Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
It's funny.  Laugh.

damn_registrars's Journal: Conservapedia on Akin 100

Journal by damn_registrars
With all the news about Missouri republican senate candidate Todd Aiken's unbelievably idiotic statement about rape and pregnancy, I just had to know what the brilliant minds at Conservapeida (alternately "the trustworthy encyclopedia" or "the encyclopedia that only Jesus can edit", depending on whom you ask) had to say on it.

I just looked at their front page, and was not disappointed. Two amusing clips from their "news" column on the right-hand side of the page:

Liberal double standard: Politico punishes its reporter for saying something sympathetic about Todd Akin, while CNN is just fine with crass namecalling by its lackey Piers Morgan against Akin. Next week the liberal media might demand that other conservative candidates withdraw for restating other scientific facts.

and:

"Reports: Paul Ryan called Todd Akin" ... and the conservative Akin presumably told Ryan to stand up against media bullying for a change. [3] Don't be surprised if Akin wins but Romney-Ryan's weakness on social issues causes them to lose.

It's amusing to see how the world looks from their perspective once in a while...

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Conservapedia on Akin

Comments Filter:
  • It leads to EasyDomain.com. Ah.. Okay it's supposed to be conservapeida.com [conservapedia.com]

    Scientific facts, eh? But hey, c'mon, he's winning. That's gotta say something. I remember thinking Missouri was pretty hip to vote for a dead man over John Ashcroft during that senate race. Times change, I guess.

    • Oops. I accidentally entered it as a .org instead of the proper .com. Silly me, thinking the conservatives would run a non-profit anything. Thanks for pointing that out.

      On a different note, is there a connection between your name (fustakrakich) and a different name (mustakrakich) that used to be here on slashdot? Might just be coincidental...
    • by mcgrew (92797) *

      I remember thinking Missouri was pretty hip to vote for a dead man over John Ashcroft during that senate race.

      That was an abnormality for Missouri. That state is as red as a firetruck. Todd Achin' won the primary in a landslide, for instance. It almost always has a predominantly Republican state house and senate, and usually sends Republicans to Washington.

      Even the Democrats in Missouri are pretty conservative, although not as batshit insane as Perry or Gingrich or Ryan (especially the tea party Ryan from I

      • "batshit insane"... scam of the century. A nice ploy to scare people out of voting for anybody but a democrat. Just convinces me more that the democratic wing is behind this little charade. Personally I don't care how crazy they are. No democrat (or republican obviously) will ever get my vote. And before I hear the pissing and moaning about Nader, I will remind people that Bush won because people voted for Bush, not because of Nader. And I will also remind everybody that Lieberman was on Gore's ticket. That

        • And before I hear the pissing and moaning about Nader, I will remind people that Bush won because people voted for Bush, not because of Nader

          There were states that Bush won where the margin between Bush and Gore was less than the number of votes for Nader. While you could make the argument that perhaps some of the Nader voters would have otherwise abstained from voting, there sure as fuck weren't any voters who were thinking of voting for Bush who switched to the Nader camp.

          And I will also remind everybody that Lieberman was on Gore's ticket.

          Lieberman was indeed a poor choice for VP.

          That would be the secondary reason he lost. But the shills will never accept that.

          I would say the primary reason for Gore's loss was that he ran a terrible campaign. He was the VP of a very popular president,

          • There were states that Bush won where the margin between Bush and Gore was less than the number of votes for Nader.

            Totally and completely and utterly irrelevant. You cannot blame Bush's victory on anything but the people who voted for him (Bush). Everything else is pure bull-hockey. It's the damn democrats looking for someone besides themselves to blame for their own failure and to discourage conscientious voting. I do not accept the guilt trip they're trying to pull. Fuck them and their 'lessor of two evil

            • There were states that Bush won where the margin between Bush and Gore was less than the number of votes for Nader.

              Totally and completely and utterly irrelevant.

              No, it is not irrelevant. Just because you say it to be, does not make it so. The Nader votes helped GWB to win the election, without a doubt. Even the GOP realized that Nader could help them, which is why they paid for ads on his behalf.

              You cannot blame Bush's victory on anything but the people who voted for him (Bush).

