User talk:RobSmith/Archive 05

Hey Rob, guess who?

So, now that we're in a venue where the sysops won't IP ban me for disagreeing with them, tell me how Gingrich is an orphan again? According to UNICEF's definition? You know, he gave a speech at the Orphan Foundation of America and never ONCE mentioned his own status as an orphan. I bet, if you went up to him and asked him what it was like being an orphan, he would probably tell you something like, "My father died when I was 27, my stepfather when I was 53, and my mother when I was 60. What the hell are you talking about?" RachelW (talk) 21:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

An abandoned child is orphaned. The problem is sources, as I pointed on ASchlalfy's talk page, the Washington Post, ABC, CNN, and Time magazine all have published false biographical information about Gingrich. Even Wikipedia claims Gingrich was "abandoned in infancy", which evidently is not true. nobs^Moderated 22:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Really? The word abandoned doesn't appear anywhere on his wikipedia page. In fact, a Google search of "Newt Gingrich" and orphan pulls up not a single reference to him being an orphan. As I said before, if he were an orphan, certainly he would have mentioned it during a speech at a dinner honoring scholarship recipients from the ORPHAN FOUNDATION OF AMERICA. And I'm sorry, but the UNICEF definition of orphan as a CHILD with at least one dead parent. Gingrich did not achieve that status until the age of 27. During his childhood, he was raised and cared for by his mother and adoptive father. RachelW (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• he would have mentioned it during a speech at a dinner

Not necessarily; Newt isn't a cultist who is high on himself, such as Clinton or Obama. Gingrich rarely talks about himself -- he focuses on issues. Perhaps that is his appeal. nobs^Moderated 22:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

clinton and obama are cultists? the fuck?--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 22:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh yeah, if there's someone in politics who totally isn't high on himself, its Newt "Defender of Civilization" Gingrich. And c'mon, are you telling me that if you were a successful orphan, about to give a speech to a group of young orphans about to embark out into the world, you wouldn't even ONCE mention it? He managed to cram everything else into that speech.RachelW (talk) 23:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Right. Gingrich was so flattered to receive the liberal honor as TIME magazine's Man of the Year, he didn't even bother to shave for the cover photo. nobs^Moderated 23:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh snap, he's got you there, Rachel! Gingrich didn't shave for a magazine! It's beyond me how you'll be able to recover from such a barely relevant an epic comeback. Sam ^Tally-ho! 23:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

One more ranking

NZ not only tops the US on longevity, education, health, well-being and infant mortality we also top you in economic freedom. Curse this third world backwater! Ace^Moderator 23:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Yah, you top the US in fetal alcohol syndrome and abortion, too. Is there a connection? And you top the US in alcoholism in general. Is that cause there's nothing much to do than watch the grass grow? nobs^Moderated 23:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, no one much cares about abortion so that is a matter of opinion whether or not it is a bad thing. We also have troublingly high child poverty rates. but hey, at least we are freer, smarter, have better lifestyles, better economic and press freedom plus some of the lowest corruption rates in the Western World. But don't worry, you have higher quality of life indexes....oh wait...Damn this rotten third world country! Ace^Moderator 00:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

No one cares much except the woman it's performed on, or the fetus. Good response. nobs^Moderated 00:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

That's right, abortion isn't a social nor political issue in NZ. Never mind at least the US has a great pristine environment....oh damn! Not again! Ace^Moderator 00:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Yep. Ever since Richard Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Oh, and corruption? maybe some people are too stupid to be corrupt, ever consider that? nobs^Moderated 00:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

WOW Under Barack Hussein, the United States has fallen from 28th on the list to 61st! Thanks for the link! nobs^Moderated 00:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

So let summarize then. We have established that New Zealand this third world backwater has better education, better literacy, lower infant mortality, better press freedom, less corruption, higher standards of living, greater economic freedom, lower corruption and a more pristine environment. Oh and we have better well-being and more peaceful. But don't fret, you guys are still the best at American Football! Go Giants! And what makes you think I give a fuck about Obama? I didn't vote for him. Ace^Moderator 01:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Who gives a fuck? Most Americans couldn't find that third world backwater leper colony on map, let alone ever wanna visit. nobs^Moderated 01:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Most Americans can't find ANY foreign country on a map, with the possible exceptions of Canada and Mexico. That's because so many of you waste time reading the words of long-dead Palestinian rabbis and crying about evolution, and not enough time remedying your abysmal ignorance. Being parochial crybabies is nothing to be proud of. --Fergus Mason (talk) 01:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course most American's can't find NZ on a map...11% of them couldn't even find the US!.

Yeah, no one wants to visit. Try harder Rob. Ace^Moderator 01:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Lets play again, what next? Ace^Moderator 01:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, ok. 184,228 American visitors out 306 million = .00006% of the population, DOWN 4% from the previous year. You'd do better flying a sign on a freeway ramp if you're that desperate for money. nobs^Moderated 01:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Maths isn't your strong suit Rob. It's 0.06%. Considering only 30% of US citizens even have a passport which equals about 91,800,000 people which bumps it up to .2% and that's only if those 91,800,000 all go on international holidays (and if you remove all the people who have a passport but can't travel due to health/age/income etc. Rob fails again - your metric is irrelevant and says nothing. Lets play some more!Ace^Moderator 01:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

How much is a passport? $5? even you Ace could earn that picking up aluminum cans. nobs^Moderated 01:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I have three very well worn passports (2 expired of course). No need to pick up cans. Ace^Moderator 01:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Here we go 1%. Rob + Maths = fail. Ace^Moderator 01:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Americans can't find it on a map? You can say that about almost every country! And actually, the US is New Zealand's third largest tourism partner. Not that you'll care. And have you seen fucking LOTR? If scenery like that belongs to a third-world backwater leper colony, then by god cut off my leg and I'll move there with the other sheepfuckers. BTW, Rob, you can get much better results during a debate by Googling the stupid comment you want to make and make sure that 5 seconds of research is not going to shoot it through of holes. RachelW (talk) 01:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

There's no point arguing with Rob. He's a cock on CP, he's a cock here and surprisingly enough, it looks like he even found the time to be a cock at Ameriwiki. --Fergus Mason (talk) 01:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Let me explain American politics for you non-yanks: it's a even numbered year, a political year, so the partisan edge comes out. In odd numbered years there's more of a spirit of cooperation to deal with our problems. nobs^Moderated 01:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that was so obvious last year and in 2009, you dishonest stroker. --Fergus Mason (talk) 01:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Yep. We had the cp:Debt ceiling compromise, for which Obama's Chief of Staff (Bill Daley) got shit canned after he fucked up. nobs^Moderated 01:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you seriously dumb enough to cite Schlafly's little hate blog as a source? --Fergus Mason (talk) 02:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Yep. Now you understand the low level of education in the United States explains how Barack Hussein got elected. nobs^Moderated 01:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, nobody wanted to say they voted the same way as those dunces who voted Republican. Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 01:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, who is Barack Hussein? Are you talking about the Best Buy employee from Omaha?

No, that guy has a real job. nobs^Moderated 01:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The president of the United States isn't a real job??? Sam ^Tally-ho! 01:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Democratic presidents have a tendency of never having worked a real job in their life, having sucked the public tit in some civil service capacity. So as president, they have no real life work experience and tend to be overpaid idiots for the demands of job. nobs^Moderated 01:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, but you're an asshole, Robert. After four years, does pointing out that the President's middle name is "Hussein" still get mileage with the kinds of troglodytes you hang out with? Are you that much of a bloody nativist that you can't wrap your hateful little head around the idea that in a country of immigrants, a guy's name might not be Bruce, or Mark, or Andrew? Fuck, but you're a sad, hateful little prick, aren't you? Also, teaching law at the U of Chicago = "a real job." A better one than you or Schlafly ever had. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 01:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Dude, go easy on him. He's evidently not the brightest crayon in the box. Sam ^Tally-ho! 01:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

In which a moron tries to talk about higher education

Teaching at the U of Chicago is...sucking the public tit. nobs^Moderated 01:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

(I went to the University of Chicago while Obama was there and I can assure you U of C has no tits to speak of). 03:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget, most of his students couldn't find Chicago on the map, either. nobs^Moderated 01:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

CHICAGO IS A PRIVATE UNIVERSITY you moron. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 01:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The students get federal wp:Pell Grants to pay tuition, the schools main source of revenue and teacher salaries without which the U of Chicago wouldn't exist. nobs^Moderated 02:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. Not all students get Pell Grants, and, more importantly, most of their income/endowment is from gifts from benefactors and the big foundations that give lots of money to the big universities. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 02:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Not all? what percentage do you think do? I know quite a bit about this subject. A few years ago I assisted a CPA to get an audit contract from a Barber college which helped its student to get Pell Grants. The grants equaled roughly $5400 per student, which coincidentally equal the $5400 tuition. IOW, Pell Grants were the sole source of revenue for a private barber college. The same is true for trucking schools, etc. My guess is, 70-80% of U of Chicago students qualify for Pell Grants, but I'm shooting from the hip. If someone wishes to check that, I'd be interested. nobs^Moderated 02:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

A whole 10.9% of the U of Chicago's income last year came from tuition. Another 14% came from "government grants and contracts," some of which, presumably were payments for some sort of service rendered ("contracts). Not public. SourceP-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 02:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

For the 2010-2011 award year, the maximum amount for a Pell Grant is $5,550. A full-time semester at Chicago costs 14 grand, so 28 grand a year, plus summer courses if you choose to take some. The Pell don't count for shit. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 02:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok good. Those stats match my findings. Now, 507 student recipients times $5550 = $2,813,850. What were the teacher salaries U of Chicago? nobs^Moderated 02:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Look at the source a gave you. Salaries and benefits--so this includes everyone from law professors to janitors--were 57 percent of the U's budget. A budget of 3 billion-with-a-b dollars. So, roughly 1/10 of 1%. Are you sure your mom didn't drink while she was pregnant with you? P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 02:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, wait: 57% of roughly 1/10 of 1% -- can someone check my math for me, though? P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 02:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Ya know, Rob, watching you debate is morbidly humorous. Like watching birds fly into a window. Sparky! ^whatever

Let's limit this to faculty salaries. The maintenance and concession people wouldn't be there if not for teachers. In the absence of a line item budget figure, we could use the teacher/student ratio times average salary (U of Chicago will be distorted since it rates in the top five most expensive in the nation). There's a reason for this: in the US with it's debt and deficit problem, it's becoming increasing clear whole post secondary franchises in several states would not exist without Pell Grants, and they are actively recruiting homeless to apply to get the funds. They don't care if they ever go to classes, they just want to split the cash from the federal government with the applicant. The University of Phoenix, for example, with 430,000 students. nobs^Moderated 02:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

(Note to Ace: incidentally, the total number of enrollies with the University of Phoenix, scamming the government at $5550 a head, is 2 and one half times the total number of US visitors to New Zealand. This is only one educational institution scamming the federal treasury. Now add up the total number of students from all schools, plus faculty whose salaries are dependent on tuition paid, you'll have some idea of the magnitude of the problem). nobs^Moderated 03:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Cool story. Ace^Moderator 03:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Fine, limit it to faculty salaries. Make them 90% of the 57% figure above. Make them 10% of the 57% figure above. I don't care, whatever works better for you. You still aren't going to tell me that 2 million bucks of Pell grants means shit towards funding a huge faculty each of whom make over 60 grand a year minimum. There is no meaningful comparison to be made between Chicago--a real university with a graduate school, a law school, research facilities and a medical school, with a for-profit institute like Phoenix, which has a whole bunch of online students. It's like comparing Conservapedia's Bible Project with an original copy of the King James Bible. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 03:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

At tjhe end of the day, I win. Obama taught at a private institution that gets a small percentage of its income from public sources. You're wrong, I'm right. End of argument. And you're still a hateful, small-minded prick for harping on the guy's name. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 03:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

It's closer to three million dolars, but as noted, there are other government funding sources as well and U 0f Chicago is expensive. I'll concede the point, but note Barack Hussein only taught for about 6 months, if I remember. That and his work work that domestic terrorist Bernardine Dohrn at Sidley Austin for another six months, not mention ballot box stuffing with ACORN (which does receive federal grants and contracts) did give some private sector experience. Not much, though. More than Clinton. nobs^Moderated 03:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

College presidents tell Obama to stick his education ideas up his ass

• Associated Press. nobs^Moderated 03:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

more on the glories of Kiwiland

Yeah Rob, you have completely failed today. You were wrong about U of Chicago, wrong about sport, wrong about NZ. Tough day for you, kid. Ace^Moderator 03:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Yah well I'm here in the good ol' US of A riding a Harley and suckin down a Budweiser, while you're stuck on that godforsaken antarctic rock jutting out of the ocean with lepers and sheep fuckers. Envy me, sucker. nobs^Moderated 03:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't envy you in slightest. Budweiser is awful. Ace^Moderator 03:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Better than fermented coconut milk. You should try it. nobs^Moderated 03:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Umm, NZ doesn't have coconut trees, Rob. You're an idiot. Ace^Moderator 03:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Jesus, what do you drink, fermented kiwijuice? must taste like flavored watered down lighter fluid. nobs^Moderated 03:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Only in the United States do I meet people who wear their ignorance of the rest of the planet as a badge of honor. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 03:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Some of the best Beers, vodkas and gin in the world. Idiot. What Foster said. Ace^Moderator 03:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I should add that as a Kiwi I find it quite amusing that you think we would be envious of someone because they are from the US. Very amusing indeed. Is your belief in American Exceptionalism so strong that you think everyone else in the world believes it too? Damo^Hi 04:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

No. I think American exceptionalism is a bunch of horseshit. I don't like hearing Republican candidates talk this crap, at all. The rest of the world I'm sure has much to see, and yes there are many places probably nicer and less stressful than te US, like Costa Rica or Belize. I'm sure NZ has nice things to see other than the leper colonies or alkies puking in the school yards and the street. But living in such an isolated, godforsaken spot, with limited trade, limited industries, limited opportunities, limited things to do, I'd go berserk.

