|
ErIog posted:We didn't have to read it for a class, but the book became popular among my circle of friends when I was in high school. It's so loving off the wall, and she's such a terrible writer. I annotated the copy I handed around to friends pointing out how dumb everything in it was. I stand by my assertion from back then that a proper adaptation of the Fountainhead would be a comedy done with a really hard art deco style. There are some parts of that book that approach The Happening levels of unintended comedic timing. Does Atlas Shrugged have the same unintentional comedic value?
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2012 01:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 17:30 |
|
|
More "In the News" wackery:Conservapedia posted:History proves: a long, drawn-out presidential primary helps the challenging party defeat the incumbent in November, as happened in 1968, 1976, 1980, 1992 and 2008. [7] In 2008 John McCain was portrayed as an incumbent by the media. Absolutely no citations or qualifiers for that last sentence. What the hell are they talking about?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2012 01:10
|
|
|
Binowru posted:More "In the News" wackery: It sounds truthy enough for epistemological retards.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2012 01:13
|
|
|
NGL posted:It sounds truthy enough for epistemological retards. Look if enough people agree it's true it is, 'experts' are full of poo poo!~A literal belief of Conservapedia.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2012 01:16
|
|
|
Binowru posted:More "In the News" wackery: Oh that's great. Earlier today the last part wasn't on and then in the talk page it was pointed out: JunoD 00:04, 1 February 2012 (EST) posted:While I agree with the message of the mpr item, I will point out that John McCain was not the incumbent in 2008 Andy Schlafly 00:21, 1 February 2012 (EST) posted:Your point is a good one, but the media did treat McCain like an incumbent, kind of like Hubert Humphrey in 1968. That race could have been added as another example JunoD 00:26, 1 February 2012 (EST) posted:That's moving the goalposts a bit, but I still agree with the overall premise -Andy Schlafly 00:30, 1 February 2012 (EST) posted:NPR used 2008 as an example, and I don't see how that is "moving the goalposts." It's looking at the substance of an election.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2012 01:22
|
|
|
I keep hoping Andy will post something about how hot it's been on the east coast the past few days, but for some reason he hasn't made any mention of it. I thought he loved pointing out extreme weather.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2012 02:04
|
|
|
I thought he liked to point out cold weather when it's supposed to be warm, not warm when it's supposed to be cold. Because if it's "global warming" then why is it so cold, liberals? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2012 02:13
|
|
|
Binowru posted:More "In the News" wackery: I just finished reading Game Change today and it includes a quote from one of the debates where McCain says something like "I'm not George W Bush. If you wanted to run against George W Bush, you should have run in 2004." But I guess THE LIBERAL MEDIA chose to ignore it!
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2012 07:09
|
|
|
skaboomizzy posted:I just finished reading Game Change today and it includes a quote from one of the debates where McCain says something like "I'm not George W Bush. If you wanted to run against George W Bush, you should have run in 2004." The best part of that quote is that McCain doesn't understand the irony of saying that. He was a stark contrast to George W. Bush in the 2000 primaries and even began loving hating Bush and his people personally for the petty attacks and games they played against the McCain campaign, especially the "illegitimate black baby" stuff. In 2008, he became more like Bush than ever, including pandering to the Religious Right, whom he had previously rebuffed and strongly criticized for most of his political career. So, it's almost comically absurd for him to distance himself from Bush in 2008, when he was more like him than ever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2012 09:00
|
|
|
Bruce Leroy posted:So, it's almost comically absurd for him to distance himself from Bush in 2008, when he was more like him than ever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2012 22:57
|
|
|
OneEightHundred posted:I almost want to ask if that means they think McCain should have been less Bush-like and more moderate. I pretty sure that's a "No," because they frequently refer to moderate Republicans as RINOs (Republican in Name Only).