              That would be true only if 100% of the people who wanted to vote, voted for who they wanted to vote for, and their votes were counted properly. We can blame the disastrous Bush presidency on those who voted for him, but his being appointed president was accomplished b

              • I will always side with the Nader voters as the only ones brave enough to take a chance. They stood up and told the other parties to bugger off. Like me they decided it wouldn't make a difference between Bush and Gore (Cheney - Lieberman). Of course we can't prove it outright, but historical precedent is on our side. You know, if Gore really wanted to draw the Nader voters to his side, he would have adopted more of Nader's platform, and of course he would have picked a different VP. So I'm not convinced he

          • Oh, and let me switch around for you. If the democrats that voted for Gore had voted for Nader, Bush would have lost the election. So there you go. I'm blaming them for Bush's victory.

        • by mcgrew (92797) *

          A nice ploy to scare people out of voting for anybody but a democrat.

          Both major parties want to put someone you love and/or respect in jail. You have friends and family members who smoke pot, IMO you wold be batshit insane to vote for a candidate who wants your loved ones in jail. Vote Libbie or Greenie instead, both those parties for legalization (my choice is Greenies, Libbies want to dismantle the EPA. RP is as nuts as Perry).

          • Both major parties want to put someone you love and/or respect in jail. You have friends and family members who smoke pot, IMO you wold be batshit insane to vote for a candidate who wants your loved ones in jail. Vote Libbie or Greenie instead, both those parties for legalization (my choice is Greenies, Libbies want to dismantle the EPA. RP is as nuts as Perry).

            I do respect you, mcgrew. However I do not personally see pot as being an important enough issue to warrant voting for a candidate who cannot possibly win.

            Furthermore -and I suspect we will not agree on this - I don't see the pot laws as being that oppressive. From my vantage point you are free to consume as much pot in private as you want, and getting it is not exactly difficult. I see the functional application of the law - in that the vast majority of people busted for pot are those who are under

            • Ah, so trapping almost a million people in the system and ruining their lives over the evil weed is okay for you? For shame. I expected better. Ah well.. And read MH_42's journal on voting alternative candidates. Good write up.

              • I'm not sure how you read what I wrote and came to that conclusion. That is a good example of why nothing ever changes in drug policy - people from both sides have their agendas and assumptions, and are unwilling to give an inch or a minute to anyone who does not agree 100% with them.
                R Which ends up having the additional effect of shutting out input from people who do not agree 100% with either, as they will be shut out by both.
                • When it comes to basic rights, there can be no compromise. It is time to take the offensive, and start protecting those rights, by whatever means necessary. No more bullshit. Nobody has any right whatsoever to lock people up for possession of a harmless plant. There is no scientific proof of any danger from it, none. The prohibitionist are working on pure irrational fear. Your mind is clouded by racist propaganda. That is a fact that can be scientifically proven. Your reaction is Pavlovian in nature. You ar

                  • Go back and actually read what I actually wrote, instead of just making shit up. Your assertions are based on nothing at all and clearly demonstrate that you did not read what I wrote. If you want to discuss what I wrote, come back and do that. You don't do anyone any favors when you just come here and make shit up and then use it to segue into slinging insults around.
                    • Oh, what? Are you now saying you're for abolishing prohibition? I read your post, and your reasoning for keeping it is weak and flawed. In fact it can hardly be called reasoning. So what if your against public intoxication. That is no justification by any reasonable standard to prop up the present day system. So then I will ask you outright a very simple question: If the proposition of abolishment comes up on the ballot, will you vote for it, or against? And don't try putting those silly conditions you brou

                    • Get lost. All you did was cherry pick two fragments from the post and try to use them to support your baseless assumptions. You clearly are not capable of actually discussing this issue with anyone who does not agree with you. I stated my viewpoint in a rational and civil manner and you countered by ignoring it and going straight for insults. You have demonstrated now at least three times in this discussion that you are completely incapable of having an actual discussion on this matter.

                      You are, at bes
                    • You clearly are not capable of actually discussing this issue...

                      Nope, it's that you feel the same about pot smokers as Mr. Akin feels about rape victims. You're in a fog. Your mind is shut like a trap. So funny that you try to turn it around. l_f (Red) has you pegged.

                      ...going straight for insults.

                      Nope, straight to the truth. Which apparently, you can't handle.

                      You are, at best, just as bad as the people who you try so hard to demonize.