Life in the US can be frustrating, and expensive. But it's certainly interesting and opportunistic, which just isn't always present elsewhere. nobs^Moderated 05:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Godforsaken? I was mildly amused, I am now slightly offended. You don't hear me going around insulting you or your country do you? I am proud of my country, just like you are of yours, but I do not think this gives me the right to go around insulting people because they come from somewhere else. What is wrong with you? Damo^Hi 07:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow with limited trade, limited industries, limited opportunities, limited things to do. Heh, another stupid American, riding around on a Harley, drinking piss-water Budweiser while proudly displaying their ignorance of the world. USA! USA! Out of curiosity what limited opportunities and limited "things to do" are there? What can you do that I can't? Ace^Moderator 09:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

You're right; NZ has prostituted itself to tourism, "both mother and daughter working for the Yankee dollar." nobs^Moderated 20:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, nice one. Ace^Moderator 20:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Just get lost, New Zealanders

You want a brown delicious to the face? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Congradulations Rob!

Here ist thou reward --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 03:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey Rob.

Time to archive your user page. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 03:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Save yourself from the embarrassment of knowing nothing about the world yet being proud of the fact while drinking piss beer while riding a motorbike. Ace^Moderator 03:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Since you're trolling Rob here's one for free. Typically the way we try to make fun of New Zealanders in Australia is to imply that they boink sheep. Use this information wisely. PS - I liked it more when you weren't a caricature of yourself. Tielec01 (talk) 03:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Obama

Don't worry- I dislike him (almost) as much as you do.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 01:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

LOL Sam ^Tally-ho! 02:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think much of him, but the best of a bad bunch this year. Ace^Moderator 02:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The only I've heard are these clips. nobs^Moderated 02:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

However much I vehemently disagree with most of his policies, calling him Satanic is taking it a bit too far...--Colonel Sanders (talk) 02:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Seems like its his voice on the tape, nes' est pais? nobs^Moderated 02:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Interesting....but it's probably like the backward masking of "Stairway to Heaven", the Beatles and such.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 02:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Breyer & Kagan are the only Supreme Court Justices to show up; the rest stayed home to watch the Rugby World Cup, it seems. nobs^Moderated 02:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Now he' bragging about killing. What a man. nobs^Moderated 02:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't blame the rest of the Justices!--Colonel Sanders (talk) 02:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Rob, your feigned outrage is pathetically transparent. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 02:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘What a load of crap:

• He for energy independence, but vetoed the Keystone pipeline
• In the past 22 months 3 million new jobs were created (but 3 million jobs were permantly lost in the same time)
• He will oppose a return to policies that caused the crash -- namely, capitalism
• GM is now the worlds largest auto manufacturer; too bad none of that growth or jobs occurred in the US....

I have been listening and he still hasn't mentioned prayer in school. Ace^Moderator 02:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• ooooo, now the Chinese bogeyman -- what a racist. nobs^Moderated 02:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Big defender of the Chinese are you, Rob?. Ace^Moderator 02:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• more money for education for jobs that don't exist. nobs^Moderated 02:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
• All 50 states should require students to attend til 18 (the President & federal Congress have nothing to do with this); but it would reduce unemployment because the Unemployment figures now counts 16 year olds who nare eligible to work....

Rob calling someone racist. Sort of like Trump calling someone an egomaniac. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 02:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• He's kept more beaners wetbacks undocumented workers from stealing jobs than ever before, and damn proud of it.
• Drill baby, drill!!! (to hushed applause) America imported less oil under him than under Bush; of course, high unemployment and recession leads to less consumption, too.
• Pro-pollution and destroying the environment, because polls say so, while throwing a bone to greenie weenies.
• "No bailouts."
• He's passed less regulations than George W. Bush; regulations are bad; but Republicans putting mercury poisoning in children's milk still is also bad idea
• He's gonna regulate his Wall Street donors, though.
• Want's to rob the Social Security Trust Fund, again, to cover the government's operating deficit til after the election.

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Here it comes, the Marxist pitch...

• "past generations felt an obligation to each other"...except Democratic segregationists....

Don't you mean conservative segregationists? Everyone who opposed the Civil Rights Act was an admitted conservative, regardless of their party. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 03:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Rob forgot the parties switched mid century--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 03:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• the Assad regime soon will get a taste of neocon foreign policy as Saddam, Mubarek & Khaddafi did.

Rob. Strom Thurmond. That is all.--Thunderstruck (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't know the people of Egypt were all neo-cons. Ace^Moderator 03:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

"the enduring power of our moral example...anyone who says America is in decline doesn't know what they are talking about. America will remain the indispensable power in foreign relations and as long as I'm president I intend to keep it that way." -- Hear that? you backwater kiwi bumfucks? nobs^Moderated 03:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

WE have to be that because, unlike NZ, we go around orderi9ng people how to act. il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 03:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I also took that quote to be a direct threat from Obama to invade and destroy NZ. Ace^Moderator 03:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• "This nation is great because we worked as team (even when there were Negro Leagues in baseball and a segregated military defeated fascism)."
• HOORAY for the RED WHITE & BLUE!!!
• "Oh yes, and did I mention, I killed bin Laden. I ordered the hit. It may as well have been me wringing his neck with my bare hands, watching his eyes pop out and his face turn blue as he slowly, slowly gasped his last breath, and his body went limp and ere the silver cord was broken and he gave up the ghost. I did it. I killed him. Me. Remember that. Just cause you're in your 50s and may never well work again and have to wait 15 years to get government retirement benefits, or fresh out of an expensive college and have wait tables or work in a car wash, remember, I killed bin Laden, and you should be happy and grateful." nobs^Moderated 03:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey Rob. Did you hear Mitch Daniels directly attack on Gingrich? Expressing "admiration for the strong family commitment that he and the First Lady have displayed to a nation sorely needing such examples." If that wasn't a complete diss on Newton Leroy McPherson I don't know what is. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 03:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, wow. You may be correct. nobs^Moderated 03:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Update

The president said,

• I call on every State to require that all students stay in high school until they graduate or turn eighteen. (see comment above) --Barack Obama, State of the Union speech

Meanwhile, in the real world, governors of the 50 states are passing anti-bulling legislation which may include police investigation, and expulsion as the only remedy to stop one kid from stomping another kid's head.

So, was this just a cheap applause line to fill two minutes in an otherwise dull speech, or is Obama just out of touch with the real concerns of children and parents? or does Obama care at all about the lives and safety of our children? nobs^Moderated 21:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It's got to be torture inside your head, Rob. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

So... Obama sez "stay in school", and you interpret that as "I don't have a problem with bullying"? You know someone can have two separate thoughts right? Cow...Hammer^time! 21:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

For your bookshelf

If you don't already have a copy. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 05:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I would have suggested Keynes at Harvard. Were you a Trotskyist at some point, Rob? Because your talk about how socialism is some sort of bourgeois conspiracy sounds a lot like certain things Zygmund Dobbs said in that book. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

No, but I believe many Trotskyite writings are more useful in historical writing on the history of Communism than many non-Communist or anti-communist writings. For example, why Stalin disbanded the Comintern, or the story of cp:Anna Louise Strong. This is a problem for Barack Hussein, seeing that cp:Progressives for Obama webmaster, cp:Carl Davidson, who organized the 2002 anti-war rally that made Obama famous is such a rabid anti-Trotskyite, that is to say, pro-Maoist and Stalinist. My views were shaped by Vandenberg/Eisenhower-Nixon Republican internationalism, a somewhat a distant cousin by marriage of neo-cons (born of Trotskyism). I do admire very much the work of wp:Isaac Deutscher. nobs^Moderated 21:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh. I just think Marxism is a pile of codswallop, of such a sort as to poison everything it touches. In my view the Trotskyists and Stalinists assume the roles of the Arians and the orthodox, and I a pagan watching the tussle from the sidelines. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

So I was wondering

If sports "evolve" as you so laughably claimed in the rugby/football discussion, then why doesn't the second half of a lacrosse game suddenly become a badminton competition? Turpis 3:16 (talk) 05:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Is that some sort of riff on the "hopeful monster" theory? ListenerX^TalkerX 05:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

You mean things don't evolve? nobs^Moderated 21:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

If sports evolve, how come there is still soccer? Damo^Hi 06:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

If sports evolve why don't I find synchronised swimmers when I open a jar of peanut butter. Jack Hughes (talk) 13:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

If sports evolve, why are you the only chucklehead on the internet who thinks Newt "Had at least one parent until he was 60" Gingrich is an orphan?RachelW (talk) 14:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

If sports evolve then how do you explain that a coconut has the same approximate shape as a soccer ball? Tielec01 (talk) 04:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Take polo, for instance. Inititally it was a sport to train cavalry to behead infantry, it's now degenerated into a mere spectator sport. nobs^Moderated 04:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, so Polo lost information and there was no uphill gain of information. Therefore sports don't evolve. Ace^Moderator 04:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

How do you keep the horses from drowning? Or do they evolve gills?GodotGrow a vagina 05:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

So what, it's just an example of one sport becoming another sport QED.Tielec01 (talk) 05:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Sky surfing. Parasailing. In-line roller skating was developed for off-season hockey training. nobs^Moderated 23:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Rob - where are my Hatch chiles? I'm out at Marfa but I won't make it to El Paso or Cruces this trip. You are my only hope. 00:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I spoke with a guy up from Hatch, New Mexico this morning. The crop is down and prices up; also they're getting more competition from cheap imports with cheap labor costs. The future is bleak. Thus the Occupy Green/Red Chile movement was born. nobs^Moderated 17:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't be a jackass and go joking about chiles. It's not right. It's just not fucking right. I speak for the RWF when I open the fundraiser up to residents of New Mexico to donate in Hatch chiles by the pound, preferably frozen, which I will exchange for cash at a generous rate. 01:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC) Thats a joke BTW. It's probably not ok to donate chiles for cash as I described.

Don't keep us in suspense

We're waiting on your "unbiased" analysis of Obama's "hate speech." I know you were sadly thwarted in your attempt to liveblog it by Andy turning off editing at CP, but we'd all still love to know what knowledge you gleaned from your TV watching. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Drill baby, drill! No bailouts! He whacked bin Laden, and ordered more hits on more bad guys at the very instant he bragged about killing. ANWR has enough oil to keep us energy independent for 100 years. And the US military will remain strong as long he's president, regardless what his own Pentagon chief and budget director say. nobs^Moderated 01:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe he said there was enough natural gas to last 100 years, not oil. Ace^Moderator 01:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• "We gather tonight knowing that this generation of heroes (troops returning from Iraq) has made the United States safer and more respected around the world."

Comment: am I hearing this right? the job these troops did in the war George W. Bush started made the US more respected around the world? nobs^Moderated 01:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Remember this?