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2012 02:30
|
|
|
Binowru posted:More "In the News" wackery: Godddd, I love when Andy actually mentions specific stuff so we can pick it apart. Alright, so, let's see here: 1968 - Like comparing apples to oranges, since the nominating process was different and the person who won the most primaries didn't even get the nomination. Also, 3rd party Wallace run. Also, there was no incumbent. 1976 - Ford lost because of Watergate, because he was The Man That Pardoned Nixon and because of his debate gaffes (no Soviet domination in Eastern Europe). The only thing surprising was how reasonably close the election was. The Democrats should have absolutely crushed the Republicans. Also, both primaries were pretty long. 1980 - Reagan wrapped up the nomination easily and early. Carter had it sewn up pretty easily, too. Kennedy just refused to drop out. Polls showed Carter winning up until the last week or so. 1992 - Bush won every primary. Clinton had it in the bag by March, since Brown didn't win anything past the Connecticut primary. Brown did win a good deal of delegates and I guess was hoping for a brokered convention by denying Clinton a win in California, but Clinton beat him comfortably there, too. Also, a very strong 3rd party run by Perot. Primarily, Bush lost because Clinton hammered him on the economy which was in recession and Bush seemed like a rich, out of touch aristocrat who didn't know how supermarket scanners worked. 1992 was a goddamn mess of an election because at various times, Bush was in the lead, Clinton was in the lead and even Perot was in the lead so attributing the loss to "long primary" is dumb. 2008 - No incumbent, no matter how much spin Andy wants to put on it. John McCain wasn't portrayed as the incumbent, he was portrayed as a Republican who would probably continue a lot of Bush-era policies. Regardless, the Democrats could have nominated a rock with a smiley face drawn on it and won by a large margin. The Democratic primary wasn't so much a traditional primary as a "who gets to be the next president" contest and the candidates knew it, which is why it lasted as long as it did. Edit: I'm honestly not sure what he's even talking about. Does he mean a long primary on the part of the incumbent gives the challenger more time to attack him? Or does he mean a long primary on the part of the challenger "inoculates" them against a lot of attacks the incumbent might lob at them? C.C.C.P. fucked around with this message at 02:37 on Feb 9, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2012 02:31
|
|
|
C.C.C.P. posted:Edit: I'm honestly not sure what he's even talking about. Does he mean a long primary on the part of the incumbent gives the challenger more time to attack him? Or does he mean a long primary on the part of the challenger "inoculates" them against a lot of attacks the incumbent might lob at them? The beautiful thing about not defining what he actually means is that he can just say "No you're wrong I actually mean this other way it could be interpreted " if someone really questions him about it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2012 08:07
|
|
|
Shima Honnou posted:The beautiful thing about not defining what he actually means is that he can just say "No you're wrong I actually mean this other way it could be interpreted That muppet-voiced missing Bates son simply loves to make poo poo up about "the media" because he knows his little basement brownshirt brigade will just eat it up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2012 08:44
|
|
|
Also never forget that he is teaching kids.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2012 16:53
|
|
|
The page names are just incredible. "Penn Jillette's walrus slide vs. thin Christian lady dancers". "The closest thing to Western atheist "culture" is atheist Ron Reagan Jr. dancing ballet which is very sad. Of course, the reason why Ron Reagan Jr. loves to engage in ballet dancing so much is because like all atheist men he lacks machismo". "Creationist Ken Ham often yodels when climbing up and down the triceratops at the Creation Museum and he also yodels when engaging in mountain climbing. To the best of Conservapedia's knowledge, the corpulent PZ Myers does not engage in mountain climbing."
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2012 17:51
|
|
|
quote:Richard Dawkins, who has been divorced two times, is thin but he is a very abrasive man who often makes women upset.[4] Kind and loving Indian Christian men, on the other hand, have one of the lowest divorce rates in the world.[5] See: Abrasiveness of Richard Dawkins and Women's views of Richard Dawkins Well I'm convinced. Take me now Jesus.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2012 18:07
|
|
|
At this point I'm not sure whether to be annoyed at Conservative or impressed that he's managed to turn this whole site into his own personal blog like he has.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2012 18:10
|
|
|
The Rokstar posted:At this point I'm not sure whether to be annoyed at Conservative or impressed that he's managed to turn this whole site into his own personal blog like he has. I am impressed and love all his atheist lacks machismo articles.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2012 18:21
|
|
|
If you've read any of the atheist/obesity articles, you've probably seen this picture of PZ Myers drinking beer in a pub: http://conservapedia.com/File:PzMyers2.jpg Seems to come up a lot, right? Scroll down on that page, and you'll see that 48 pages link to that file. I haven't checked but I'd be willing to bet 100% of them are authored by Conservative.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2012 18:41
|
|
|
Equester posted:I am impressed and love all his atheist lacks machismo articles. "Even Euro-liberal posters on notorious Internet troll-board 'Something Awful' admit to loving our 'atheist lacks machismo' articles!"