                      Nope, I don't recommend locking people up for possession of the evil wee

                    • You just showed yet again that you have the reading comprehension abilities of a dung beetle. Add to that your pleasant-as-a-rabid-weasel personality and any reasonable person can see that you entered this discussion not wanting to discuss at all.

                      Are you actually coming here just to troll me and waste my time? Because I've seen better examples of that, too.
            • by mcgrew (92797) *

              However I do not personally see pot as being an important enough issue to warrant voting for a candidate who cannot possibly win.

              The only candidate that can possibly win in Illinois is Obama. So by your reasoning, anyone in Illinois who votes for Romney is wasting their vote.

              As to pot, if you get pulled over for anything while on your way home from buying it, if the pot's any good at all you're busted. There's a guy here in Springfield that's looking at a possible ten year prison sentence because his apartm

              • As to pot, if you get pulled over for anything while on your way home from buying it, if the pot's any good at all you're busted

                I am not aware of anyone who was pulled over after buying pot simply because a cop though they had purchased pot. I am not aware of any jurisdictions that would consider that to be sufficient cause to pull someone over.

                There's a guy here in Springfield that's looking at a possible ten year prison sentence because his apartment building caught fire in another apartment and the firefighters found the pot he was growing for his own consumption.

                I agree that is excessive for growing pot. Surprised? I'm sure someone else will still call me a fascist.

                the vast majority of people busted for pot are those who are under the influence while in public

                [citation needed].

                I'll confer that it is difficult to provide concrete numbers for this one way or the other. However, the hard core pro pot propaganda pushers (I do not consider you to be one of the

                • I am not aware of anyone who was pulled over after buying pot simply because a cop though they had purchased pot. I am not aware of any jurisdictions that would consider that to be sufficient cause to pull someone over.

                  There ya go, see? Do you actually dress up like Mr Akin when you say stupid shit like that?.

                  How dare I suggest compromise and moderation!

                  A reduced sentence for something you have absolutely no right to prohibit is not a compromise.

                  • I suspect you could find someone else to troll here if you wanted to - or you could just go back to under your bridge. You're not in this discussion for a conversation, so you'd might as well just leave.
                    • Yeah, don'tcha just hate it when you get called out? Must really suck...

                    • You could learn a lot from the trolls of years gone by... A disgustingly over-inflated ego doesn't help when you're trying to incite a response. I am way out of your league, kid.
                    • I am way out... there...

                      You are so right, man. You're fucking hilarious

                    • amateur.
                    • Well, see, you didn't take into account that I'm not trolling.

                    • Lying about trolling does not make trolling cease to be trolling.

                      The only thing you're good for is increasing the post count on this journal entry discussion. Unfortunately with you present there is no discussion (as you seek to not have a discussion), but there is an increase in the post count nonetheless.
                    • Lying about trolling... :-) Well, don't you remind me of another favorite Slashdot character... small world

                      What's to discuss? Nobody has the right to prohibit the possession of marijuana. You advocate otherwise. You are wrong. You simply don't have the right, and must use armed coercion to impose your will. And you vote for people to do just that. This makes armed resistance and all the ugliness it entails necessary. You ended the discussion with your vote. What could possibly come from a discussion except

                    • I noticed you added me to your "friends" list so you can more easily troll me. No, I won't make a journal entry about that.
                    • Damn, man! You're more paranoid than HomelessInLaJolla! Or.. could it possibly be.... nah... no way...couldn't happen.. gotta be an act..

                    • Don't get too proud of yourself. There is a feature you can turn on that sends you a message on slashdot when someone changes their relationship status regarding you. That's how I know that you added me to your "friends" list.
                    • No, your paranoia is about the trolling thing. I know how the message thing works. You're funny. Tragic, but funny, in the usual perverted way. Thanks for the laughs.

                    • Thank you for helping to increase the message count in this discussion, even though you are not participating in a discussion.
                • by mcgrew (92797) *

                  I am not aware of anyone who was pulled over after buying pot simply because a cop though they had purchased pot.

                  That's not what I said. You can get pulled over any time. Cracked tail light, touching the yellow line, doing 1 mph over the limit or even ten under the limit... have you never been pulled over, ever? If you have, had you been on your way home from a dope dealer with good weed in your pocket, you would have gone to jail.