In particular the bit where you agreed that Darwin had nothing to do with Hitler's policies. Now that you're back on CP, I look forward to you updating the relevant articles accordingly. When you're done raping the definition of "orphan" of course. --PsyGremlin講話 12:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you talking about this: "If Ken had any intellectual honesty, he'd pin Hitler's racist ideas on two men - Count Joseph Arthur de Gonineau and Houston Stewart Chamberlain. " That could be a tall order, asking Ken to investigate it. It might be easier to convince Ken that Darwinism is a Jewish conspiracy. nobs^Moderated 13:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Given how demeaning Ken is towards every other denomination but his own (which is I assume The Church of Mummy's Basement) I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't already. --PsyGremlinTal! 13:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

TV Ratings

Re: your question here. Superbowl: 100 million viewers. RWC: Around 3 billion. Ace^Moderator 23:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Ha. Look at your cite, "expected". How much does an ad spot sell for compared to the Superbowl, seeing that healthcare costs haven't even been dumped on greedy evil corporate advertisers yet and will be reflected in higher costs soon? I know, you third world types with your $2 a day income can barely afford a TV (or a home to put it in, let alone electricity) and can't pay very much. You'd think paying $9 a year for healthcare you could afford to support advertisers. nobs^Moderated 00:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

? Ace^Moderator 00:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so you sit in a mud hut on the shores of a South Pacific rock in the third world watching TV powered by a hydro-electric dam earning $2 a day with nothing to spend it on cause the cost of foreign manufactured goods have to be shipped across the ocean and the only thing you can buy them with is sheep skin. New Zealand domestic industries (like Cuba) do not provide everything you and your fellow kiwis want and need, and they don't produce much of what the rest of the world wants and needs, either. The computer your typing on right now, and the operating system in it, were produced by foreigners (most likely American). Welcome to civilization. nobs^Moderated 00:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Suppose that were true - how the hell is it relevant? Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 00:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

How many sheeps skins does a laptop trade for, or a Microsoft operating system? and what currency do use to make the conversion, US or New Zealand? nobs^Moderated 00:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I'm a linux user. And I suspect that my computer is Chinese made. So what you're saying is that this third world country can host and win a tournament with more than an order of magnitude more viewers than the superbowl? Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 01:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

? Ace^Moderator 00:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Dude, that pipe you're smoking is clearly not filled with normal tabakkie. put it down, go get some air. GodotGrow a vagina 00:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

? Ace^Moderator 00:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Not you, Rob and his sheepskin market where there's no ocean but you want to buy a laptop from a kiwi.GodotGrow a vagina 01:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

That wasn't directed at you, it was directed at Rob's weird ravings. Ace^Moderator 01:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Kiwi's don't make laptops, AFAIK (unless they pirated the patents). And if they did, the rest of the world sure as fuck isn't interested in buying them. And if I have to do the accounting to determine what's a fair exchange rate of how many sheep skins for 1 laptop and convert it into dollars, I'll have to charge you double for doing your job for you as well as my own. nobs^Moderated 01:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

? Ace^Moderator 01:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Wool is actually a high value agricultural product. Tourism is a high value product. Everything else is made in China and designed in America. ħuman 02:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

discussion on Third World trade

"New Zealand reported a trade deficit equivalent to 308 Million NZD (Question: What the hell is that in REAL MONEY?) in November of 2011. New Zealand is greatly dependent on international trade. New Zealand's economy has traditionally been based on a foundation of exports from its very efficient agricultural system: meat, dairy products, forest products, fruit and vegetables, fish, and wool."

So, nowhere do we see (1) electronic components, such as the comuputer Ace McWicked uses to communicate with the outside civilized world, or (2) the New Zealand Rugby Team.

By contrast, the operating system Ace McWicked uses is a US export developed by Microsoft; the wp:National Football League has become an profit making export of the United States. Several Rationalwikians have admitted to contributing to the US Trade Balance when they went to NFL games at Wemby Stadium. nobs^Moderated 01:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

? Ace^Moderator 01:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

2012 (UTC)

Uhuh, it's not surprising Ace is confused. And the real value of all this, is determined in US dollars. nobs^Moderated 01:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

You should go to CP and fix up the New Zealand article. Firstly you need to mention that it is a Third World nation. Ace^Moderator 01:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

By my calculation that makes ~192.4 million euros. Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 01:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

So the kiwis owe the rest of the planet how much in REAL dollars? nobs^Moderated 01:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

If you take a look at the graph, you'll note that it varies in a seasonal cycle. What makes your dollars 'realer' than Zimbabwean anyway? Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 01:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

(EC) That's about US $254 million, or $59 per capita. Not bad, for a bunch of deadbeats. But somebody has to float the cost of that deficit, are they trustworthy? I can't think of a thing, not a fucking thing, that New Zealnd grows, manufactures, or exports, other than kiwi fruit. I've seen it in the store, but I'd never spend my money on the shit. nobs^Moderated 01:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

? Ace^Moderator 01:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

So Ace, do you actually do anything to contribute to society have a job? If so, is it in manufacturing or service? nobs^Moderated 01:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure I have a job. And it is neither manufacturing or service. Ace^Moderator 01:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Shoveling sheep shit would be service, writing software may actually be manufacturing or service. Civil service is sucking the public tit, and actually sucks the life blood out of your fellow private sector serviceworkers who pay your bloated salary. nobs^Moderated 01:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

? Ace^Moderator 01:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

(EC)If you take a look at the data, and compare with the US, you'll find that we last posted a surplus in August, but you haven't since records began. ? indeed. Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 01:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow, what Wetta pissed in your pocket, Rob? GodotGrow a vagina 01:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ The US is a debtor nation, as New Zealand is. And a much, much larger debtor nation per capita, I'm sure. But the US also supplies the rest of the planet with a lot of other things the planet wants and needs (far beyond sheep skin or kiwi fruit, or possibly a few dairy products on grocery shelves in Australia).

How much does New Zealand pay to protect the shipping lines from the Persian Gulf to New Zealand, for example, seeing "New Zealand is greatly dependent on international trade," as that government report says? nobs^Moderated 01:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

"the US also supplies the rest of the planet with a lot of other things the planet wants and needs" Actually the USA is a huge importer of all sorts of things. Last time I was there most of your luxury cars seemed to be imported from that famous third-world country, Germany, because your own cars are crap. Even your army uses Belgian machineguns. --Fergus Mason (talk) 05:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Debt percent to GDP, NZ: 27.5%; US: 62.9% [1] --★uːʤɱ sinner 02:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

We're a debtor nation...in summer. And I don't think the Persian Gulf is a major part of our trade routes. You don't have to protect it if you don't want to. Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 01:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, so where do you get oil from? Who do you sell exports to? Does New Zealand have an ocean going Navy so it can protect its trade routes when it exports kiwis to the United States?

Now to answer your valid question, What makes your dollars 'realer' than Zimbabwean anyway?

When New Zealand, or for that matter any nation that uses the euro, or any other currency, imports crude oil, it must FIRST convert the local currency (in New Zealand it may be dried sheep shit, for example) and buy something of REAL value the oil produce will accept, namely, US dollars. nobs^Moderated 02:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The days of the US dollar as a reserve currency are numbered, Rob. ħuman 02:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

True, but the European debt crisis makes it the best bet and only game in town. Germany already may be slipping back into recession. nobs^Moderated 02:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

(EC)Stop trolling Rob. If you want to have a discussion on NZ's economic position we could, but you are only trying to insult people. It really is pathetic, and symptomatic of your deep lack of confidence about your own countries situation. Damo^Hi 02:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

You do realize that banks transfer money and buy and sell currency for exactly what you are describing, right? No energy cooperation in the world has to first transfer it's money into any currency, the banks do that for them. --★uːʤɱ heretic 02:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

OPEC will only sell in dollars. Oil Futures are traded on commodity exchanges the world over, denominated in dollars. The daily crude oil price the world over is determined in dollars. All non-dollar denominated currencies must convert their national currencies to dollars, to buy oil imports daily, in dollars. Hence the impact on all nations balance of payments poistion, which ultimately is reconciled by the IMF, in dollars. nobs^Moderated 02:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

"OPEC will only sell in dollars" So what? Just buy your oil from Russia instead, like Europe does. They take Euros. --Fergus Mason (talk) 06:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Define third world. Ace^Moderator 02:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Why are you bothering with this Rob Smith chap? Is he important in any way? His IQ seems barely high enough for him to remember to keep breathing, let alone have a worthwhile opinion on anything. Go have a beer with your mates, and leave this Rob to fester alone in his pit. Ironclad (talk) 02:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

It is Sunday afternoon and I am sitting at my kitchen bench drinking wine from the bottle. I have no need for mates today. They'll just hold me back. Ace^Moderator 02:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

So Ace, there are two types of labor, one that adds value to the materials worked on (manufactures) and one that does not (service). Which are you employed in? nobs^Moderated 02:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Define third world. Ace^Moderator 02:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Sunday morning here, comrade. Brandy here. Afternoon there? Take your bottle and your ciggies out in the garden or on the front porch; enjoy the fresh air, do something fun! Rob will die alone and uncared for. While he does, you go do something fun! Ironclad (talk) 02:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Na, I spent all day on the deck yesterday and got a little too much sun. Today is an indoors day. Ace^Moderator 02:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Well you enjoy it. Hang on, it's summer there, isn't it? Lucky bastard. Enjoy your shorts-and-t shirts-weather while we freeze... Ironclad (talk) 02:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Define Third World

Come on Rob, what is your definition of Third World? Ace^Moderator 03:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I already posted the link. I'm with those who believe wp:DeGaulle invented the term. Note: Saudi Arabia is considered "Third World", and Saudi Arabia sure as fuck has higher per capita income and a much larger balance of trade surplus than New Zealand does.

Ace, you betray yourself. First you block me, then bait me with this stupid posting on my user page. If you think Third World means some kind of subhuman species and are offended by it, that is the racist attitudes in your own mind, on display for the whole world to see. nobs^Moderated 05:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

But by that definition, NZ is First World. Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 05:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

That's good enough for me - NZ is third world and newt gingrich is an orphan. I have to shuffle to the nearest UN camp now for my bowl of rice. Ace^Moderator 05:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

You're a racist scum, and this whole discussion of your understanding of what Third World means proves it. nobs^Moderated 05:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

? Ace^Moderator 05:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Although we all know that was not the sense in which you were using the term, I enjoy the fact that you would link to an article that shows NZ unequivocally to be a first world country acording to the narrow sense you are now claiming. Very amusing indeed. Damo^Hi 05:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

First World is the US, Second World the Soviet Union, and Third World, the rest of the planet -- as was commonly thought by many Americans during the Cold War. None of that has racist overtones. More correctly, First World would be Superpowers, Second World industrial allies or developed countries, Third World non-aligned and developing countries. Again, there are no racial connotations. However when AceMcWicked perceived Third World to imply some backward starving nation suffering from famine and poverty, in his mind he immediately thought of Ethiopia or Somalia or other or non-Anglo nation, and was genuinely offended. So much so, he's blocked me sev eral times, took away my sysop right twice, and complained in the Mod form he was offended because he's not a starving person of color in Africa. The man's got a sick mind, and I'm 100% convinced in my feeble American mind, Ace harbors racist attitudes. nobs^Moderated 05:29, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

"First World is the US, Second World the Soviet Union, and Third World, the rest of the planet" - But that's not what your link says, is it? --Fergus Mason (talk) 05:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I thought the Second World consisted of all the communist states? ListenerX^TalkerX 05:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Your view of the three worlds scenario as being only restricted to US, USSR and the rest as third world is unique (that is as charitable as I can be). I was offended by you calling us a third world, not because I thought it was racist (how silly you would even think that) but because of its implication that we are a backward country. You were trying to insult Ace and you chose a method that insulted a whole nation. Why not just apologise and move on? At the moment you are just digging further and further and fooling no-one. Damo^Hi 05:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

(EC) That's one extension of the fallacy -- you could say the First World was the US, NATO and the EU, the Second World the USSR, Warsaw pact & wp:Comecon, and the Third World non-aligned, but that does not cover the fact Ace McWicked thinks of Third World as black Africans in loin clothes and mud huts. Don't try to cover for his open and exposed racism. nobs^Moderated 05:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and apologize? Would an apology from a feeble-minded American be worth anything? nobs^Moderated 05:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don't think you are a fool because you are American, I think you are a fool because you say foolish things. As for Ace's picturing the third world as being represented by poor Africans, well I fail to see how that is racist. In fact, adding in a few of the poorer Asian and South American countries, its pretty much the picture I have in my head when someone talks about a third world country. And you should apologise because every post you make, you look more and more like a jackass. Time to stop digging and let it go. Damo^Hi 05:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

(EC) Uh, Rob, the only person using the phrase "mud hut" on this page is you. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

It's illuminating the racist mind Ace lives in. nobs^Moderated

Why the jihad on NZ?

