd guess it's worse for the Republicans because if you keep saying "every man for himself" then some of your supposed supporters will take you at your word. If the campaign stuff was all handled by The Republican Party there'd be people still on the team on the Wednesday morning doing a post mortem and adjusting the approach for the cycle and in that case something like Orca wouldn't make as much sense. But Romney ran the Romney campaign, not the Republicans and for Romney that's it, done. He's out of politics so anything that didn't go well is just too bad and there are no lessons to learn for him. The bogus web app, sharing the ticket with some kill-the-poor lunatic, trying to make a joke about aeroplane windows, it's all irrelevant now. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 12:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Karajou doesn't understand technology, part 90 billion

Sid: My RSS reader noticed a new blog post....
Karajou: OMG! HAX!^img.

There's also some whittling about one of New York's utilities companies being a pure reseller. I can't for the life of me grasp what the fuck he's on about there. But the main thrust seems to be he's angry about stuff, especially Sid's existence. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

It's obvious. Power companies with generation capabilities can deal with hurricane's destroying their distribution network better than power companies that buy power. Because Obama's War on Coal. Whoover (talk) 23:25, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

"An automatic spy bot leeched onto this site." Dammit, Karajou, now you have to come clean up all of the coffee I just spit everywhere from laughing at you so hard. I find it hard to believe that somebody as active on the Internet as you are does not know what an RSS feeder is. Betcha your VCR is flashing "12:00" as we speak. Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 00:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

VCR? You give him too much credit. He's using this http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/53/CRVDisc.jpg --Revolverman (talk) 03:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Karajou's blog doesn't allow comments except from "team members," which I guess means "fellow echo chamber dwellers." But we all know what gets written here gets relayed to CP eventually, so here's my message to Kara:

Kara, you're such a loon they oughta put you on a Canadian coin. You know what's really scary? The GOP is NEVER going to be able to run an anti-gay, anti-immigrant, anti-contraception campaign again. Not because they can't find someone in the Tea Party willing to be a disgusting spectacle for the world to mock, but because there aren't enough homophobic/racist male christian voters to make it worthwhile anymore. You're going to watch your beloved party either flame out and embarrass itself to death, or compromise with reality and abandon all of the "deeply-held" beliefs that they pretended to have so they could rile up their ignorant base. RachelW (talk) 09:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

What exactly is Karajou getting at here? I mean, saying that facts are biased at all kind of switched me off. They're facts. They don't have bias until someone serves up an opinion on the side. Reality's too liberal for this guy. --جئت ورأيت أنا القرف ^{gross, isn't it?} 10:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, his "fact" is that Hurricane Sandy was a pre-emptive punishment inflicted on the inhabitants of New York and New Jersey for voting Democrat. And I suppose I should end this by asking: Are you reading this, Brian? rpeh •T•C•E• 11:19, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I tried to find "RSS for morons" but for Karajou's sake, here's "RSS for dummies." Maybe he'll learn something. How this man breathes without constant reminders is a miracle. --PsyGremlin^Tal! 11:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Good job of throwing him off the trail, everyone. Psy, I'll email you the latest version of the spy bot later. rpeh •T•C•E• 12:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Mine keeps crashing after I installed that wiki password hacking module. --PsyGremlin^{말하십시오} 12:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I could dig out the old bot-magnet code that we had stockpiled. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 12:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

rpeh, did you have to write it in LISP? I'm gonna be here all day redoing it in Python now. The IP bypass module's no longer compatible with LISP. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 13:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Rainbow tabled it at 6 teraflops on my Sparc3000. I'm not wearing pants. Boogity. 14:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I wrote it in CA Plex, which is one of the languages my company uses (I wish I was kidding) so I could goof off while at work, like all liberals do. rpeh •T•C•E• 14:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

At least you didn't have to write it in MUMPS. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 16:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Holy shit. It's Brainfuck with an extended character set.--Ellipsoidal (talk) 23:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

If you are going to go for the mess with your mind interpreters, befunge is much more fun. Two dimensional program counter FTW! --Shagie (talk) 03:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Dear Karajou,

considering that you got all excited that some guy on another continent still happened to follow your comatose blog where only you and your buddies can comment, I believe we can answer your questions whether Michael Bloomberg or Chris Christie are reading your rants with a resounding "No."

Hugs and kisses,

Sid (talk) 19:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Can someone help me out here?

