Well, you might be if you rely on Conservapedia’s main page for your news updates. Then again, chances are, if you do use CP as your main news source, you’re also fed with a spoon and use crayons to write, so being confused probably isn’t your biggest problem.

Looking at CP’s main page, however, not only do you have to deal with a range of front page news reports ranging from “Bin Laden dead!” to “Bush not given credit for his dead!” to “Bin Laden died years ago” to “Is Bin Laden dead?” to “Show us the DNA!”, you’re also faced with Andrew Schalfly worrying that Bin Laden wasn’t given a decent Muslim funeral. This from a right-wing hate blog that:

  • states that Islam is “one of the world’s most violent religions” – a fact ignored by liberals, of course;
  • carries articles such as “Islamonazism” and “Sudden Jihan Syndrome” and that Allah isn’t God
  • makes much of Mohammed’s marriage to the 6-year-old Aisha
  • claims that sharia compliant investments enable “racketeering, antitrust activity, securities fraud, consumer fraud and material support for terror.”

So, it’s really comforting to see Andy being so concerned about the correct burial of a mass-murdering fuckhead. It’s amazing just how low Schlafly can stoop in order to feed his own festering jealousy-induced hatred of Obama. Maybe Mama Schlafly beat him for losing the HLR presidency to an affirmative action candidate and Andy never got over it.

Of course, as with all things, the real fun lies behind the scenes, where Andy is called upon to actually defend his bullshit. Well, the it of buushit that gets through, after loyal swabbie Brian Macdonald runs around blocking people for asking awkward questions. Because in true conservative style, you’re supposed to just sit down, shut up and allow Andy and his goons to force their bitter, twisted view of the world down your throat.

Let’s have a look at some of Andy’s greatest hits, taken off the main page’s talk page:

  • “Remember the public criticism of Al Gore after he tried to take credit for the internet?–Andy Schlafly 19:11, 2 May 2011 (EDT) ” – in repsonse to his calling Obama’s speech “self-serving”
  • “William, the phrase “virtual match” is typically not used in connection with DNA. It would be like saying that “2+2” “virtually equals 4.” When someone claims that DNA was a “virtual match,” then the obvious implication is that it was not a real match.” Andy fails biology 101, not to mention taking information from news broadcasts as being correct..–Andy Schlafly 10:59, 3 May 2011 (EDT)
  • “If this were a case of mistaken identity about Bin Laden, would Obama admit it? Reagan admitted and apologized for the Persian Gulf missile mistake made during his Administration, but Obama is no Reagan.It’s very easy to release the DNA evidence and photos. But that’s not being done and millions of people from all across the political spectrum are doubting the unproven claims of the Obama Administration about this.”–Andy Schlafly 15:48, 3 May 2011 (EDT)  Andy basically saying Obama couldn’t organise a piss-up in a brewery and isn’t a Reagan and unless Andy personally checks the DNA (seriously folks, we’re heading back into Lenski territory here) Osama is alive and well and mowing Andy’s lawn every Tuesday.
  • “Really??? How is a new video released in the likely event that bin Laden died years ago???–Andy Schlafly 16:30, 3 May 2011 (EDT) ” Here Andy reveals his Deathist credentials – “in the likely event bin laden died years ago.” Sure Andy – and George Bush covered it up, so Obama could win the election. Must be that mind control of his.
  • “To anyone who accepts the official and self-contradictory story, do you support transparency or not? What is the value of the internet and free speech if one is going to insist on automatically accepting whatever story is told by a politician?–Andy Schlafly 00:14, 4 May 2011 (EDT) ” Aha! Classic Andy – pose a question, so that any further questioning of your batshit insane positions can be met with “You you support transparency? Then agree with me!” The irony of the last part is fantastic – given how speaking up against the Iraq War was an immediate banning offence when Bush was in the White House. Because, you know, St George would never lie about WMD or links to al Qaeda, to get his hands on cheap oil.
  • “There is no “conspiracy theory” in requesting transparency, and in asking questions when such transparency is surprisingly denied.–Andy Schlafly 00:16, 4 May 2011 (EDT) ” Once again, Andy is almost saying, “Show me the DNA!”
  • “It’s hearsay to “hear” and then repeat what she “said”, and expect people to believe that. In this case, there it is actually several layers of hearsay, sometimes called double or triple hearsay. The woman herself could get on TV and say what she saw, and then be asked questions about it, but that hasn’t happened and I don’t expect it to.–Andy Schlafly 18:39, 3 May 2011 (EDT) ” Andy fails Law School 101. It makes you wonder just what his mummy spent all that money for on a Harvard education.
  • “No, I don’t see anything wrong about the headline. I made clear that if the woman were to make a new statement on TV and take questions, which hasn’t happened, then that would not be hearsay.–Andy Schlafly 21:56, 3 May 2011 (EDT) ” Andy basically saying that everything reporters say is hearsay. Or for that matter, everything in the Bible is hearsay, especially as Andy hasn’t Moses or Noah or St Paul on TV telling him the Bible actually happened.

Never a dull moment when Andrew Schalfly is taking his crazy toes out for a run.

About PsyGremlin

PsyGremlin is a former Conservapedia sysop (although the position was earned nefariously), stand up comedian, DJ, and is currently a self-employed financial adviser, who impersonates a responsible adult at least 5 days a week. However, highlighting and poking fun at the crazies out there remains his first love. Well besides pork crackling. And custard. And cricket.
This entry was posted in Andrew Schlafly, Conservapedia, Deathists, Obama and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Confused?

  1. WWWWolf says:

    > Remember the public criticism of Al Gore after he tried to take credit for the internet?

    How could we *not* remember it? Conservapedia’s article on Internet is ~50% devoted on the topic.

    I mean, it’s obvious homeschooled children do not need to know about the networking concepts, hardware, protocols, and the present and emerging applications built on this fine platform. Just a few words on those. The *rest* is about that Al Gore fellow and that one time when he chose his words a bit badly.

    But hey, when you divert the discussion to irrelevant directions, you get exactly what you expect.

    • cpmonitor says:

      That’s one of the best examples of just how CP has wandered off mission. It’s all very well for Andy to say “all issues are political issues” but when everyday articles become mired in waffle like this, there’s something wrong.

      Then again, it’s not as if CP pretends to be an encyclopaedia anymore.

  2. Pi says:

    This summaries Schlafly vs intelligent person perfectly:

Comments are closed.