Did a sheep rape your mother or something? Or did you get a transformers toy rather than a deluxe hobbit hole playset for Christmas? This is getting really quite bizarre. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 03:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I was just informed kiwis are n00b's to the 1st World so I'm part of the welcoming committee. nobs^Moderated 04:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Well at least since 1951 which is amazing given the term itself was coined in 1952. Give yourself an uppercut. --Damo^Hi 04:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Part of welcoming people to the first world is telling them they're not really a first world economy? I don't get it. No, wait, I do get it. You're off your nut. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 04:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I think he is trying to troll me. Anyway, NZ is third world because it is not part of the European Union or NATO and Newt Gingrich is an orphan. Facts. Ace^Moderator 04:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Lookee here: the sports business ($213B) is more than twice the total annual economic output of New Zealand ($99B). According to the nzherald, the International Rugby Board changed its rules to push the Rugby Cup to Superbowl-like marketability. Ace, if you're gonna live in the 1st world, you might as well get used to it. You need to learn new idioms and jargon, and what's important in life. Leave you're provincial national pride at home. It's a multicultural world, there are bigger and better things out there other than your narrow parochial interests. Oh, and the anti-American bigotry only gets you so far, it gets tiresome. We've heard it all before from the rest of the planet. What makes you think you're so special? nobs^Moderated 05:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The American sports business, you mean? Covering a country with something like 75 times New Zealand's population? ListenerX^TalkerX 05:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

We can make an educated guess ffrom that data. If the US sports business is $200B, the gross total world sports business combined with the US is something like $250B most likely. nobs^Moderated 13:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

im sorry but i cant stop laughing at you rob.--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 05:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Both NZ and Cuba have lower infant mortality rates than the US. A country that can't look after its most helpless citizens sounds pretty 3rd world to me. Us homicide rate = 4.8 per 100,000; NZ = 0,5 per 100,000. US violent crime on the rise, NZ halved in last 20 years. More people are in US jails (7 million) than live in NZ. I know which country I'd rather live in. --PsyGremlinSprich! 05:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't tempt him, psy. He'll be claiming that US incarcerated criminals have a better standard of living than NZers next. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 07:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Psy, why don't you move to NZ? It's not a Third World leper colony anymore -- even the lepers have color TV and internet access. It's now a First World leper colony. You/ll have friends. nobs^Moderated 13:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Because I'm very happy in my little third-world country, thank you. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 14:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Besides, look at what happens when you try to play a major sporting event in New Zealand and its neighbors. No wonder they can't field a decent American football team. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 13:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Moneygrabbing bastards

WTF is all this money-making shit? No wonder sport has had it's heart sucked out and put through a mincer. Let's face it, people like Rob have no idea what real sport is all about. Soulless wanker.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 15:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe in the Second or Third World where people play for national pride (a form of racism) or to get out of harvesting this years sugar cane crop. But in the First World, sport is nothing more than money making entertainment. And any fool who takes the risk of injury in sport, with no regard for risk or compensation, shouldn't whine to the rest of us how he/she got permanently maimed in sport to entertain the rest of us, while the sports promoters got rich. nobs^Moderated 20:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

It has to be hell in your brain. --★uːʤɱ sinner 20:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

You know Rob, as someone who thinks patriotism is basically infantile, I'm intrigued by a similar notion emanating from you. Do you actually believe patriotism=racism, or are you just trolling us (I think I know the answer). Turpis 3:16 (talk) 20:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with love or pride in your country -- and wearing it on your sleeve in most countries. But there is a blind patriotism than can be, under some circumstance, a form of disguised or ignorant racism -- even in America, believe it or not. nobs^Moderated 20:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Let's see if I got this right...

RobS: "...national pride (a form of racism)..."

RobS (9 minutes later): "There's nothing wrong with love or pride in your country..."

Don't know what to make of that exactly, except that you seem to be just fine with racism. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 20:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't even talking about playing for one's country. The fact that in the US you can buy a team and move it from one side of the country to another shows a complete disdain for how ordinary people support a sports team. Most sports fans invest a lot of emotion into a sports team, which is completely different from supporting a national side out of some notion of patriotism. As the late, great Bill Shankly said, "Some people believe football is a matter of life and death, I am very disappointed with that attitude. I can assure you it is much, much more important than that."  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 20:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

You shouldn't make the mistake and think that the sports teams in American professional league have anything to do with "our" sports clubs. They call these things a "franchise" for a reason. --★uːʤɱ digital native 20:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Might I suggest this be moved and consolidated here :Debate:Are American sports a viable export to meet with Third World and international competition?. nobs^Moderated 21:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

You still don't understand the difference between an international sporting event and the Super Bowl

As demonstrated here. As was pointed out to you earlier, this is meaningless as those rates are for Ireland only (which is a fraction of the size of the US). You'd have to get similar figures from every other nation which shows the world cup and add them together to get a comparable rate. And even so, since when is advertising revenue the sole criterion by which we compare sporting events? Is the finale of American Idol a sporting event in the way the World Series is because they probably collect similar ad revenues? Turpis 3:16 (talk) 05:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

It stops... now.

If you think you're using RW to carry on your sad little game with Ace, you're wrong. Now you either grow the fuck up, or I'll happily remove your rights and show you the door for good and happily face the resulting HCM. Your move. --PsyGremlinSprich! 05:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry my friend, I've not discussed Ace in any matter, shape or form other than your talk page a moment ago. All discussions about New Zealand's demographics, trade, and status are on point, with several editors involved. Same as discussions about Rugby, Superbowl, TV advertising, international trade, and so on. Fuck you, and stop trolling and interrupting subjects numerous editors are interested and involved in. nobs^Moderated 05:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh please rob, we know why you picked new zealand, don't try and act like any of us are fucking retards. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 05:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Your idiot grin strategy doesn't work here. Explain then what NZ aircraft carriers has to do with Yellow Submarine the movie. It just goes to show that you are incapable of telling the truth. It stops - now. --PsyGremlinSpeak! 05:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

You have every right

to respond when somebody talks about you; that doesn't mean you should derail the entire conversation to make a jab at new zealand when the thread had nothing to do with that beforehand. Key word in that sentence was "Should".--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 06:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 06:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

ListenerX^TalkerX 06:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't derail the conversation; another editor chimed in and I may have clarified or expanded upon my response. And Psy actions were no different than Ken DeMyers that provoked me to propose the CP reform movement, interfering with ongoing discussion between editors. nobs^Moderated 07:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

... You clarified What? that New Zealand sucks? The entire post was not you responding to the statement "Ed's almost as stupid as rob!" it was you saying "New Zealand is utter shit cause they don't have aircraft carriers!"; and you know what Rob, that is EXACTLY what Ken does, he shows up in a convo or retorts to criticism with "x is Y cause my quotes say so! :)". That is not constructive, that is Not a response, that is the ravings of a man who is in a padded cell, and for all the shit I give you, I KNOW you are better then that.--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 07:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

ListenerX^TalkerX 07:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I never said nor implied NZ is totally shit. I tried to show how stupid Ed was by responding to Ace's trolling of Ed. Somehow my name was mentioned, so I should have been shown a modicum of courtesy common in Anglo-American debate to give a response. nobs^Moderated 07:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

oy vey; First, yes, that was somewhat off-topic, but it didnt become the focus of that thread, did it? And rob, please, This was the first post you made in the offending topic^img. Please note how it is unrelated at all to the topic of British humor in that there was no humor in it at all, let alone British Humor. It did not show how stupid Ed was because he has not been the one raving on that New Zealand is the inferior country for x y and z reasons; only you have, There was no links to CP, no caps, no references to a single thing Ed had said; nor any reference at all to the "Rob is an idiot" post. It comes out of nowhere like a speeding car in the blindspot, and it causes chaos and annoyance. The next post by you, a reply to Norseman, was the same^img. Somebody asked what post 1 had ot do with the topic, then raised why the logic you gave was faulty. You proceeded to go on a tangent about Oil Dependance, and that the Standard of living they have is only high because of that. Like the first, It does not answer either of the first two points or answer Norses points and I have no desire to go into more details. To the third about debate courtesy, yes, people should be given it; when they deserve it, and those two posts find you lacking in worthiness to be given a seat at the debate table. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 07:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I never argued NZ was an inferior country, mistakenly thought it was considered part of the developing or undeveloped world, and admitted I was wrong when corrected. However, that was never discussed when the topic was people from different cultures interpreting local jokes. You appear off topc. nobs^Moderated 12:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

... Enlighten me to when "New zealand has no aircraft carriers" became local american humor.--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 13:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh jesus. You want to know what Americans think and feel about our alleged allies who are critical of US Defense spending and budget priorities when Americans have made self sacrifices for damn near a century to provide a defense umbrella for global peace and world trade? you wanna hear jokes about ingrates? nobs^Moderated 13:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm very aware of what the over patriotic idiots think,But that wasn't humor, it was never couched in the terms of a joke and even if it was, the fact you picked NEW ZEALAND, a country you had spent quite some time expounding on the perceived third world status of. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 13:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

So you know

I opening a topic in the Chicken Coop about you (not for or against, about).I want to see all this bullshit finnaly resolved.--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 08:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Did you? Vindictive little putz, huh? nobs^Moderated 23:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Here you go

You're clearly suffering from a lot of pent up sexual frustration, so why don't you toddle off over here. [Warning: NSFW] You'll shake out a couple, have a good sleep, and when you wake up you might not be such an annoying jackass. Actually, no, the latter is pretty much who you are. --PsyGremlinParla! 05:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Is the infamous "yellow dress" picture there? That's Rob's favorite, IIRC. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 05:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Superbowl advertising

According to WP, there are at least 39 (excluding repeat slots) commercials queued up for the Superbowl. At 30 seconds a pop that means at least 20 minutes advertising time (because there's 1 1-minute ad). In a game with 1 hour playing time. During which play stops so the adverts can be shown.

This is not a sport, it's a marketer's wet dream where they can shove products down a gullible public's throat. And you sit there, drooling into your lap, and slurp it all up. And somehow you think this is the greatest sport on earth?

"Go back to bed America. Here's 47 channels of American Gladiators! You are free to think as we tell you." --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 10:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Gridiron is as much a sport as professional wrestling (and they both exist for the same reason). Christ, even the grass is fake.--Brendiggg (talk) 10:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

This is just communist anti-American claptrap. How the hell would you take a piss, let alone get a beer out of the frige, during a soccer game? 13:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Easy, watch the game on a PVR, plus the rest of the world doesn't live in perpetual fear that omg! I might miss something on TV, plus that's what women are for - to bring you beer and you pee in the empties. PsyGremlinFale! 14:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Rasmussen says 63% will watch Superbowl, that certainly is bipartisan, while only 26% think Obama is doing a good job, 29% think Madonna was a good choice for halftime festivities, and 41% think her Christian mockeries are offensive. The anti-Madonna mood is stronger than Obama's approval. nobs^Moderated 17:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course, you forget that of the 63%, 10% are literate, 5% don't have a car on bricks in front of their trailer, 3% don't think that owning a gun is better than sex and 5% don't worship St Ronald. --PsyGremlinPrata! 17:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

They still have a higher living standard than the developing, less developed, undeveloped, non-aligned, Second and Third World. [2] nobs^Moderated 17:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

When their banks and healthcare "insurance" aren't bankrupting them, that is. --PsyGremlinParlez! 17:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

That's not true; a senior told me yesterday the gubmint is docking his Social Seucrity retirement check $192 for Medicare insurance. That cost was not fully disclosed 50 years ago when he started paying the premiums. nobs^Moderated 17:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow do you like to fuck with stats. "23 % think STRONGLY that obama is doing a good job, while another 24% think he is doing a satisfactory job. good god grow up. that's 47% approval, in case you can't do the mathGodotGrow a vagina 19:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I have a stiffy

How about you? Ace^Moderator 07:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Ace, if you want to assume your rightful place as a First World citizen, you need to overcome your wp:provincialism. nobs^Moderated 07:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Fuck you, I have patriotism. Ace^Moderator 07:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Mmmm. Ace^Moderator 08:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