Andy writes: "California voters approved a tax hike of $6 billion to pay for money already spent, which is no help to its massive debt or future budgetary problems." Now, I don't know a lot about finance, but I would have thought that when you raise money to "pay for money already spent", then that helps your massive debt. What the hell is he going on about here? Isn't trying to raise money to pay off your debt a good thing? Phiwum (talk) 03:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I think his logic train is that its money being raised for stuff in the budget that's already penciled in. As such will fill that hole, rather then going to the debt. --Revolverman (talk) 04:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The money was spent on schools in the budget, contingent on the proposition passing. Had it not, the schools would have taken a massive cut and shortened the school year. So unless a plan C was adopted by California's new Democratic supermajority, had Prop 30 failed, in order to prevent their schools' falling below the quality of Zimbabwe's, debt was not the issue. Whoover (talk) 15:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Crimp. Am I the only one that thought it funny he used that word instead of "cripple," which he likely meant?--"Shut up, Brx." 15:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Very nearly, judging by the score on your WIGO. rpeh •T•C•E• 15:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Skip to sense 2 and you'll see it's Andy ftw. Whoover (talk) 17:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Ken is getting even more pitiful

Gentlemen!

an 'fyigentlemen' blogspot^img page. My god Ken, get help. Aceⁱ⁹ 07:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Poor Ken. He doesn't know when to stop. He protests his sanity - in the usual vague terms (where's the documents?) - then finishes off by saying "I could be many people using this account." You also didn't explain your previous address. PsyGremlin^Siarad! 07:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Pretending to be multiple people doesn't really help you on the "not insane" front. Neither does your pathological lying, or your constant delusions of grandeur. As for your job, how many have you claimed to have so far? I've really lost track. Your claims either mark you out as a hopeless drifter with no actual career path planned out or, far more likely considering how many hours a day you spend editing crap on the internet, just a liar. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 08:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I have received pieces of correspondence with the salutation "dearest." Wow, Ken, aren't you the last of the red-hot lovers? And as for women finding you personable and pleasant, most women find effeminate men personable and pleasant, so that doesn't prove anything about your machismo. Генгис^pillaging 08:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I get correspondence with the salutation "dearest", too. It's usually followed by a request to help get money out of Nigeria. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 13:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Memory-holed already. Anybody grab a screenie? rpeh •T•C•E• 08:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I've capped it, I'll upload it shortly. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 08:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Ja, I got it. Aceⁱ⁹ 09:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I was going to say "slowcoach" but Ace beat me to it.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 09:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

There are now two copies of it. Also, I like how Ken signs himself "enigma". Ken, you should know it is spelled E-N-E-M-A. Генгис^marauding 09:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Good grief. At least Sheldon Cooper's "I'm not insane; my mother had me tested" is funny. That really is pitiful. rpeh •T•C•E• 09:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I was going to make the same point. Anyone that needs to prove that they're not gay, not mad and not stupid is probably borderline on all of them. Ken "Otto" Demyer?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 10:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

So it seems Kenny boy has been reading my random copy and paste love letters I have been posting on his blog. Naca (talk) 10:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Tragic. StarFish (talk) 13:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Writing anonymous blog posts (although good to see you aren't crapping all over Andy's blog anymore) defending your sanity, then vaporizing it, the second people have questions, is not the work of a sane man. --PsyGremlin^{Поговорите!} 14:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

It's clear that we are Ken's primary (sole?) audience. This got me thinking -- are there any metrics on CP unique visitors minus RW unique visitors? Everyone here goes there as well; it's a two-part comedy extravaganza. How many straight visitors does that leave? Whoover (talk) 16:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Theres a Something Awful thread about it (im to lazy to log in and see if thats the right CP thread), and they've known about CP since atleast early 07. Then theres some independent viewers (me prior to 2 years ago) and random conservatives who agree with cp.--Mikal ^{Harass Follow} 17:19, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

How did you discover this blog?

Ken you know how we found it, your weren't quick enough in creating and then deleting FYI. Naca (talk) 05:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Our bot army is legion. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 09:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

And so expensive to maintain. I don't know what we'd do without all that cash George Soros gives us. rpeh •T•C•E• 09:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Soros? I thought all of our funding came from Moscow Baghdad Beijing Pyongyang. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 12:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

We also get a substantial dividend from our controlling interest in Farm Fresh Babies Inc. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I gather those Charles Darwin books and items of memorabilia that are being sold are still raking the cash in. Naca (talk) 13:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

My Big, Fat Greek Messiah

Remember Andy's odd theory that Jesus wrote Epistle to the Hebrews^img? Well, it was written in Greek. Can you guess what the new mystery is?
Mystery:Did Jesus Teach in Greek?^img
Andy brings his strange views about linguistic determinism into it: "Greek was a far more powerful language than Aramaic for conveying theological or philosophical concepts". Apparently Jesus could heal the sick, rise from the dead but conveying his ideas in Aramaic was beyond him. Andy's really been entertaining lately. The election really got to him. --Night Jaguar (talk) 07:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Jeepers, did you see the site Andy links to on the "Did Jesus Teach in Greek?" page? His actual link is broken ("smooth move, Ex-Lax" as we used to say in seventh grade), but the parent site is approaching Time Cube territory. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 13:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that there are no talk page comments yet. I hope that AugustO will take one look at that page and start spitting feathers. There should be a bit of entertainment as our German friend once again tells Andy that he doesn't know his arse from his elbow.--Spud (talk) 14:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that he hasn't made the obvious logical leap. Mystery: Did Jesus Teach in American English? Open your mind, Aschlafly. Ajkgordon (talk) 16:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

AugustO Reponds: Amusing Speculation^img. --Night Jaguar (talk) 18:40, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Supersymmetry FAIL!