                  The people they know who have been busted were caught because they were out i

                  • I am not aware of anyone who was pulled over after buying pot simply because a cop though they had purchased pot.

                    That's not what I said.

                    I did not intend to accuse you particularly of saying that. It is, however, something that a lot of the propagandists repeat frequently, and something that to the best of my knowledge has never happened.

                    You can get pulled over any time. Cracked tail light, touching the yellow line, doing 1 mph over the limit or even ten under the limit

                    Indeed.

                    have you never been pulled over, ever?

                    Yes I have. For some of the offenses you mention and others that you did not. I even was once pulled over twice in 10 minutes by the same cop who first claimed I was going too fast and then the second time that I was going too slow.

                    If you have, had you been on your way home from a dope dealer with good weed in your pocket, you would have gone to jail.

                    What if it's bad weed? (for whatever good weed means) I've k

                    • I did not intend to accuse you particularly of saying that. It is, however, something that a lot of the propagandists repeat frequently, and something that to the best of my knowledge has never happened.

                      Another Todd Akin post to add to my collection. TNX

                      I don't seek to press criminal charges...

                      But you vote for people who do. And evidently half a million people in jail for weed is statistically insignificant. How do you resolve that? Ah, that's right. You only believe the government propaganda, like the piec

                    • by mcgrew (92797) *

                      It is, however, something that a lot of the propagandists repeat frequently, and something that to the best of my knowledge has never happened.

                      I agree that it seems very unlikely to ever happen. People who stretch the truth do little to advance their cause.

                      What if it's bad weed? (for whatever good weed means)

                      You probably won't get caught unless there's a dope dog in the cop car, in which case you're busted. The good stuff has a very strong, distinctive smell and you don't need to be a dog to know when someo

                    • Depending how the day goes, and if I'm in the mood, I'll try to help your comment count reach a hundred, or more.

                      How very kind of you. I have never seen so many comments from someone who had no interest in actually participating in a discussion.

                    • Can't discuss anything with someone who refuses to acknowledge or even address their problem, as you just did in your response. Of course I gave you an easy out with the last sentence of my post. Don't know how you would have responded without it, but there you are. With you it's talking to the hand. A psychologist is what you actually need. But you have to make that first step, followed quickly by the second for even that to help.

                    • I will give you a clue - which you will likely reject out of hand because you don't read what I write. If you enter in to a discussion - as you attempted to do - you need to actually read what the other person says before you can accurately asses their motives and the meaning of their writing. If you instead do what you opted for and take only snippets which you apply your own spin to, you cannot call yourself a participant in the discussion.

                      You came to this journal entry discussion, and then proceede
                    • ...you don't read what I write.

                      Of course I did. I even posted the relevant parts. You're simply trying to deny you said it. Those 'snippets' are the meat of your opinion. The rest is pink slime. You have all the traits of of your regular politician there. If you believe in freedom, you will vote for freedom, regardless the consequences. But, you don't. You simply go along like a good fascist. Because that is what you are doing, enabling fascism as passively as possible. What you meant by what you wrote is m

                    • You are way, way, too far gone to make an argument for having actually read my posts. You had many, many, chances to go back and read them, but at every opportunity you elected not to. You could have admitted earlier to have not read the posts with any degree of concern, and we could have had a discussion. Instead, you dug in your heels and insisted on sticking to the outright lies you were spreading based on what is barely even fair to call an incomplete reading of my writing.

                      Honestly, what is it you
                    • I forgot to add... The snippets I posted represent your actions, or what you actually do. It makes all your other words meaningless, because they are just empty words. So I have to treat you like any other politician who does exactly the same thing. Acknowledge your actions, and let's talk about them, not your words, which right now ring quite hollow.

                    • Ahh. Perhaps you're not illiterate, and you're just obnoxiously arrogant? Now you are claiming that you have the ability to tell people what they actually mean by what they write.

                      Well, let me tell you that you are just fucking wrong on that matter. You can make all the assumptions you want, but that doesn't mean they will come true just because you want them to. I wrote what I mean, and you need to either take the full text of the message or none of it. You don't get to decide which snippets you li
                    • obnoxiously arrogant

                      Exactly the words I was thinking about you. Just in case you weren't a moron, which apparently you actually are. Actions are one thing, words are another. Yours are patently absurd. And your actions are asinine. So, can can be nothing to discuss. You are a prohibitionist, a lazy one at that, who lifts not a finger against the injustice of it. That's almost worse than the activist ones. Since you refuse to see your problem, I see little hope for you. Try to stay out of the crossfire.