You shouldn't comment on things you don't understand, like American politics; it only makes you look more ignorant. nobs^Moderated 13:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I am studying towards a MA in political science. I could out politic you any day, sunshine. But I fail to see how sexy, sexy, drippy delicious Kara Duhe has anything to do with US politics. Ace^Moderator 19:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

A paying academic job would place you in the service sector then, but one could argue you'd be manufacturing idiots if you were to get paid to teach. I suspect you don't have a real job, and like Karajou, are just sucking the public tit. That's not the only thing you have in common with him besides intolerance and abusing your user rights. nobs^Moderated 17:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

And just what do you do for a living rob? --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 17:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I is a bidnissman. nobs^Moderated 17:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Jesus christ you people sure like trolling each other. We should start a Skype group so we can do it by video to each other's faces. 17:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Count me in. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 17:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Nope, I don't have an academic job. Ace^Moderator 21:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

So gubmint & taxpayers of NZ are paying you to go to school? Minor aside: How does someone with a degree in PoliSci get one in NZ, and be so magnificently obtuse about PoliSci's first cousin, economics? I can find the diff where you said you had a real paying job that was neither manufacturing nor service; the only third possibility would be civil service, however that is still just a subset of the service sector. nobs^Moderated 21:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Rob, I saw in the news today that the marines are doing some rather massive practice operations. Officers from NZ are on hand to observe. Thought of you. XOXO Occasionaluse (talk) 21:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Obviously they e there to get real skill!--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 21:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Nope, I am paying my own way. P.S. When I think service I think hospitality and when I think manufacturing I think factory so that is where the discrepancy is. Ace^Moderator 21:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

(EC) Might as well learn from the best. As NZ becomes a wp:hegemon and begins providing its own defense since the US can't anymore, they'll need it. But the officer training is probably all they can afford right now. nobs^Moderated 21:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

@Ace. Hospitality? you work for a male escort service? nobs^Moderated 21:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

In New Zealand when someone says you work in the service industry it generally mean waiters, chefs, bar tenders etc. That sort of thing. Ace^Moderator 21:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

What's wrong with being a male escort? X Stickman (talk) 21:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ (EC) See wp:Productive and unproductive labour#A quote from Adam Smith. But here is the quote the WP article does not contain:

In the same class must be ranked, some both of the gravest and most important, and some of the most frivolous professions: churchmen, lawyers, physicians, men of letters of all kinds; players, buffoons, musicians, opera-singers, opera-dancers, &c. The labour of the meanest of these has a certain value, regulated by the very same principles which regulate that of every other sort of labour; and that of the noblest and most useful, produces nothing which could afterwards purchase or procure an equal quantity of labour. Like the declamation of the actor, the harangue of the orator, or the tune of the musician, the work of all of them perishes in the very instant of its production. [3] nobs^Moderated 21:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

the entire line

"God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?"--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 22:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Nietzsche was a Mormon? [4] nobs^Moderated 23:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Nietzsche was speaking figuratively. --Damo^Hi 23:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Question for you

What's your general opinion on Andy Schlafly? I'm just curious. You don't seem like one of the guys who thinks he's some divine visionary. Do you think he's even basically competent? You know, I guess even at CP it doesn't seem like most people hold him in any real high esteem. They see him as the guy who pays the bills for the website that gives them the delusion of relevancy. Anyway, I'd be curious to hear your thoughts. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 17:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Rob is already on double-secret probation and Karajou is presumably the prowl. I wouldn't expect an honest answer, if you get one at all. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Conservaleaks should have a comment somewhere Andy made in the very early days during a discussion about ratwiki editors disparaging remarks about conservatives, conservatism, conservapedia, Andy and the rest us. Andy, as usual, ignored our discussion until something finally prompted his response. He said his family grew up with this sort of abuse and he's learned to ignore it. It's the only life he's known. I respect his education, and recognize he has some novel legal interpretations, but I'm not an expert and am not qualified to comment further or make a judgement. Only as far as it affects me, as my recent experience trying to reconcile CP copyright policy vs Wikipedia. Andy wrote the policy, Geoff Ploude made a reasonable explanation claiming the two are compatible (which sort of made sense and I admit I still don't understand it), but Wikipedia and its experts say flatly they are incompatible. Now, it could be Andy has some novel legal theory or WP experts are biased against the Schlalfy name. I suspect the reality is somewhere in between. nobs^Moderated 18:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You do know

That Operation Sealion was doomed from the start; right Rob?--il'Dictator Mikal 19:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Yep. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 19:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

ok, just making sure--il'Dictator Mikal 19:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Ever wonder how, since Hitler could never cross English Channel, how he was able to threaten the Eastern Seaboard of the United States with an armed invasion, as many people believed? nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 20:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

According to what ive read his plan was to have his successor (he said he wanted to retire after conquest of Europe to his hometown) build a fleet of cross atlantic bombers and wage an apocalyptic air war like that in the 80's. --il'Dictator Mikal 21:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, got a source on that? (the retire part may be in Table Talk); as to the cross Atlantic stuff, the German's didn't even have anything bigger than a twin engine bomber (unlike the Flying Fortress) on the drawing board, and Speer writes somewhere Hitler didn't even know about the V-2 til about '43 or '44 (it takes some understanding of German weapons development at this time). But I've heard of plans or ideas of mounting V-2's on U-boats (kinda like Trident missiles on American subs) and loading them with the non-existent nuclear weapons Germans were not working on at that time to destroy New York City. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 21:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

They had a very basic and crappy nuclear program it was crippled much in the same way anything hitler touched was crippled. i dont actually remember WHERE i saw the air war thing, but from what ive seen of zeitung buch he never truely expected a invasion of america. --il'Dictator Mikal 21:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The German nuclear program consisted of a couple of college professors and a few students in a classroom armed with chalk and chalkboards. They, and Hitler, were thinking in terms of nuclear power as an energy source, not a weapon. So FDR was somewhat victimized, the same way George W. Bush was, when Einstein and others scared him with the idea of a madman obtaining WMD. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 22:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Even if they wanted one, i dont think it would have happended; the way the nazis did things was to disjointed and prone to conflict; or just inefficient or stupid (recalling soldiers from the frontlines/backup spots to film some propganda movie nobody is going to watch? A-ok to me!)--il'Dictator Mikal 22:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Not really, they built several heavy water moderated reactors. Some of them were close to reaching criticality. The program was a failure because Werner Heisenberg made an error (probably on purpose) in his calculation of critical mass of uranium in a bomb, giving something in excess of 10 tons. Before that Walther Bothe and Peter Jensen rejected graphite as a moderator, in all likelihood due to impure samples being delivered to them, which forced them to rely on the much more expensive heavy water. --Tweenk (talk) 22:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh Yes Yes, that's correct. This involved the bombing of a heavy water shipment from Scandinavia. Churchill made it high priority. But the fear here among Western allies was duel use technology. I don't think there's any re3cord Hitler ever thought in terms of a nuclear weapon device. And this bombing shows that Churchill had some understanding of the theory at the time, as well. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 22:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Let me include, the subject of German weapons development and budget priorities at this time is very interesting. Its inefficiencies, and the fact Hitler solely made final decisions on budget allocations is a key factor in Germany's loss. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 22:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Why cant

you be more like that discussion was all the time Rob. Things would be awesome if you wereil'Dictator Mikal 22:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it was groundbreaking in several ways. CP don't seem to mind having a discussion about UK & global warming derailed into the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, do they? nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 22:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

enjoy this, idk why i made it

"As soon as a name in the topic rings / the rob from CP springs." --il'Dictator Mikal 22:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Who did Highway to Hell anyways?

That was AC/DC. Ace^Moderator 01:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Ew, that's not technical death metal. F 01:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Didn't he die on the Highway to Hell? nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 01:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

AC/DC is more than one person, all of whom I believe are still alive. Ace^Moderator 01:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

This is real music: [5] F 01:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

That is street repairs. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 01:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The original singer--Bon Scott?--died quite a while ago. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 01:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

That was crap--il'Dictator Mikal 01:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I like it. But this is a bit more mainstream (and 'better' according to most): [6] F 01:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's post even more you people can make fun of. --★uːʤɱ heretic 01:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

They went way downhill after Bon Scott died. Not that they were a great band in the first place, mind you. But they went from classic songs like "Big Balls" to shit like "Shook Me All Night Long". Turpis 3:16 (talk) 01:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I never liked AC/DC. Boring riffs and lame lyrics. Ace^Moderator 01:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Plus, they're not technical death metal. F 02:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

No, they are straight up rock....and no one likes death metal anyway. Ace^Moderator 02:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

No one likes your mother. F 02:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Not all music is death metal sonil'Dictator Mikal 02:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Not all death metal is music. In fact, none of it is. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 02:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

It's more musical than your mother. F 02:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I like wp:Jimi Hendrix and wp:Richard Wagner; everything else is crap. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 02:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Didn't you claim to hang out in the studio with Pantera? Or was that TK's story? P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 02:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Jimi Hendrix was black and Richard Wagner was a racist. F 02:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Pantera was a pretty good band... but they didn't play technical death metal. F 02:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

this is probably the hardest music i listen to >.> im so pathetic--il'Dictator Mikal 02:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

My grandmother listens to harder metal than that. You should be ashamed of yourself -- you're not a real man until you enjoy the same musical genres as I do. F 02:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

A lot of IAMX, Kasabian, Franz Ferdinand, Placebo, and muse gets dumped on me because of the Last.FM tag I use il'Dictator Mikal 02:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what any of those bands are, except for Muse, which I remember had at least one okay song. F 02:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Prolly the heaviest thing in my collection. Still working up to it. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 02:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you have testicles? F 02:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Ask your mother. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 02:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

She says no. F 02:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, not bad. I love complex music. F 02:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Jimi Hendrix was "one of the most influential musicians of his era across a range of genres". Wagner "wished to consolidate his view, originally, as part of his radical social and political views, and "remained committed - fiercely for a time - to leftist revolution." nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 03:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

There may be hope for us yet Rob! We have similar tastes in music. I was always a huge Wagner fan, and have seen the Ring operas a couple of times. Jimi, well I can take or leave him, but at least I don't hate him! Damo^Hi 03:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Hendrix didn't live long enough to do the things it took Wagner a lifetime to do, but the genius and talent was there. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 03:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

What other Germans from that era do you like? Nietzsche? I think you would enjoy much of Nietzsche's work. Damo^Hi 03:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Nietzsche's a bunch of crap; he died a raving lunatic in an insane asylum from syphilis. He didn't even write his later works, as his publishers paid his sister to keep cranking out the crap to scam the public cause his name was still a good seller. I like Goethe, stuff like that. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 03:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

That's not entirely fair, but I know not to get into a debate with you. Damo^Hi 03:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I assumed Dano was talking about Nietzsche's compositions, not his literary output. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 03:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to his philosophical works, partly because his name came to me when we were talking about Wagner, partly because in another conversation I had today Rob seemed to like to take the German side, and partly because I think that Rob would quite enjoy Nietzsche's slightly paranoid, energetic and unsystematic writing style. Apparently, because he died of syphilis and because of something that happened after he died, Rob thinks he is crap. Oh well. Damo^Hi 03:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Nietzsche contra Wagner: Documents of a Psychologist is probably his best. I always loved this passage:

“”Richard Wagner, ostensibly the most triumphant creature alive; as a matter of fact, though, a cranky and desperate décadent, suddenly fell helpless and broken on his knees before the Christian cross. . . . Was there no German at that time who had the eyes to see, and the sympathy in his soul to feel, the ghastly nature of this spectacle ?

nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 04:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

They were once best friends. Anyway that's sort of my point. He jumped around all over the place with his ideas and even within his essays. A very entertaining writer, even if you don't agree with everything he says. Give him a go. I reckon "Genealogy of Morals" has something to amuse - and offend - everyone. Damo^Hi 04:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I would listen to more death metal if it weren't for all the cookie monster vocals. Seriously, who thought that was a good idea? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

You probably won't like this then. And seriously, who wouldn't want to see the Cookie Monster as the lead vocalist of a band? That's fucking awesome. Nietzsche (talk) 04:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Depends on your definition