I'm surprised Aschlafly hasn't been crowing about this. He should be levering God into it. "Clueless liberal scientists deny God and see their atheistic claptrap fail again. All the answers they need are in the Bible. Ajkgordon (talk) 11:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe he was hoping it would be confirmed instead because he'd found some relevant "Biblical foresight". I mean, if you squint hard enough you can imagine you're seeing Biblical foresight of anything. I just opened a Bible at a random page and flipped through for a minute looking for anything plausible, here goes: "... not one will be without its mate". Now in context that's just part of a pointless aside during a rant in Isiah about how God is going to destroy this or that group - but if you're Andy I'm sure you can conclude that it means super-symmetry is true. Or that gay marriage is wrong. Or that you really should have that last profiterole. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 12:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Mmmmmm.....profiterole. I like this Aschlafly fella. Ajkgordon (talk) 13:19, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I could also imply that goat liked teh gey marriage. Naca (talk) 13:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Anyone know which fundy is behind this blog ?

The site in question^img Not enough links to kennies blog to be a sock of his IMHO Naca (talk)

Just one of ShockOfGoat's hangers-on in his little chat room. Nobody of any importance. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:57, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Thought as much, although I did have a tiny thought that it could actually be one of the 200 blogs Ken has promised, which I then realized was clearly a stupid thought. Naca (talk) 15:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

If it isn't Ken it's someone quoting him pretty much verbatim. Ken's the only one I've ever seen suggesting that people debate VivaYashua about the 15 questions. Viva himself, in fact, isn't much of a fan of the QE! campaign.--Fergus Mason ^{Thruppence I got for selling my coat, tuppence for selling my blanket. If ever I 'list for a soldier again, the Devil shall be my Sergeant.} 18:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Can't be Ken. It has images that Ken has not recycled on CP (right?). Ken re-uses his pathetic images willy-nilly. Phiwum (talk) 18:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

He's not Ken, he's a little saner than that. Peter ^{Subsisting on honey} 19:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Ken's Presence in ShockOfGoat's Chatroom

Obviously, Ken--a man known the world over for his superior debating skills--can't resist taking part in Shock's hyper-fascist chatroom. He goes by QuestionEvolution (he's quite imaginative) and he still spams the Creation Ministries International site. If you want a lesson in sycophantic homoeroticism, go to the chat room the next time they hold one of their "debates." Ken is so willing to suck dick that it would be funny if it weren't so pathetic. Quantum (talk) 02:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Inside Andy's brain

Can't tell if equivocating on the word "turnout" or just stupid^img. Hell, what am I saying, that's not either/or. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I suspect he's referring to the fact that voter turnout was lower in 2012 than in 2008, despite the fact that early voting opportunities were greater. Phiwum (talk) 17:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Clearly, the early voting war of attrition on turnout is working. But seriously, he's just lashing out. Everyone knows higher turnouts are more democratic turnouts.[3] Same as 2+2=4. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know that higher turnouts are "more democratic". I value an informed electorate, which is not the same thing as a larger electorate. I very rarely vote on local matters because I am not well-informed on these (and I haven't the impetus to get well-informed). Nonetheless, I certainly have nothing against early voting. Phiwum (talk) 18:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

"There are a number of important senses in which high turnout works to the advantage of Democratic presidential candidates." Andy complaining about a Republican loss because of low turnout is crazy. I believe he is not arguing in good faith. 18:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

No. I cannot believe that. Andy?? Phiwum (talk) 18:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Andy's arguments are about as much in good faith as the argument of the lady on WIGO World who ran her husband over with a Jeep because she blamed his decision not to vote as the reason Obama won. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 20:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't follow you. A woman ran over her husband because he didn't vote and Obama was elected, right? What clearer evidence do you want that women supported Romney? There was no gender gap! Women loved Romney. Men loved Romney. If it wasn't for those other people, Romney would have won. Phiwum (talk) 23:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Andy: Jurors shouldn't vote until the end of a trial, therefore early voting in elections is bad.^img
What a gifted legal mind! --Night Jaguar (talk) 02:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

In general, the figures show early voting is more often used by Democrats than Republicans, although the Pennsylvania figures are intriguing. rpeh •T•C•E• 11:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

CNaV/CAN-SPAM

I've tried to unsubscribe from Terry's blog a few times now, but I keep getting emails. Has anyone else had this problem? Occasionaluse (talk) 18:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Yep, right up until I added CNAV to my spam list; since then, nothing. Simples.--Fergus Mason ^{Thruppence I got for selling my coat, tuppence for selling my blanket. If ever I 'list for a soldier again, the Devil shall be my Sergeant.} 18:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't seem to have had that problem.... yet. I think I've got bored with Terry's blog at last. He's irretrievably stupid and that's it. rpeh •T•C•E• 19:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Yep. Spamlisted it. I'm apparently not smart enough to figure out how to unsub from a Wordpress site. Oh well. Hey what's up OU. 02:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Just pressing unsubscribe didn't work for me, so I sent them a polite message explaining what I wanted. I haven't had any spam since then. Sophie^Wilder 13:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Same here -- I just replied to one mailing and said "remove me from all of your mailing lists." MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 13:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Poor old GregG's about to get a butt whooping