                      You d

                    • I've tried to have a conversation with you, though you have refused to actually have one. You instead come here to troll me. I have asked you nicely to either discuss what is being discussed - rather than making shit up the way you have preferred - or leave. Instead you keep coming back to troll some more. I haven't seen any person in this discussion respond positively to you - is your goal just to annoy people?

                      Because frankly, in comparison to you, I've seen better demonstration of language compreh
                    • I didn't make anything up

                    • With your extensive record of lying I guess you would see no incentive to start telling the truth now.
                    • I merely pointed out inconsistency in your statements, nothing else. I gain nothing by lying.

                    • I merely pointed out inconsistency in your statements

                      You did no such thing. More so, the way you cherry picked small portions of sentences it was impossible for you do have any chance of doing so. If you don't choose any full statements, let alone multiple statements, it is impossible for you do accomplish showing "inconsistency".

                      nothing else

                      You are again lying about the lying you have done.

                      I gain nothing by lying.

                      So now that you have reached that revelation, will you take back your previous lies? Somehow I doubt it. In fact my money is on you continuing to lie instead.

                    • You did no such thing.

                      Of course I did. You must be thinking of something else.

                      ...will you take back your previous lies?

                      How can I take back what I never gave, or even had? You're delusional. You remind me of another guy who always accused people of lying. Are you his evil twin?

                      Funny how you learn nothing when your nose is rubbed into your own shit.

                      Passive, submissive, AND aggressive... That's interesting. Almost like a 2 minute hate.

                    • I have demonstrated plainly where you have lied in these discussions. You respond by lying about lying. It appears that you are far too arrogant to take back your lies. You would do us all a favor by just leaving. You very plainly have no interest in having a discussion anyways.
                    • I haven't lied. And your use of the word 'arrogant' is quite ironic.

                      You must learn that prohibition is evil. And you have no right to impose it, directly or indirectly. Your rationalizations for doing so are as absurd as Todd Akin's in his spiel... This is your run in a nutshell. Where's the lie?

                    • I could show you your lie yet again, though history shows that would make no difference. I have shown your lies on multiple occasions and you have responded only with more lies. You really would do yourself well to find a new hobby.
                    • Spoken like a true, for real alcoholic... Look in the mirror, boy

                    • You weren't reluctant to make shit up before in spite of evidence right in front of your face, so I'm not the least bit surprised that you would make shit up out of thin air.
                    • It is, however, something that a lot of the propagandists repeat frequently, and something that to the best of my knowledge has never happened.

                      I agree that it seems very unlikely to ever happen. People who stretch the truth do little to advance their cause.

                      I knew you and I could find some points of common ground eventually.

                      The good stuff has a very strong, distinctive smell and you don't need to be a dog to know when someone has a bag of good weed in their pocket.

                      Thank you for the clarification. I didn't know that the difference between the good stuff and the crap was often within the realm of what a person can smell. I happen to have a really terrible sense of smell - to the point where I can hardly tell the difference between tobacco smoke and pot smoke (they just both make me want to vomit) - and not much first-hand experience with the not-yet-smoked stuff.

                      If you want stoned people to be allowed to go in public and do whatever the hell they want to do, that is part of your values.

                      Well, "whatever they want to do" is a bit lax. If they're being a nuisance that's different.

                      From my vantage point, someone who

                    • I want the same for stoners.

                      That's requires that you vote for somebody to provide that. If you don't, then you are not being truthful. But, like you said, alleviating their suffering is not a priority (However I do not personally see pot as being an important enough issue to warrant voting for a candidate who cannot possibly win.), being in the middle of the herd is... where it's nice and safe. Centrism is so lazy.

                    • Libertarians get no respect [rawstory.com]... The republican crazy act is working. Everybody is running away from the opposition parties.