Democracy is such a broad term as to be almost useless in a sentence like "Do you think George Bush did a bang up job of bringing democracy to Iraq". They had free elections so if you define democracy as having free elections then they have a democracy. But did Bush to a bang-up job of bringing a peaceful, stable, free democratic society to Iraq then no. Neither has Obama for that matter. But you'll have to redefine your question. Ace^Moderator 22:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Neither did the Versailles Treaty bring a stable democracy to the Weimer Republic. For now, it could be defined as bringing a representative parliamentary government (with universal suffrage) where none existed previously. A system of courts, etc,. Hell, even the Palestinian Authority had some form of elected council before Iraq did, yet they don't enjoy sovereignty yet. Then there's the question of inspiring other Arab neighbors to rise up against tyrants (Tunesia, Eygpt, Libya, Syria, etc.) being inspired by the Bush/neocon dream of establishing one democracy in the Middle East and the neighboring dominoes would fall. But many said it couldn't be done. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 22:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

So then, by your definition, the question reads - Did GWB do a bang-up job of bringing a representative parliamentary government (with universal suffrage) where none existed previously. to which I'd answer: no. Ace^Moderator 22:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, then we may be also able to conclude the UK, France & Woodrow Wilson likewise failed to bring a representative parliamentary government (with universal suffrage) where none existed previously to Germany after 1919, largely because of the naysayers in their own respective countries, and worldwide, unwilling to support a longterm program of nation building. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 22:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, the you asked about GWB and I gave my opinion so not concerned with any other examples. I don't think any country should engage in nation building. Assistance but certainly not active involvement. That's just my opinion. Ace^Moderator 23:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

So you think the Germans should have been abandoned in 1945 again, and if another Hitler arose, BFD. Likewise after the Afghan Mujahadeen was abandoned in 1989, if the Taliban or bin Laden took over, nobody gives a fuck. So now that Iran is positioned nicely to gain from Iraqi oil revenues besides its own, who cares? or if the Taliban & Islamic Brotherhood get in control of international heroin trafficking and the billions in revenue from it, it's not a concern if they use those revenues to purchase WMD & nukes from Pakistan, North Korea, or Iran. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 23:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, we were talking about GWB and Iraq. The US went into Iraq with the intention of overthrowing Hussein and building a democratic nation which I don't think any nation has the moral or legal right to do. Sure, there may be a moral case but does any nation have the authority to arbitrarily be the guardian of moral legitimacy? Ace^Moderator 00:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

That's an interesting point you raise; the term "regime change" is an Anglicization of French war aims as they developed throughout WWI. "Change of regime" is the phrase occurring in the contemporaneous documents of that era. France, and it's allies, wanted a complete change of regime in Germany, i.e. a deposed monarchy (like France itself) and a parliamentary, democratically elected republic. Were the Germans consulted? some were, those with an understanding of democratic ideals. But others felt it was imposed by outsiders. After the colossal failure that was the period 1919 to 1939, by 1945 there was a general consensus worldwide that Germans (some Germans, that is West Germans) were going to have democracy imposed upon them whether they liked it or not. You seem to be arguing against whether "any nation ha[d] the moral or legal right to do" so. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 02:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

"1919 to 1939" you do know that before the Depression things were looking on the up for the nazis right? And that even in 1933 the nazis were starting to lose support... and that 1934-1939 werent the "complete fuck up" the early years were--il'Dictator Mikal 02:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

You drinking again? See the wp:Dawes Plan, and then we'll talk. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 02:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Mikalos is right, you have linked to a plan of the twenties, the Nazis came into power 1933 and told the winners of WWI to shove the debt up their asses. There was a great economical growth in Germany until WWII, mostly put into place by Hitler pumping money into the war industry and therefor creating a metric shit-ton of jobs. --★uːʤɱ atheist 02:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Either you are thinking faster than you can type or you've got some stuff confused there. After WWI there was a German revolution that resulted in all socialist forces joining - only by a few votes did social democrats win and a "democracy" (if you can call that faked fuck-up that) was installed and the the Kaiser was gone. After WWII the Allies dictated a democracy, but the constitution was again drafted by Germans in a constitutional assembly. And yes, as a somebofy born German I think that everything other than telling Germans what exactly to do would have been careless and irresponsible. --★uːʤɱ sinner 02:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Mikalos digressed; the subject was Germany, not Nazism. And Hitler did not repudiate the foreign debt -- Lenin and the USSR did which caused a break in diplomatic relations with the creditor nations. No such break occurred under Hitler. Mikalos says the Nazi's were doing well before the Depression, but the Nazi's weren't in power. We are not discussing opinion poll ratings or growing party membership. We are discussing the underlying flaws in the foreign policy of France, Great Britain, and the United States, post WWI, that allowed the Nazi's to gain power in the constitutional republic they imposed upon Germany. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 03:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I think a big problem that you are probably underestimating, was in the nature of the constitutional democracy that was set up for/by the Germans in 1919. Direct proportional representation, a strong president who could declare himself emergency powers, a barely independent judiciary and a weak federalism all lead to a situation where there were no real checks and balances on power. Given this political system, and the numerous crises of the age it is not surprising that She succumbed to extremism. I would also point out that many of her neighbours who had similar systems also descended into dictatorship, albeit less extreme ones (eg Metaxas in Greece, Franco in Spain, Dollfuss and Schuschnigg in Austria etc etc). I think it was less a case of poor foreign policy during the interwar years and more a case of poor institutions that allowed extremists their opportunity. --Damo^Hi 06:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Debate

I replied to the debate. No rush, just FYI in case you didn't see.--^talk 23:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Beers

Hey Rob. I'll be in Alb in April. I'd like to get a beer with you and speak privately about Karajou and User:Conservative. I'm just kidding about that paranoia inducing nonsense. But seriously, I'll buy you some beers. Come hang out with me and Trent. We're super cool. And he's intimidatingly smart. Per Ace's request, we will also discuss your take on New Zealand healthcare by video Skype straight to his lair. This will be productive. Let me know so I can make this happen for you. 03:52, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I am down with that. Ace^Moderator 05:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

That's what I said, asshole. 06:41, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds interesting, fun, and constructive. I sent out feelers to Andy, User:Conservative, Karajou et al for some input, but they're too busy blocking people or reverting vandalism to the Hitler article to respond. Ace being involved makes me a little suspicious though.... nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 15:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't. Think of me as a bridge builder but it's ultimately up to you. I'll get the first few rounds either way. 16:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. Gimme a date and time (you got my email address). As a suggestion, this place is just down the street from me. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 18:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

You needn't worry about Ace if there's a mediator present. One-on-one, now that's a different kettle of fish. SJ ^Debaser 18:36, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's call it the Beer Summit II. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 19:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

since you mentioned it a few times..

i actually dont drink; jsyk.--il'Dictator Mikal 18:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

too bad, you'd have an excuse then for being an idiot. Hell, you could blame it on fetal alcohol syndrome. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 18:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Your stuff on Ameriwiki

I haven't looked at your talk page before, and didn't know what to expect. It seems that this is the place where people come to poke sticks at you through the bars of your cage, when they don't want to do it on TWIGO. I should have expected that. But my reason for being here is completely different.

As you may know, there has been a shakeup at Ameriwiki. You could describe it as the departure of the last vestiges of CP mentality there. Now you brought over a huge amount of your commie material in the early days of AW. In fact, when I clicked "random page" in the first few days, commie stuff would come up about 90% of the time. That doesn't happen any more—people have been "de-hatcheting" your stuff right and left. We even have a template for it.

But I have preserved all your Venona material. I hate, loathe, abhor, and despise it, but I saved it, and even improved it in some small ways, because you obviously put an enormous amount of work into this, and you presumably wanted it preserved someplace in case it couldn't stay at CP. (I don't know, or care, whether it's still at CP.) The reason I did this is that, even though everyone disagrees with me on this at both AW and RW, I believe you actually did improve CP, and I respect what you did. You see, Kenny can no longer hide behind locked talk pages that are just redirects to other locked pages; he has to debate people in the open. The results are of course utterly laughable.

But I'm going to get rid of the Venona stuff at AW. So my question is: do you have another place to put this? Do you want to copy it? I really don't want to destroy this work, despicable though it may be. SamHB (talk) 04:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, thank you for your kindness and deference. But is that how AW works now, an Admin can just willy-nilly delete stuff he doesn't like? No process? Seems rather authoritarian. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 13:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The question is whether you have saved the material, or wish to, not how AW works. AW has the same types of mechanisms for actions like this as any other sensible wiki (unlike CP, where Karajou and Ken do whatever they want.) We have an administrators' desk, and various committees, where this will be discussed. Based on previous discussions with people on what they think of your articles in general, I have not the slightest doubt what the outcome of this proposal will be. Do you want me to say "Rob has saved this material elsewhere, so it won't be destroyed", or "Rob responded by engaging in unstructured bitching about AW"? If you are dissatisfied with my attitude, you can log in there (Nobs01 is still a "trusted editor") and argue your case to SamCoulter and/or SharonW. SamHB (talk) 14:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Why not just copy all of his stuff to his userspace and give him a link? He's obviously all butthurt about the situation, and trying to get a straight answer out of him is an exercise in futility. Cow...Hammer^time! 15:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I like that idea and it seems sensible and fair; I'm a little behind on internal politics at AW. Seems unfair for SamHB to mischaracterize my position to a respected committee in absentia. I'd still very much like to be brought up to speed on community & policy development at AW, and be an upstanding member there if they'd have me. I think there's room for a collaborative project like AW, but what SamHB proposes does seem somewhat of a departure from it's original mission. I'm not sure if I want to get bogged down in a debate about it, however. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!} 18:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Nice graphs

Gosh, oil is expensive of late isn't it? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 13:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, yes. And it's recovery related. You have a simple choice: $2.50 per gal gas and 9% unemployment, or $4.00 per gal gas and 8% unemployment. Which do you suppose works to President Obama's advantage? nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 13:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Eh? How is that a "simple choice"? I think you will find it's a bit more complicated than that. Anyway, the price of oil is outwith the POTUS's control - it's called "free market economics" I believe, all to do with supply and demand and stuff. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 14:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Well yes, absolutely. I think we are in agreement. (a) The price is out of POTUS control (with the exception of the impact closure of the Straits of Hormuz may have); and (b) by choice, I'm referring to the free choice consumers have, i.e. to buy gas to go to work and do shopping vs sitting on their ass at home collecting food stamps & unemployment. This is a gross oversimplification, but one may catch the drift. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 17:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Nope, sorry mate, I can't the see the link you are trying to draw between the price of petrol and unemployment figures. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 18:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

After the 2001 recession the labor force began growing again in the later half of 2003, coincident with the same time crude oil prices (world demand) and US pump prices returned to their pre-recession levels. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 18:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, those things happened. What's your point caller? There's a phrase about correlation and causation isn't there? As it happens, that period also coincides with Thierry Henry scoring loads of goals, so are your current fuel prices the result of a certain French striker coming to the enmd of his career? I really don't know if you are simply a troll, simply an idiot, or simply hate Obama so much that it blinds you. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 20:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Obama's not the issue here; do you note the coincidence between job growth & recovery approximately one year prior to a presidential election in 2003, as now? Neither is this phenomena limited to comparisons of the Bush era or Obama era -- roots of these economic cycles can be traced back to 1936. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 20:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Sigh.

1. What has the price of oil got to do with Obama?
2. What has the price of oil got to do with unemployment figures?

DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 20:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

1. Most analysts agree the price of oil will determine Obama's re-election prospects.
2. In times of high unemployment, pump prices go down (see charts); in times of rising employment, oil price go up (see charts). nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 21:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

non-sequitur-off

Rob, I hereby challenge you to a duel of non-sequiturs. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

By whichever do you mean? nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 21:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

If that's the best you can do, I can see why Obama is going to be re-elected. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Not if all sorts of eventualities play out. We've been discussing the role of exporting the US national savings to pay for oil; we haven't even began discussing what portion goes for interest on the debt, also earmarked for savings.