Wonder when the banhammer will come out for reverting Assfly^img Naca (talk) 01:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

MattyD doubles down with the truth^img, or at least something closer to the truth than CP tends to tolerate. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 06:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't get Andy's hate on for early voting. Its not like if voting was restricted to one day only, Dem supporters would inexplicably vote republican. --Revolverman (talk) 07:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Early voting tends to get more Democrat votes, or at least that's what some possibly-partisan site on the Internet told me recently. And Republicans in this election season are really taking it so seriously that they are quite in favour of taking away as many chances as possible from Democrats. Witness the attempted (and sometimes successful, depressingly) voter ID laws, ostensibly to tackle voting fraud that simply doesn't exist, that far and away disenfranchise the poor and minorities more than they do the well-off white base -- the very base the GOP was depending on to carry the election for them. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 07:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Basically, Ocho is right. Early voting gives people more time to get to the polls, particularly people who work the more common "9-5" jobs that may not be able to get time off from their employers (not all states have time off laws, although some do). This means that early voters tend to skew Democratic, especially in larger cities with larger groups of low income and minority voters. I think in Andy's mind, the progression goes something along the lines "Early voters tend to be Democratic voters -> Early voting means more Democrats can vote -> Democrat votes are bad -> Early voting is rigged to support Democrats." SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 10:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

And we all know that opening democracy to as wide as possible a participation group is undemocratic. Methinks Andy doesn't know the etymology of "democracy". This should come as a surprise to nobody, of course. Of course, I have an explanation for why conservatives don't go for early voting much. Margaret Cho once observed, in one of her stage tours, that conservatives were for the death penalty, but against abortion -- they're just lazy. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 12:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Is Andy and his pack of dogssysops asleep at the wheel? Wschact gets into the act with more lieberal^img deceit^img (read: sane facts). Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 12:48, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

" If you want a lesson in sycophantic homoeroticism.."

(Quote taken from the post above this one). Can we all fucking stop dragging a man's alleged sexual orientation into our commentary here? Yes, User:Conservative's edit pattern reveals that he has some deep-seated homophobic tendencies. That's a pretty shitty character trait, and I hope he'll come around and stop being a bigot. Do you know what's guarantee to not help in that process? Calling him a fairy at every turn. You might think you're being hip and clever, but you're not. You're using sexual orientation as an insult. The fact that you're doing it against someone who himself hates gay people doesn't make you "hip" or "ironic." It doesn't make you "clever." It makes you "the kins of person who uses sexual orientation in a derogatory way." Grow the fuck up. Act like an adult. If the best you can do is fag jokes, work out better material, and then come back. Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 06:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

For the most part ToP, I agree. However, it is hard not to take the low hanging fruit when hes providing so damn much of it. --Revolverman (talk) 06:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, please make the insults you hurl at this clearly mentally ill man more sensitive. --Night Jaguar (talk) 06:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we're using sexuality as an insult. Rather, I think that we're saying that he's denying his true nature. Some, but not all, people who express particularly strong homophobic tendencies are actually externalising their own internal struggle with their sexuality. I think it's less a matter of saying "LOL U FAG" and more saying, "There must be a reason for this extremely bizarre behaviour." Mental illness is one such answer, but there are others. --Sasayaki (talk) 13:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Right. Nothing at all derogatory about referring to sychophancy in terms of sucking cock. No, of course, we mean that there's nothing at all emasculating or shameful about sucking cock, but we use that term because Ken, who is less enlightened than we, might find it insulting.

I'm with ToP here. The repeated discussion of Ken masturbating and cumming while typing, the metaphors of sucking cock to describe unseemly cowardice and flattery, it's all way too fucking much. Good God, can't we find the words to describe Ken's stupidity (or illness) without resorting to disgusting or fundamentally anti-homosexual images? Is this really the best literary expressions we can find? I don't regard myself as particularly sensitive, but this is simply too much. Phiwum (talk) 16:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

This. This and the armchair psychological evaluations that he has to be truly mentally ill where he requires professional or medical help. If you are going to poke fun at him, poke fun at the obvious faults: The poor reasoning, the repeating ad nauseam of the same tired and boring material, the terrible debating skills, the cowardliness, the bad science, the misogyny and homophobia, there are plenty to choose from.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Good point. He totally could have been an employee of that group home instead of a resident. Or maybe a whole series of employees! Or maybe a whole series of employees AND residents! OLE OLE OLE! Ego (talk) 20:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

"Creationism is growing in Brazil and spilling into its neighbors" Ewww. 00:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