                    • Wow, that is the closest to not lying you have come since you started trolling me in this thread. Now if you could just get your mind around the fact that not everyone sees marijuana as the most important issue facing our country you might manage to display the discussion abilities of a well-trained basset hound. Some of us see that between the two candidates who do have legitimate chances of winning, there are real and meaningful consequences if one wins over the other. If we vote for neither we could e
                    • The post remains consistent with what I've said all along. It is you that refuses to see your own contradictions. My needs aren't important. That is only a rationalization on your part to dismiss the argument out of hand. It is you who consider the lives of and justice for over half a million people as unimportant. It's not about a desire to waste money to seek them out and lock them up, it's that you don't give a damn and vote for people who do.That's just as bad if not worse. Go ahead and vote for your li

                    • by mcgrew (92797) *

                      (However I do not personally see pot as being an important enough issue to warrant voting for a candidate who cannot possibly win.)

                      I'm in Illinois where the only candidate that has a ghost of a chance of winning is Obama. Folks in Texas have only one viable candidate: Romney. In fact, there are only half a dozen states where your Presidential vote makes any difference at all.

                      Voting for someone who wants your loved ones imprisoned is insane, no matter who has a chance of winning. Vote your conscience.

                    • Thank you! That's the message I'm trying and failing to get across.

                      Voting for someone who wants your loved ones imprisoned is insane...

                      And arrogant... This guy is a textbook case of an alcoholic in denial. The same principles apply in many facets of life. And we're seeing it action right here.

                      If enough people stand up and resist, their vote will be counted. But only one percent are brave enough to make a stand. He's not one of them. Centrism is not only lazy, it's cowardly.

                    • You can deny your obvious trolling all you want, that doesn't make it cease to be trolling. You never wanted a discussion, you wanted only to waste my time or to try to anger me. You wouldn't know insight if it fell into your coffee. What I write in response to your comment doesn't matter, since you will just cherry pick the parts that you find most interesting - or just simply make shit up in their place - and then write a reply that shows you have no understanding of what I have actually written.
                    • There you go again, with your paranoid delusions. You need help, man.

                    • Hmmm. You have stated on more than one occasion that multiple people are out to hurt you personally. That pretty well eliminates and credibility you have to call other people "paranoid".
                    • You are another sorry excuse for a troll that leaves me missing the trolls we used to have here.
                    • by admdrew (782761)
                      This.
                    • Yeah, I watched them have their way with you, make you look like goatse, and all I get are sloppy seconds. But I feel vindicated in knowing you got it all wrong. Being the good sport that I am however, I shall concede the internet over to you. Congratulations!

                      Tag! You're it!

                    • So you've watched actual trolls in the past, and this is the best you can do? Really? You've got a long ways to go, kid.
              • The anti-pot people are stupid.

                Read the source of his propaganda [prisonpolicy.org] (pdf), it's almost word for word. Notice how they try to individualize and break down each bust to reduce the numbers.

          • ...both those parties for legalization...

            Yes, easy for them to say this now, from a position with no clout. Once in, they will do just like Obama, and "keep Guantanamo open" so to speak.

            • by mcgrew (92797) *

              Well, if they actually get elected and become anti-pot, then they don't get my vote again.

              • Well, what the hell, I'll give 'em a shot. Can't know for sure until we try, right? Just don't go back to dem or rep if they screw up. And I, for one, will never allow this to die just to be on the winning side, like some people are so willing to do. I may be harsh with my words, but I don't troll with my vote, putting real people in harm's way. I think what's he's doing is absolutely shameful. "Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos." indeed. Absent something very traumatic, I can't expect him to understand. Su

  • I'm not exactly an Akin apologist. He's mult-level daft, overall. But here is a related post: http://theothermccain.com/2012/08/21/separated-at-birth-kerry-gauthier-gerry-connolly-edition/ [theothermccain.com]
    • Actually I wouldn't doubt this is a 'plot' to distract people from Romney's tax issue. Gives him more time to doctor ^W amend his returns for public viewing. I'm not sure where you stand on this, but to me, if he wants the gig, he has to cough up the info we demand, or should be demanding. That's the price of authority.. well a small part of the price anyway. Also why should anybody vote for a man that hates his own country so much that he tries to hide his money overseas to evade (legally, but so what?) ta

      • amend his returns for public viewing

        Oh get stuffed, will you?
        If the IRS had determined that Romney's returns were not in order, he should have been audited, no?
        This whole 'Romney the tax cheat' meme is a foul thing straight out of a fascist regime in a prior century.
        That the Obama campaign beats this drum is a public confession of intellectual bankruptcy.