The Stimulus in theory was money borrowed from foreigners (China) to make work for temporary infrastructure improvements to help Obama get re-elected in 2012. Nevermind that infrastructure (roads, bridges etc) workers end up unemployed in two years anyway after the project is completed, the jobs never appeared. But the foreign debt remained. In theory, if that had worked, the gains in employment would lead to higher imports of foreign oil, so what savings would be produced by the jobs that never appeared would have been exported to pay for the increased oil consumption. Nevertheless, the foreign debt has to be repaid in both principal and interest. And now that some real jobs are being created, we're stuck with both -- repaying the foreign debt and buying foreign oil, which leaves nothing left over for more job creation from savings by the workers who have returned to work. But none of this can be attributed to the Stimulus. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 21:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

You are reliant on "foreign oil" because you (as a nation) have spunked your own (once plentiful) oil away by driving ridiculous and obscene vehicles that do 12 miles to the gallon. You tit. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 22:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Amen. And I agree with that. And that is the price and/or benefit of living in a free market economy. You also raise an interesting point, most of the gasguzziling SUV's Americans purchased were largely manufactured in Detroit, so evidently American's didn't buy enough of them. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 22:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

You're hitting on the problem. In true conservative fashion, we should cut our losses and sentence Detroit to the annals of history along with the American automotive industry. Consequently higher unemployment numbers during the Obama occupation erode support and usher in the return of the conservative political paradigm. It's got to be timed right, because if the jobless are jobless for too long, they'll become democrats. Occasionaluse (talk) 22:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

That's all water under the bridge. The bailout was popular with Michiganders (or is it Michigooans?) as Romney's finding out. Socialism works, according to the media, Obama, and Democrats. Good. They can get blamed for polluting the planet and exploiting our scarce oil resources when the shit hits the fan whren the next bust cycle appears. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 22:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

All well and good, but had Castro not tried to bring the missiles in under cover, we probably never would have made it to the Moon, let alone see FARC decide to end its policy of ransom for financial gain as we saw in the news today. I blame Hungary. DogP (talk) 00:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

FARC doesn't need revenue from kidnappings anymore now that their sponsor, Hugo Chavez, is getting over $100 a barrel. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 00:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

True, true, but with the cost of oil soaring towards $5 a gallon, it's probably time for both Columbia and Canada to look to new leadership. Those oil sands won't stop the Russians from having a say in the Straits of Hormuz, and no amount of George Clooney Oscars can hide the fact that operatives are at work in the Arabian Peninsula. DogP (talk) 01:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Dunno; think Obama may have been behind the attempted assassination of the leader in Russia's forward base of Middle East operations? nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 02:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Almost certainly not - that was probably pulled off by NATO (or maybe the UN), not the US. DogP (talk) 02:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Obama's made it clear their on his shit list. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 02:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but read the article: "“Russia’s government must respect the ...sovereignty of Georgia…. Its refusal to do so calls into question its commitment to ...the Russia-NATO Council”". It's obvious Putin is on the warpath in Syria. DogP (talk) 03:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Yep. "Even now, violence continues unabated in Iraq, and ordinary people enjoy no security. This alone is enough for us to draw a huge question mark over the sincerity and efficacy of US policy." Looks like Putin & Obama are finally on the same page. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 11:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Putin,. Obama, and Orbán, you mean? Radical leftists in Hungary are attempting to destroy the Right, who are allied with the Jews. The links to Syria and, Iraq and Venezuela are clear. DogP (talk) 15:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Blocks

I'm apparently one of the only people here who prefers to see editors here not be harassed with inappropriate blocks. Please email me if it happens yet again and I'll help you out. 14:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Garcias. I'm been away a few days, so I don't know what's been happening (other than Obama suddenly overnite has become a warmonger in favor of nuking Iran, which stand in marked contrast to the shit he was spewing just 6 weeks ago...). nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 23:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually the opposite. -- Seth Peck (talk) 23:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Yah, he doesn't take killing lightly, it's only afterward he boasts about it. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 00:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Email me so we can make plans to get some beers with Trent when I'm NM this summer. 00:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

when did you

become ken?--il'Dictator Mikal 00:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Fuck you. Get off my page, asshole. And I'm not even going to delete your trolling bullshit, so the world can see how tolerant I am, versus your authoritarian censorship and hatred of your imaginary enemies you feel the need to attempt to silence. Fuck you, mindless, partisan scum. If you could article some semblance of a philosophy, other than hatred and destruction of your enemies, you'd be tolerable.

Oh, did I forget to include "slut"? You are a slut, as well. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 00:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey Mikal, could you article a philosophy for me as well, while you're articling your own? Thanks. -- Seth Peck (talk) 02:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I have enemies?--il'Dictator Mikal 00:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, me and other decent-minded folks... although I do enjoy a good slut. An American Fallacy ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 02:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

so...

what exactly are you getting at with the graphs?--il'Dictator Mikal 18:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Econ 101. For yourself consider it Econ -101. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 18:22, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

No, picking an arbitrary time period is not economics, it is partisan politics. Given the "super-tanker" that is the US economy you need to look at the figures over many decades to see how it got where it is today. Генгис^unbelieving 19:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. One problem we have is the data base on weekly gas prices only goes back to 1986; so that leaves only the '91, 01, and '08 recessions to study. And looking at all the charts, it's hard to call it partisan. For example, the 2003-2009 1999-2012 Employment chart clearly shows the failure of the Bush tax cuts to create sustainable jobs that survive a recession. Yes, Bush did more to create jobs (8 million) than Obama has, but if those jobs wash out in recession, it's a failure.

By contrast, Obama hasn't really created any jobs, cause there's no more today than 11 years ago. So my point really is that, partisan politics from whichever side or source, have done more harm to the US economy than good. The charts show it's become hostage to election cycles and partisan bickering. If Obama's to blamed for anything, it simply would be for over-identifying himself with a partisan ideological cause, which he & Biden only yesterday made the mainstay of their re-election bid. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 20:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Well the government has little control over gas prices other than the taxation element and I would suggest that the low tax rate in the US has actually made matters worse as it encourages people to over-rely on a commodity, so that fluctuations in the global price of oil have a much greater effect on the populace than they do in Europe where the higher tax-rates actually lend a degree of stability. With low tax rates there was no incentive to downsize or make autos more efficient. Генгис^unbelieving 20:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

That is all true, and I agree. But how the populace that responds to presidential approval polls sees things, is another matter. Here's the simple dirty little truth: rising gas prices are a sign of economic health, whereas falling prices (such as it just did from 2008-2011 when it went from $4 to $2.50) are recessionary and unhealthy. Let me restate my thesis made several times, it is a simple choice among consumers, voters, and citizens, you can have 9% unemployment and $2.50 a gal gas, or 7.5% unemployment and $4 per gal gas. Obama made his choice, he'd prefer lower unemployment and higher consumption to get re-elected, whereas Gingrich promises $2.50 a gal and perpetual unemployment at 9% plus. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 20:40, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Aren't commodity prices in general driven by global factors?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes. And that is illustrated here, particularly the first two charts, that while US consumption and demand for oil is down, the rest of the world was already in recovery by early 2009. Now that US is in a "jobs recovery" phase, it is hoped to resume its role as consumer of 25% of the earth's resources, which of course would naturally drive the world price of crude oil past it's record high of $140 per barrel, assuming the 6 million who lost their jobs in 2008 return to work (given an avg increase of 225,000 per month, this could occur in 26 months). nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 22:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

But if world commodity prices are driven by global movements as you seem to agree, then there would be exactly the same movements in US gas prices regardless of who was in charge.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 21:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

US demand is increasing at this time (unlike the three previous years); and the US is by far the world's largest customer. So increasing US demand will have a much larger impact on world demand in the near future, assuming the US jobs recovery is sustainable. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 22:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

So now I'm confused. Which are you claiming has the biggest impact on global commodity prices - global demand or US policy?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 06:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Global demand, of which US is 25%. True, US policy is encourages US domestic consumption, which only adds upward pressure on prices globally. For example, recently it was reported Obama which to smooth over the impact of higher gas prices before the election by releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve; however, after the election, when the reserve needs replenishment, it would would only add mo9re upward pressure on prices. But, you know, people are so goddamm fucking stupid, there's probably more than one fool who thinks Obama's self-serving tampering with prices is a good idea. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 19:06, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

So the major driver on gas prices is not US government policy?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:40, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Right. It is demand, both domestic and global. Government policy (taxation, release of reserves, granting drilling rights, regulation of auto manufactures, etc). plays some part, but much is counter-intuitive. Sometimes policies depress domestic prices while others bring about greater dependence on foreign oil and global prices. But Fed Reserve policy (which is more of an wp:NGO than a wp:GSE) plays an even larger part. Because the U.S. does not need to convert dollars to purchase foreign oil, it merely can print dollars for foreign imports (which you can see right here. While the Federal Reserve doubled the Money Supply in eleven years, from $1.1 trillion in 2001 to $2.2 trillion in 2012, the size of the workforce, and hence total output, is relatively unchanged). nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 18:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Sorry for yesterdays garbled posting. I was sitting in the middle of a major dust storm and had trouble with a connection. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 18:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I have enjoyed reading this so far. Very cogent points. ħuman 03:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Human. It's this chart here that really is very frightening. Especially when you consider population has climbed 30 million at the same time. In one sense, it is too bad elected politicians cannot do anything about it, while on the other hand people expect, or demand that of them. My thinking is, the chart reflects economic cycles and job creation held hostage to election cycles. Joseph Schumpeter somewhere says the business cycle runs in roughly 10 year cycles, but in the U.S., the business cycle has paralleled presidential terms of about 48 months going back to about 1936. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 19:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

So tell me again...

...how it's only the Democrats who have superdelegates. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 02:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Interesting fact. Let's examine the difference: 3 delegates from each state, the GOP chairman, RNC committeeman, and RNC committeewoman, are all elected positions within the party. Also, I believe each is included in each state delegations total delegate count, not as a separate entity beyond the 50 states, Pueto Rico, Guam, Virgin Islands, Samoa, and Americans living abroad. None can purchased for cash donations. The status is simply, they are unbound from primary results because they are elected elsewhere. The total is roughly 5% of 2200 total delegates.

By contrast, the Dems have 800, or nearly 20% of 4000+ delegates. A primary winner could have 55% percent of the popular vote in primaries and still loose the nomination. Who are the Superdelegates? A virtual Who's Who of Party bosses who do not need to participate in precinct caucuses to maintain their status of choosing the Party's nominee. No such mechanism exists in the GOP. Senator So and So, Congressperson So and So, and Mayor So and So are not guaranteed a voice in choosing the GOP nominee, it is left entirely to the will of the people, including the elected state the GOP chairman, RNC committeeman, and RNC committeewoman from each state. Because of the disproportionate share of DNC Superdelegates, it has been estimated each one by virtue of unelected privilege supersedes 50,000 common peon Democratic Primary voters. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 20:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

there's no-one quite like Granma

Did you just cite the late Fidel ####ing Castro? I need a lie down! :) Sophie^{because liberals} 22:09, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

And then I vomited and said "Anti-psychotics be damned!"