So... basically what I'm reading is that we shouldn't pick on Ken. BMcP said: "If you are going to poke fun at him, poke fun at the obvious faults: The poor reasoning, the repeating ad nauseam of the same tired and boring material..." Right. And what is the root cause of his perceived "faults". It's because he's fucking nuts. So making fun of the manifestations of his speculated upon mental illness is pretty much the same thing as mocking the disease itself. "Oh no, I wasn't teasing you about your polio... I was just making fun of the way you walk." Don't get me wrong, I used to have my fun taking the occasional poke at the crank in the cage, but then I realized that crazy or not... the guy is just too boring and predictable to be fun any more. --Inquisitor (talk) 02:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The peons get in on a fun game

Don't have checkuser? Don't let that stop you randomly claiming people are socks^img. I don't suppose even this will make them notice all the peons are parodists. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 08:51, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Jeeves, haven't you been around long enough to know how to capture CP events properly? --27.50.70.134 (talk) 20:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Andy's 2016 Predictions

Embedded in his latest lecture, Andy predicts that "On the Republican side, it is expected that Jeb Bush will seek and win the nomination, while Hillary Clinton seems likely to be the Democrat nominee."^img He also forecasts a tough election for Chris Christie next year. This from the man who brought us an article about the Gingrich Administration...

Most pundits I've read say Bush probably won't run, and Hillary has stated several times that she isn't interested, although that could change. rpeh •T•C•E• 15:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

If I had told you in November 2004 that the next two-term POTUS would be the recently-elected junior senator from Illinois, you would have called me crazy. Anybody making predictions now is just making it up. Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 15:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh absolutely. My main purpose in mentioning it was to bookmark it for future Conservapedia Proved Wrong purposes. rpeh •T•C•E• 15:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Four years is an awful long time to remember that Andy was wrong. He's wrong about new things every day, how could anyone keep track? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Besides, Andy isn't wrong with his picks; those two are probably among your best bets at the moment. His problem is saying that they are likely to win, when it's obviously way too early to make any such calls. Having a 20% chance or so is enough to make someone frontrunner 4 years out, but is far from being the "likely" candidate. If HIllary does decide to run ( and I don't see any compelling reason why should wouldn't) she would certainly be the odds on favorite. DickTurpis (talk) 17:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. If he'd mentioned a few names and said something like Bush and Clinton being the early front-runners, that would have been fine. Saying "expected" and "likely" turns it into a more solid prediction. rpeh •T•C•E• 18:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Jeb didn't run this year; why the hell would he wait until 2016 to pull out a surprise run for the presidency? He's probably one of the least likely to run of the usual Republican horse race. Cow...Hammer^time! 22:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I think Hilary would hit the age problem (68) at 2016 which might be a bit too old by then. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 04:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

For a guy who happily throws G.W. Bush under the bus, why is he so obsessed with Jeb becoming president? --Revolverman (talk) 04:43, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

@K6, given reagen was a year older and bush 2 was only 4 years younger, i wouldnt see the age as a problem. --Mikal ^{Harass Follow} 04:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Reagan was full of Alzheimer's by his second term, so that's not a great example. It's the toughest job in the world--lots of stress, shitty hours, long nights and early mornings. Past a certain age, it's gonna take important mental tolls. Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 05:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Jets will keep losing, why? Liberals!

According to football sage Il Duce Andy, the liberal scum of New York would rather see their beloved Jets lose then allow Tim Tebow, all American good guy, bring them salvation through a perfect second half of the season victory run^img. Why? Because he is a Christian conservative of course, and no one is oppressed like white, wealthy, male, Christian conservatives, amiright? Of course Tebow's own teammates feel he isn't the quarterback to lead the team to victory, but pfffft, what do they know compared to Andy?! They just play the game professionally, and probably vote Democrat too, the liberal losers.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 01:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Then why did they recruit Tebow in the first place if they hate Christians so much?--"Shut up, Brx." 01:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

That's an easy one. If Tebow had stayed in Denver he clearly would have gone on to dominate the league and shatter all NFL records. Thus sweeping in a new era of American Christendom. The economy would come roaring back and church attendance would skyrocket. Evolution would finally be crushed, the ultra-lucrative abortion industry would be driven into bankruptcy, and CP would finally knock off google and facebook and become the web's #1 destination. Well the libs can't have that, so Tebow had to go. The couldn't risk making a martyr out of St. Tim, so they concocted a scheme to trade him, have the new coach bench him, and then have a bunch of sports writers talk about how much he sucks. Of course Andy can see straight through that shit. --Inquisitor (talk) 01:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