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2012 19:07
|
|
|
Parahexavoctal posted:The page names are just incredible. I saw Ron Reagan and was super confused all of a sudden. jojoinnit posted:Well I'm convinced. Take me now Jesus. What's really funny is the justifications when given evidence to the contrary: http://conservapedia.com/Divorce#Religion quote:According to a Barna Group study from 1999 with a sample size of 3854, the percentage of atheists getting divorced was lower than that for Christians or Jews[32]
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2012 00:17
|
|
|
Parahexavoctal posted:"Creationist Ken Ham often yodels when climbing up and down the triceratops at the Creation Museum and he also yodels when engaging in mountain climbing. To the best of Conservapedia's knowledge, the corpulent PZ Myers does not engage in mountain climbing." I know Conservative doesn't care about things like facts or counter examples, but seriously?? Atheists are fat and don't climb mountains? Alex Honnold isn't fat and he climbs straight up vertical rock without a rope, and he is as "militant atheist". Joe Simpson who was featured in the movie Touching the Void is an Atheist, he was doing a first ascent of a mountain in Peru, broke his leg, then got stuck hanging in midair and his partner cut the rope, and Joe took like 3 days without food or water to hobble back to camp. loving Reinhold Messner says he is an atheist, this guy loving climbed Everest without oxygen and by himself, he said he passed out every few steps near the top, then woke up and kept going. People call Reinhold Messner the greatest climber in history without a hint of irony. I'm sure there are amazing Christian climbers as well, but ..... ARRRGGHLBARGLE modig fucked around with this message at 22:58 on Feb 18, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2012 17:25
|
|
|
modig posted:I know Conservative doesn't care about things like facts or counter examples, but seriously?? Atheists are fat and don't climb mountains? None of those people will go to heaven so they don't count.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2012 18:38
|
|
|
modig posted:I know Conservative doesn't care about things like facts or counter examples, but seriously?? Atheists are fat and don't climb mountains? You messed up one of your links.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2012 18:44
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:None of those people will go to heaven so they don't count. If there's a heaven, I would not put money on you being able to successfully stop Messner from just climbing the gently caress up there by himself.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2012 01:03
|
|
|
modig posted:I know Conservative doesn't care about things like facts or counter examples, but seriously?? Atheists are fat and don't climb mountains?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2012 23:35
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:I saw Ron Reagan and was super confused all of a sudden. And of course, I'm sure there's absolutely no reason he specified Indian Christians, is there? Time Magazine posted:More surprising, perhaps, is just how rare divorce still is in India. Only about one in 100 marriages here ends in divorce compared with much higher percentages in the U.S. and in western European countries such as France and Germany. But the divorce rate is now rising in this country. In urban India it has doubled over the past five years, despite the fact that failed marriages remain a cause for shame in much of the country and that divorced people, especially women, continue to face fierce social stigmatization and often find it hard to remarry. The article's from 5 years ago, so I'm sure the rate has risen a bit, but not enough to keep it from being disingenuous to compare the divorce rate of atheists in a society accepting of divorce and Christians in a society that isn't.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2012 20:20
|
|
|
The weird thing about Conservapedia is that they spend a massive amount of time creating stupid pages that are just lol evolutionists are fat and stupid type stuff then they have no page at all for people who could actually help their argument such as Richard Smalley who was that rarest of creatures; a Nobel Prize winner (in Chemistry) and also a Young Earth Creationist. You'd think they'd be all over him but no, he doesn't even have a page.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2012 23:41
|
|
|