So I was, like, in the aeroplane and this guy next to me (I believe it was my friend actually) had eaten to many temazepam and Somnil on top of the heavy booze we were drinking all night and started feeling quite ill. He put a blanket on his head and it was like flying with a ghost. The ghost being my friend with a blanket on his head. Then I had a Bloody Mary but my other female friend (who is NOT my wife - she is still in South Africa. My wife that is) had made a personal enemy out of the flight attendant who was bringing us pure orange juice without booze after she requested 7 vodka orange before the plane had even lifted off causing me to have to secretly order liquor from the other attendants. I can't remember which movies I watched but I did listen to the entirety of Nirvana's "Live and unplugged in New York" album. When I got to Sydney airport I withdrew over $100.00 AUS from the ATM for some reason (my idiot younger brother once told me that ATM was an acronym for "At This Moment". What a kooky banana he is) and attempted to drink forty beers but I was only in transit for 2 hours so only managed 4 beers. When my plane came I felt a bit sick but strode toward the gate with the strut and swagger of a man who is turtling (turtling being a term to describe someone who needs to poo but can't find a toilet yet small piece of poo peeks out - like a turtle out of its shell. This is distinct from an ass-tulip which is the product of a prolapse.) I handed my ticket to the lady and smiled but my smile might have looked a little like a grimace and she seemed rather repulsed by me. I considered it to be a successful sexual encounter because when I sat down I had a stiffy. I don't remember what happened next because I drank too much wine on the plane but there was some bad noise from the officials at the customs gate in Wellington airport. Then I was home, bags in hand, no stiffy but a giant hangover.....
What did you do today? Ace^Moderator 22:10, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I worry about your liver, Ace, and you're loving wife leaving you because of these risking meaningless drunken dalliances. I'm prayng for you. Are you familiar with AA's 3rd Step? nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 22:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Are 3rd-step AA's some kind of new battery? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 22:26, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

They gave you booze on the plane? Wooh, you must've paid for the fancy seating! Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 22:26, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Its OK because I took my liver out the other day and we had a good ol' chat. I was like "Yo! Liver! what up dog?!" and my liver said "Yo! Ace! Yo Mutha fucker! Wheres the goddamn whisky at?! Whack on that Wu-Tang joint and pour me a glass!". We laughed pretty loud and my loving wife was yelling from the bedroom "Who are you talking to?" and I just said "Hey, love you baby". Ho Ho Ho. We did laugh. Me, my wife and my liver. Ace^Moderator 22:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Remember wp:Rock Hudson? they said it was liver disease, but it really was AIDS. If you choose, as a young man to look like a liveer diseased AIDS patient in 20 or 30 years (not that there's anything wrong with that) God Bless you. Ain't God great!? if you choose to destroy yourself, he says "go right ahead". Like the prodigal son, he doesn't stand in your way and says "don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out". nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 23:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I have to go meet my Auntie, Uncle and grandma now. I will probably have eggs and bacon but I might have steak. What do you think? Talk to you soon lover. Ace^Moderator 23:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Ace, I never pictured you as a family man. Why, it sounds so traditional, and conservative. I always imagined you were an unwanted orphan of a dope addicted drunken prostitute left on the doorstep of a firestation who, by the grace of God, was saved from growing up and fitting the personality profile of a serial killer by being raised in a Christian orphanage. Which then would explains your hatred of God, grace, common sense, and your fellow human beings who don't see the world as you do. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 23:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I fucking hate common sense! Ace^Moderator 05:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I know

you probably won't give a damn; But I still want to apologize for the complete fucking ass i've been to you pretty much the entire time. i'm not very good at apologies though.--il'Dictator Mikal 03:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

In good faith, I can accept that. I have not been civil myself, on occasion. Seriously though, upon becoming a Christian I realized if God is willing to forgive an asshole such as me, I should learn to be patient with other creatures God created. nobs^{I'm not a doctor but I play one with the girls} 19:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I am afraid though, given circumstances i am going to have to resend this apology as you have failed to live up to your end of the deal. --il'Dictator Mikal 01:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, so you've joined the Obama-is-a-Muslim cabal now, huh? nobs^{bullies are people, too.} 01:32, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I could care less if obama was a worshiper of Cthulu.--il'Dictator Mikal 01:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Then why do you go to such extents to suppress criticism of Andy's naked and foolish partisanship? nobs^{bullies are people, too.} 01:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

GREAT wigo, Rob.

-9 and rising with a bullet sinking like a stone. You're an idiot. P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 14:28, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Was that really necessary, P?--"Shut up, Brx." 14:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Seeing as he boasted about what a great WIGO it was over in the Saloon Bar? Yes, yes it was. If he hadn't, I wouldn't even have noticed. Also, shut up. The grown-ups are talking. P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 15:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Several of us think the WIGO was good. Proxima Centauri (talk) 20:05, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

superdelegates

According to this, the GOP has them too. No clue how they hit office, though. (this is a continuation of a previous discussion on WIGO:CP)--"Shut up, Brx." 20:06, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

this was actually already pointed out to Rob. i think on WIGO though--il'Dictator Mikal 20:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Here's the discussion. [7] nobs^{bullies are people, too.} 20:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Woops, sorry. I've been laying low of late, and I missed it--"Shut up, Brx." 20:26, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

"Ace and others want x, so something is wrong"

you do know he confessed, hasn't defended himself and we have server-evidence to back it up... right? it isnt like we just picked somebody at random to target--il'Dictator Mikal 21:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

confessed to what? you do know Rationalwiki has been commonly refered to as "the vandal site"? nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 21:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

have you actually read anything in that coop rob? UHM confessed to doing it, trent has provided evidence that also says he did it, and UHM hasnt really bothered to deny it since confessing. --il'Dictator Mikal 21:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Next you gonna tell me cyberattacks & malicious vandalism are a bad thing, right? nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 21:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Depends on who it's targeted at. --il'Dictator Mikal 21:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Despite your narrow exposure to the world, Rob, people not associated with CP are far more common users of this site, and they do not refer to it as "the vandal site". that would be a CP thing. Godot On a perdu le contrôle 21:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Rationalwiki comes up #1 on Google for "vandal site". nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 21:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh Rob, you poor idiot. RW doesn't come up as a vandal site. Our article on vandal site is what comes up. Ace^Moderator 21:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Did you read the cite to footnote 3? Jesus, what a fucking idiot. Even Wikipeidia quotes that same mainstream new source in extensio. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 21:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

here is a picture of my knob

Aces Knob. For Nobs.

Look at this picture i took in South Africa

pretty cool, eh?

Ace^Moderator 04:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

obviously you have never lived through a Tornado

either that or you are just a terrible person who lacks Empathy. --il'Dictator Mikal 05:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Omaha? There's only two things that come from Omaha, steers and queers. Which are you, son? nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 16:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Robert IS a terrible person. Empathy is but one of the basic qualities that he lacks. P-Foster Talk "The existing superstructure has handed out crumbs. We don’t want crumbs; we want the whole loaf now.” --Ras Frank I 17:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Question: which way does a tornado spin in New Zealand, clockwise or counter-clockwise? nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 17:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Dunno, they have them in the north sometimes but I ain't ever seen one. And why are you asking mikalos? To my knowledge he isn't a NZer. Ace^Moderator 04:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

That depends on which way the sheep are facing. ħuman 03:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

A cunning scheme

Maybe you'd have more weight around here if you started telling everybody that you're the singer from The Cure--"Shut up, Brx." 17:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe he'd have more weight around here if he didn't listen to you--il'Dictator Mikal 17:23, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Take a joke and don't try turning everything into an opportunity to try and insult me--"Shut up, Brx." 17:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

You make it so easy though love. --il'Dictator Mikal 17:26, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm serious Rob. Everybody here will have mad respect for you once they think you played bass for Siouxsie and the Banshees!!!!--"Shut up, Brx." 02:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Backwards

Check it out Rob, NZ is so backward and third world we have to build Churches out of cardboard! Ace^Moderator 21:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll put you on my prayer list. But God probably hit New Zealand with an earthquake because he's gonna send
ALL YOU SINNERS
TO HELL!!!
nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 00:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Right-o. Ace^Moderator 00:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Why does Karajou lie like this

Yeah, not me. Does he know he is lying? Ace^Moderator 07:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Hallucinogens; he loves mushrooms. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 11:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

One need not have ever vandalized CP to earn a permanent block from Karajou. One merely has to hold liberal views expressed elsewhere and ask for NPOV according to BLP to get blocked infinitely. This was a huge factor motivating my fallout with CP at the time, as the undisclosed mailing list discussions would corroborate. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 11:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

That reminds me

...exactly what is the context behind these random 'GED' insults of yours? I seem to have missed it. Peter ^{tanquam ex ungue leonem} 04:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

It's nothing to be ashamed of. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 22:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

It's you I'm worried about. Did you hit your head once, or is this the result of each new time you do so? Peter ^{tanquam ex ungue leonem} 22:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Clill Binton

I think that your edits were reverted because the Alan Greenspan quote wasn't really necessary and didn't add to the article, and because your depiction of the Monica Lewinsky affair was disturbingly graphic for mainspace--"Shut up, Brx." 19:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The Greenspan quote was flattering & the Lewinsky stuff was just in outline for expanding the Impeachment section. Work in progress. Maybe Ameriwiki will be more receptive to facts since there seems to be a censorship movement afoot here. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 19:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The point is not to flatter Bill Clinton (and I'm unsure what's so flattering about being compared to Richard Nixon), and you can cover Clinton's impeachment without describing his foreplay technique--"Shut up, Brx." 10:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Ahhh, you must be of another generation and don't remember the context of hard fought political wars of yore. Greenspan, up until the 2008 Crash, was widely respected by everyone of any political stripe, and the direct cut n' paste from the sworn historical record preserved for posterity which the sitting Commander-in-Chief and Leader of the Free World later admitted under oath is diddling himself in the Oval Office sink, not foreplay. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 13:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Email

You need a confirmed email to edit Ameriwiki, as an anti-spam measure. Try reentering your address or add another address.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 16:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I tried another address, and it comes back, "Invalid confirmation code. The code may have expired." nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 23:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I just emailed Sam. Let's see if he can fix it.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 23:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'm back in now. Thanks so much!! nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 23:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I also restored your rights.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 23:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! God/Allah/Krishna/other Bless you!

Just for you Rob

,3Just cause you wana have NZ nuked so badly. <3--il'Dictator Mikal 00:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

That's pretty funny. Where did you get the game? Peter ^{is procrastinating.} 01:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Abandonia.--il'Dictator Mikal 01:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. A task for history class, I think. Peter ^{is procrastinating.} 01:50, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

-shrug- its fun to play, the temptation to start WWIII/IV/V/VI is strong though. --il'Dictator Mikal 01:54, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Doing a wp:cost/benefit analysis, there probably isn't high enough risk/reward yield to expend one nuclear warhead replete with delivery vehicle to gain any lasting economic benefit. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 02:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

What about 5000? --il'Dictator Mikal 02:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Nukes cost $2.5 million to $100 million (for Pacific Islanders, all dollars US) depending on size, quality, age, operational status, etc.; to match it to the cost of a delivery vehicle is a little more complicated, so Answers.com isn't helpful. New Zealand has a slight balance of trade surplus right (the chart is in NZD; God knows what that is in real money?), but I suspect American's spend more on condoms in a year than NZ's total foreign trade. So wiping NZ off the map would have the added benefit and incentive of clearing the debt of NZ's trading partners. So yes, the US could gain the goodwill and favor of NZ's foreign debtors, but I'm not sure any real economic benefit would accrue to the United States to justify the cost. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 03:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas Rob

because i love you so much heres the Cold War wet dream played out--il'Dictator Mikal 02:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

AceMcWicked squanders several irretrievable moments out of his life to allegedly make a point

Fuck that, we don't want you dumb slovenly pricks round here. Oh yeah, why on earth would you think Mikalos was a NZer? Ace^Moderator 00:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Slovenly? Hey, I'm wp:Slovak, and deeply resent the racist overtones of your language. An apology should be forthcoming. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 01:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Is the word slovenly a corruption of slovak? I don't think so. So get fucked - no apology. Ace^Moderator 01:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I bet if you called him a barbarian, he'd say, "Hey! there's nothing wrong with my/I don't have a beard!" ±KnightOfTL;DR^{just shut up already} 01:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Ace, fuck you, racist scum. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.}

Thanks for the completely irrelevant link that supports your contention in absolutely no way whatsoever. Ace^Moderator 02:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Did I say that? with an IQ of 85 it'd be difficult to tell Mikalos apart from any other NZ public school graduate or dropout. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 00:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

RobSmith: Mikalos is either a New Zealander residing in Nebraska, or a New Zealander using a Nebraska proxy server. What was that you were saying about IQ? You bumbling idiot. Ace^Moderator 00:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Can't you read? Would it be possible for a New Zealand high school or college graduate with an IQ of 85 to reside in Nebraska? I for one oppose immigration controls, but there are people who argue agsinst allowing people with mental deficiencies into the country. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 00:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

So to sum up:

Rob: Mikalos is either a New Zealander residing in Nebraska, or a New Zealander using a Nebraska proxy server.

Ace: What makes you think Mikalos is a NZer?

Rob: I never said that.

Ace (quoting Rob) "Mikalos is either a New Zealander residing in Nebraska, or a New Zealander using a Nebraska proxy server."

Rob: Can't you read, (makes completely irrelevant comment about IQ).

Ace: What the fuck, Smith? You are a fucking idiot. Ace^Moderator 00:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Rob: Racist scum. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 04:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Evidence of my supposed racism? Ace^Moderator 05:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Who should be a citizen rob?

So rob, who should be in america? Who should be a citizen? Should we kick out the Communists and socialists? how bout the anarchists? Oh and those shifty atheists and muslims? What about the wrong kind of Christians?What about non whites? Who is allowed to bew in America, Copyright rob smith?--il'Dictator Mikal 01:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Anybody who wants to. As Gingrich says, America is the first nation where people are members of a nation by choice and an idea, and not by birth. For people who want to bitch & complain, I'm for passing the hat to buy them a ticket out, since they probably have no resources themselves. In the long run it would reduce jail space and operating costs. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 01:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)