No, no, as Andy has said the move to the Jets was "in order to oust conservative Tim Tebow from his leadership position in the swing state of Colorado prior to the Presidential Election 2012"^img. Tebow's conservative aura was so great that liberals feared he'd make them lose Colorado, so they had to sent him to a blue state to minimize his damage and also tempt Tebow to the dark side. Or something. --Night Jaguar (talk) 01:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing that Andy has less of a feel for than sports. He is totally and utterly clueless about the subject. Whether its crowds cheering for underdogs, satirical articles about Kim Jong Il or the political motivations of team selection, he is just hopeless. Honestly I don't think there is a subject he knows less about than sports. Damo^Hi 02:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Politics? Linguistics? Religion? Mathematics? Statistics? Physics? Biology? Humor? History? Law? Teaching? How to run an encyclopedia? An argument can be made for any one of those. --Night Jaguar (talk) 02:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Sports is number 1 for me. Damo^Hi 02:44, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing more awkward to watch than the guy who doesn't know sports trying to be "one of the guys" and talk sports. Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 04:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Please try and keep speculations about Andy's sexuality to yourself. Someone got upset when a similar point was made about Ken. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 07:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Uh... what? --Revolverman (talk) 07:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Nobody was casting aspersions on Andy's sexuality. We have no wa of knowing anything about that, and besides it is personal and irrelevant. His understanding of sports on the other hand is a matter of record; that he has chosen to make public - on his own blog no less. Damo^Hi 08:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Andy trying to be "one of the gays"? Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 08:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

... Khant, that saids "guys" GUYS, not gays. --Revolverman (talk) 09:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Obviously I need to get one of them 'retina' displays. One spec of dust in the wrong place and it's WW3. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 09:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Moar FYI

We know it was you ken ^img ,the bot network says so Naca (talk) 02:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

It's spelled 'More". Aceⁱ⁹ 02:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Bloody hell, that's poor. I'll bet you went to a public school, Naca? --Damo^Hi 02:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Nah, more like too much time on various internet chat-rooms, forums and the like Naca (talk) 02:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, Ken, since it wasn't you, it means you only have access to the screengrab posted above, which means you sat in front of a picture and counted the 745 words on it one by one. Pace the discussion above I won't comment on your sanity. Of course, if it had been you, you could simply have used the word count facility in any word processor. I know which version I believe. rpeh •T•C•E• 05:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Pretty sure you made a silly mistake there, rpeh. Ken's claiming that the post made here alleging he was the chatroom participant had 745 words in it, not that the chatroom contribution had that many words. Of course, the proper answer is: who gives a fuck whether Ken is participating in a goddamn chatroom or not? Why the fuck should we be discussing this? Did he say anything noteworthy at all?

I'm not necessarily opposed to discussing the antics of this clearly disturbed individual, but geez, Louise. Shall we discuss his breakfast next? Phiwum (talk) 05:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Er, but, the post about Ken's (alleged) contribution to Shock's chatroom has fewer than one hundred words and no replies, which makes his claim really, totally nonsensical. Which is not, of course, surprising. Phiwum (talk) 05:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, wait. He was also counting the posts discussing whether it is appropriate to refer to him as sucking dick or not. Wow. Now it all makes sense. Phiwum (talk) 06:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't very clear. I meant the original FYI Gentlemen post. I'm not going to count the words though. rpeh •T•C•E• 06:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I figgered that's what you meant, but Ken never claimed to have counted those words. Phiwum (talk) 06:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I know, but it's the only thing that fits. I think he just copy/pasted the wrong headline. rpeh •T•C•E• 06:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Ken is a word counting tool. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 08:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Statistics Fun

Good grief^img. For a man who's taken so many statistics courses, Andy really has no clue about how statistics works. That whole thread is a testament to his idiocy. It's also worth noting that Googling "statistical impossibility" brings up an ancient CP article first, then a few articles pointing out that the term is wrong, then loads of cretinist sites using it about evolution. rpeh •T•C•E• 05:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

"Numbers, therefor, I am correct" Is all I got from that. --Revolverman (talk) 06:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Gah. He really does seem to be assuming that the vote was evenly distributed. I would have thought one glace at a map of republican vs. democratic counties would put that one to rest. How can someone so educated be simultaneously such an ignoramus? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 09:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

He doesn't realise voting is not evenly distributed like a bell curve. If the results had been the other way round, with some rural districts voting 100% for Romney, he'd be using it instead as an example of 'Democrat incompetency'. Doraemon^{話そう！話そう！} 09:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not willing to give Andy credit for being that stupid. He's just a liar and a propagandist. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it's a mixture of all of those. He refuses to believe that Democrats could win such a big majority and is his mind that means they cheated. He then pounces on the first statistic that fits his narrative, tweaks it to make it fit better, dresses it up in incorrect terminology and claims a New Insight. rpeh •T•C•E• 14:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Andy understands statistics about as well as he understands Urdu. You have seen Mystery:Young Hollywood Breast Cancer Victims, haven't you? The Talk page says it all. DogP (talk) 16:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Now it's Plenipotentiary Chuckarse

"If you are serious about brokering a deal to have the old Confederate States of America secede from the Union, I for one would gladly take the post of Ambassador Extraordinary/Plenipotentiary of such an entity, if they would do me the honor of offering me that post. Given my split heritage, half Northern and half Southern, I would consider myself more than usually qualified to be such an Ambassador or to serve on his staff.