jojoinnit posted:The weird thing about Conservapedia is that they spend a massive amount of time creating stupid pages that are just lol evolutionists are fat and stupid type stuff then they have no page at all for people who could actually help their argument such as Richard Smalley who was that rarest of creatures; a Nobel Prize winner (in Chemistry) and also a Young Earth Creationist. You'd think they'd be all over him but no, he doesn't even have a page. Uh, that Wiki page says he's an Old Earth creationist. Which, for Conservapedians, is probably basically the same thing as being the lovechild of Lenin and Satan, since it doesn't accept that the Earth and the universe are only 6,000 years old.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 00:11
|
|
|
Igiari posted:Uh, that Wiki page says he's an Old Earth creationist. Which, for Conservapedians, is probably basically the same thing as being the lovechild of Lenin and Satan, since it doesn't accept that the Earth and the universe are only 6,000 years old. Oh. Who did I have him confused with?  So being both a Nobel Prize winning scientist and a believer in the Christian God isn't good enough for them? No wonder they keep referring to the same three people, all of whom work at Creation Ministries International.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 00:13
|
|
|
jojoinnit posted:So being both a Nobel Prize winning scientist and a believer in the Christian God isn't good enough for them? No wonder they keep referring to the same three people, all of whom work at Creation Ministries International. Clearly he isn't a real Christian you see, otherwise he'd believe what they believe. Furthermore, http://conservapedia.com/Nobel_prize posted:The Nobel Prize is an often-politicized award that is criticized for increasing evidence of bias and possibly even corruption. I don't think they give much of a poo poo about Nobel Prizes to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 00:42
|
|
|
jojoinnit posted:The weird thing about Conservapedia is that they spend a massive amount of time creating stupid pages that are just lol evolutionists are fat and stupid type stuff then they have no page at all for people who could actually help their argument such as Richard Smalley who was that rarest of creatures; a Nobel Prize winner (in Chemistry) and also a Young Earth Creationist. You'd think they'd be all over him but no, he doesn't even have a page.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 00:49
|
|
|
N00ba the Hutt posted:There's really no "they" here. It's one guy (Conservative) and his deranged crusade against liberals/scientists/atheists/gays/etc. I have no idea why Andy keeps Conservative around. I can only assume that Andy either feels sorry for the bastard (which would imply Andy is capable of empathy and can pick up social signals) or that Conservative has some very interesting Polaroids stashed somewhere. It's simpler than that. Conservative is conservative. He's the most conservative that it's possible to be! You can tell because his username is "Conservative"! And conservatives don't lie, because lying is a form of liberal deceit. Therefore, to get rid of him would be non-conservative.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 02:08
|
|
|
Parahexavoctal posted:It's simpler than that. Also he probably accounts for 50%+ of all new content. And he makes the other 50% of the new content look good by comparison.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 02:14
|
|
|
Lassitude posted:
Obama receiving one pretty much guaranteed that no American conservative would ever take the Nobel Prize seriously.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 02:41
|
|
|
llama_arse posted:Obama receiving one pretty much guaranteed that no American conservative would ever take the Nobel Prize seriously. Honestly the Nobel Prize for Peace is seen as a bit mickey mouse these days, but science? That's serious poo poo. I can't imagine anyone trying to argue that a Nobel Prize in Physics is just sort of handed out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 02:52
|
|
|
jojoinnit posted:Honestly the Nobel Prize for Peace is seen as a bit mickey mouse these days, but science? That's serious poo poo. I can't imagine anyone trying to argue that a Nobel Prize in Physics is just sort of handed out. Physics isn't real, therefore it's all made up. E: Also, "you know who used physics? That's right, the Nazis."
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 03:43
|
|
|
RPZip posted:Physics isn't real, therefore it's all made up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 03:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 17:30 |
|
|
kissekatt posted:Relativity is just a theory. However, Duetsche Physik rejection of "Jewish Physics". It would appear that the *real* Nazis are hkljh23511!$&(*+++ATH0
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 04:35
|
|