        • Don't care. If he wants the job, he has to give it up. That's all there is to it. Very easy to understand, requires no clarification. When we ask questions we should demand answers or tell them to GTFO. In fact we should waterboard them over it, just so they know what torture is before they sign the next order approving it. Anybody performing or approving a waterboarding should be subject to it since it's so harmless. This goes for all of them. And hey, we can even include birth certificates to make you fee

          • Oh, you mean like BHO's college transcripts?
            I Am. So. Sick. To. Death. Of. The. Asymmetry.
            • Boy oh boy, did you ever fall into that age old trap. Condemnation of one signifies the endorsement of the other, right?. Do many people end up in jail over college transcripts?.. No? Eh... Oh well. Are college transcripts responsible for the theft of my pension and wrecking the economy? No? Damn! Tax cheats on the other hand.. well maybe now we'll find out where those pensions went.

              Ah, but I'm quibbling. The guy you think I endorse is busying committing murder, torture and other war crimes, spying on us, s

        • This whole 'Romney the tax cheat' meme...

          You must have skipped over the part where I specifically said his moves are legal (but we don't know for sure, do we?), but for a man who wants to rule over us, are completely unethical. If he believed in America he would invest in America... Does it feel weird that this is your only hope of getting rid of Obama, and he's totally and utterly unqualified for the gig, but you gotta vote for him anyway? Eh, just think of it as latrine duty, and, as they say, just lie do

          • You must have skipped over the part

            Wow. someone (you) with a demonstrated lack of ability to comprehend the written word* just accused someone of having not read a post well. Fascinating.

            *The other option is that you were flat-out lying about what you did and did not read. I prefer to not initially assume anyone to be a liar.

            • Nope, you spelled out quite clearly that you're a prohibitionist, willing to let hundreds of thousands of people to rot for political expediency. There's no doubt about that. That's not an insult, by the way. It's just what you are.

              • I spelled out no such thing and no reasonable person could possibly come to that conclusion if they were to actually read what I wrote.

                So are you incapable of reading and actually comprehending the English language, or are you lying about actually reading what I wrote? Those are the only possible explanations at this point.
                • I spelled out no such thing...

                  Of course you did.. It's right there in your post. You said the pot laws, laws responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands, and the suffering of hundreds of thousands more, are not that oppressive* (first they came after the pot smokers, but I don't care, because I don't smoke pot...), spoken like a true armchair... something or another. You are clueless (or sadistic in willful ignorance) on the pain you cause, yes, YOU! It is YOU that throws them into the cell to be raped

          • Look, the entire point of the tax return argument is to create a doubt about Romney's veracity.
            Your retreat to a 'just asking questions' position is falsehood with a veneer of glib.
            You are encouraged to fall off the planet.
            • :-) Right, it's not like these people lie, cheat, and steal or anything. What good for the goose (us) is good for the gander (them). If you want to keep crooks and liars on a pedestal, that's fine, just don't complain when people point it out to you. I've hit a nerve with you, that's a good thing. It means we're finally getting to the meat of the matter. Nobody else seems to have gotten through to you this way. Maybe now we can help you see the truth of the consequences of what you're doing as you prop them

            • P.S. Just went over to your site. Definitely explains the hostility, and your rabid, irrational support for the man. Reminds me of the guy from National Lampoon who said, "Anything but Nixon, man. A blender, anything...." Funny how neatly the pieces fall together. Couldn't ask for more. I am utterly fascinated by this, more so after so many years of observation. It confirms all.

  • I got as far as the "Arguments Against Relativity" thing linked from the front page...

    Conservapedia is obviously false-flag, most likely part of Operation Mindfuck.

    It's even better than the old White Heroes Opposing Red Extremism gag.

    • by unitron (5733)

      "Conservapedia is obviously false-flag...:"

      Do the people who come up with the content for that site know that?

      'Cause it looks like genuine "you can't make that stuff up" crazy.

      • I prefer to think that the owners of such sites are unwitting pawns in The Great Discordian Conspiracy.

        It helps keep me sane... I think.

  • This is a new record for my journal entries. Too bad a large portion of the comments came from someone trolling me.

    I've heard other JEs have had more comments in their discussions, but this is the most I've seen in one of mine.

How often I found where I should be going only by setting out for somewhere else. -- R. Buckminster Fuller

Working...