Or maybe, given my experiences with weathering Hurricane Sandy and Nor’easter Athena, and Hurricanes Alicia (1983), Adam (1980), and Camille (1969), not to mention five years’ residency in Memphis, TN, the largest city of consequence along Tornado Alley, I could as easily work my way up the militia chain." (from CNAV)[4] London Grump (talk) 14:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, if we didn't know it before, I think now we can declare Terry officially as mad as a box of frogs who've been licking themselves. --PsyGremlin^Tala! 15:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Because some of my ancestors were born in the north and some in the south, because I didn't die in five (count 'em) natural disasters that killed tens of people, and because I lived for five years in the same spot, I feel entirely justified in being the ambassador of a newly formed country towards the part they succeeded from, who now have presumably fairly hostile attitudes towards their former countrymen. This situation requiring extreme patience, tact and understanding, of which I have none. Jesus, fuck... --Sasayaki (talk) 15:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Wait, Memphis? Tornado friggin' alley? Oh, please. As a native Okie, I take offense at that remark. Just how friggin' big does he think Tornado Alley is? Phiwum (talk) 15:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Texas wanting to secede reminds me of wanting to run away when I was a child. I wish there was some way to indulge them, like the time my parents let me move into a tent in the backyard. Just a few cold, hungry nights in the woods. No serious harm to the republic, but a lesson learned. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Let's not make a big deal out of noting. A few thousand people out of 26 million have signed an e-petition that makes noise about leaving the Union. Quebec has had a viable separatist movement that has formed the national government for much of my life, and yet to say tat "Quebec wants to separate" is to grossly overestimate the desire for Quebec sovereignty. To say "Texas wanting to secede" doesn't even come close to reflecting reality. Yet another example of the internet making something inconsequential look real. Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 16:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

"Just how friggin' big does he think Tornado Alley is?" It corresponds exactly with the bible belt. His greatest unspoken qualification is that he is an expert on the bible (and every single other subject he speaks on) to the exclusion of all others. Get shown to be a liar? Either threaten to ban the user or simply don't respond to the charge. Boom. Plenipotentiary material. Just as he's perfectly willing to ascribe intentions to our the man now occupying the White House, I'm eager to proclaim that ejecting all but those christians Terry approves of would be his first order of business. Atheists will be summarily tried, sentenced, and executed. ToP: don't you think this has something to do with the laughable chestnut that Texas reserved the right to sucede at any time upon joining the United States? 16:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

It's a wonder that he doesn't explode with his inflated sense of importance. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 16:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh be nice, it must be hard for someone with such an insane ammount of self worshipping ego to exist in a world where he is but an impotent nobody. He shares the same disease as Andy in that he views himself as being one of the most intelligent/knowledgeable/experienced/macho men in the country, and thus he honestly expects that when his side inevitably triumphs he shall be given a position of absolute power and authority. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 16:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Brilliant. Although annoying. After his idiotic comments in reply to Fergus and me telling him he didn't understand what words like "Marxist" meant I'd vowed not to go back. Now I might just have to... rpeh •T•C•E• 17:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Ken is that you!?

http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2012-11/wikipedia-sandy

Yes, that gentleman's name is "Ken." It says so clearly in the article. Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 14:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I made the mistake of reading the comments. I need to lie down for a bit. I have a desk-induced headache. --PsyGremlin^Sermā! 14:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The very first comment gave me brain damage. Osaka Sun (talk) 18:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Our own kennywenny? I gotta say it could be. Lack of sleep? check. Rambling tangents at slightest opportunity? check. Lives in the New York Area? check. Bizarre editing sprees? check. Absolutely bugfucking insane? CheckCheckCheck. Im not saying it is "Demeyer", but I wouldnt be surprised if it were Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 16:44, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

a) Not Ken DeMyer. b) Ken would never let his photo be taken for publication. He thinks he'll be martyred by evil liberals if people learn his real identity. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised that a libertarian science denier would look like this? Osaka Sun (talk) 18:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Look like what? Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 18:44, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The kind of guy who wears a wife beater to what appears to be a decent restaurant. FailDeadly (talk)

Thank you, FD, I've wondered for years what a "wifebeater" was: what we in the UK call a "vest". (what you call a "vest" we call a "waistcoat" or "weskit".) Scream!! (talk) 02:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Well ain't that the dogs bollocks. Sorry but the only things I really know about British words is what I get from Eddy Izzard. FailDeadly (talk)

It was inevitable

Petraues' resignation is part of a conspiracy^img. Keep in mind that Dems have confirmed Petraues is willing to testify on the Benghazi attacks--"Shut up, Brx." 18:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Benghazi has really become the right wing 9/11 conspiracy, hasn't it? --Revolverman (talk) 18:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I've been expecting this news for a couple of days now. I'm just surprised it took so long to work it in to their conspiracy narrative. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Which is pretty hilarious, since the right-wing's response to the ACTUAL 9/11 was to elevate Bush to near-Godhood and scream down all criticism. --Gulik (talk) 19:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I have a story called "A Tale of Two Rice's".

One Rice is an administration official in charge of national security. She fails to prevent the greatest terrorist attack in the history of America. She testifies in front of Congress that she has no idea about anything at all; not how it happened, not how it could have been prevented, not who missed the clues. Nothing. Just a big "fuck you" to Congress and the American people. The Republicans then promote her to Secratary of State.

The other Rice is an ambassador to the UN, who is in no way in charge of the security of Benghazi. The day after the attacks, she willing goes on a Sunday news program, and, in the course of giving a fair assessment of the situation at the moment, doesn't use the word "terrorist!" hard enough. The Republicans throw a complete shit-storm over the POSSIBILITY that she might be promoted to Secratary of State, saying that no one who had ANYTHING, no matter how remotely, to do with an attack on Americans has ANY right to that position.

And I sit on my couch, sad, screaming "Are you fucking kidding me??". FIN Carlaugust (talk) 19:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

A lot of it is pure politics. Before the election, everybody knew Clinton was stepping down as Sec. of State, and the word was that John Kerry would get the gig. The trouble is, he's Senator John Kerry (D-MA), and a reasonable Republican, Scott Brown, just became available to stand in the special election. Over the past few days Republicans have been praising Kerry to the rafters because they want that seat as it'd open up the remote possibility of a takeover in 2014. Obama has now realised this too, hence the switch to Rice, and the resultant Republican histrionics such as McCain threatening a filibuster over the whole thing. Add to that Carlaugust's neat analysis and the whole thing is pretty pathetic. rpeh •T•C•E• 19:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Petraeus...

... is a machismo-lacking liberal!^img

I don't even need to tell you who came up with that one. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 19:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Goddamn it, you beat me to making a topic about this :(. I just wonder whether Andy or his joyboys will try to bury this at some point soon , though given Andy was too scared to utter even a whisper of dissent when Ken started to trash and spit on Andy's church for being being stupid liberals, I doubt andy will grow a backbone now. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 20:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

No, Andy won't grow a backbone, but he'll meekly edit the "headline" with the excuse that it's too long and he'll pretend he has a backbone -- even though the edited comment will still more or less cast a retroactively negative light on Petraeus despite his years of exemplary service which ends with this truly regrettable and sad tale. Phiwum (talk) 20:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

At this point he's just trolling the other sysops. He knows he can get away with it--"Shut up, Brx." 20:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually Ken himself has now removed it, and oversighted it for good measure. He must lack the machismo to stand by what he wrote, must be a liberal. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 05:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully Petraeus threatened to kick his balls up his throat if he didn't get rid of it.--Fergus Mason ^{Thruppence I got for selling my coat, tuppence for selling my blanket. If ever I 'list for a soldier again, the Devil shall be my Sergeant.} 13:39, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

If this was you^img, Fergus, please be aware you may have a psychological problem!^img Because Ken totally doesn't. Thanks, Karajou, for the icing on the irony cake! Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 16:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Yep, that was me! I was amused that the thick fuck couldn't even spell "psychological," too.--Fergus Mason ^{Thruppence I got for selling my coat, tuppence for selling my blanket. If ever I 'list for a soldier again, the Devil shall be my Sergeant.} 18:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

What I love with this is that back in the days of Dubbya, if you questioned the Prez, or called him names; if you called Colin Powell a liar, or the generals in Iraq war criminals; if you have the "it is patriotic to question authority" box on your user page, you were a filthy liberal and you were outta there. Now that the shoe is on the other foot... --PsyGremlin^講話 17:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

What hacked me off was that some fucking dribbling idiot skulking in his basement surrounded by pizza boxes and Krusty Kleenex had the absolute fucking gall to call Petraeus, who I worked for in one of the world's grottiest shitholes, wimpy and lacking in machismo. What's Ken suddenly done to be the arbiter of manliness? Fucking shitcunt.--Fergus Mason ^{Thruppence I got for selling my coat, tuppence for selling my blanket. If ever I 'list for a soldier again, the Devil shall be my Sergeant.} 18:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm particularly impressed that Karajerk even found your other addition^img worthy of reversion. How dare you add lucid, accurate information to Conservapedia!!! rpeh •T•C•E• 18:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's Popeye for you; never mind how accurate the information is, if it's added by a banned user it must be suppressed. What a dolt.--Fergus Mason ^{Thruppence I got for selling my coat, tuppence for selling my blanket. If ever I 'list for a soldier again, the Devil shall be my Sergeant.} 18:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

You have to remember that Ken can really only hold onto one thought at a time - a the moment it's that everybody he doesn't like is lacking machismo - be it us, Dawkins or the general. He simply doesn't have the mental faculties to be able to structure his argument in any other way. At least he didn't call him obese. As for Karajou, well he bent over, grabbed his ankles and became Ken's bitch during the whole Rob affair, so of course he's going to suck up to him, because goddess forbid Andy new right hand man turn on Kara and threaten the only bit of authority he's ever had in his life. --PsyGremlin^Sprich! 19:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)