We have always been at war with Eurasia!

I was originally going to write about Terry Hurlbut’s latest masturbatory fantasy about how fantastic life would be if Ayn Rand’s world was a reality. However, it just boils down to the revolting little man saying “I’m not paying taxes to support other people. If they aren’t as successful as I am, screw them.” Of course, he hasn’t thought it out in what passes for his mind, so outside of his talking point, he doesn’t have a clue. It’s all very well to say that governments shouldn’t pay for schools or hospitals, parents should, but who pays the teachers, pays for the upkeep of the schools?

He seems to live in some sort of weird fantasy world (then again, we are talking about a man who believes the Loch Ness monster and Champ are real) where if people have more disposable income, due to reduced taxes, they’ll give more to the charities running the schools and hospitals. Remember, we’re talking about America here – the consumer whore of the world. Sure all that extra cash would go towards charity.

So, I’m not going to waste any more time on this pathetic, bitter little man.

Instead, I’m going to focus on another pathetic, bitter little man and his ongoing efforts to twist reality to suit his own skewed view of the world. I’m speaking, of course, about Andrew Schlafly and the “trustworthy” encyclopaedia, Conservapedia.

You see, it’s election time in the US of A and Schlafly is frantic that the Republicans have a candidate to defeat his nemesis from HLR days, President Obama. Of course, the best candidate for Schlafly is one as crazy as himself, which means he aligned himself firmly with Rick Santorum and to a lesser degree Newt Gingrich. Yes, the man who hates women and the serial adulterer.

However, it must be said that Schlafly kept everybody guessing for a bit. He complained that Santorum’s “senseless instance (sic)” on staying in the race, was depriving Newt of victory in Florida. He even called a vote for Santorum a vote for the “pro-abortion side of the Republican Party.” However, when Santorum won in Minnesota and Missouri (and no doubt upped his crazy talk) he suddenly became “conservative.”

However, one thing that was constant was that Mitt Romney was the RINO of the bunch. After all, not only had he introduced “Romneycare” into his home state, but he was also apparently pro-choice. Needless to say, both of these are massive no-nos in Schlafly’s world, so much so that the Florida primary went from “the biggest day of the Presidential election 2012” to “The lamestream media continue to overhype today’s Florida primary, to boost abortion-supporting Mitt Romney’s chances to win the Presidential Election 2012.” All in the space of 4 days.

A quick glance through some of the headlines on Conservapedia’s mainpage should make CP’s attitude towards Romney pretty clear:

  • Today, Romney said he believes that humans are somewhat responsible for climate change. Will this affect Romney’s 2012 Presidential aspirations?
  • A winning percentage of votes for conservatives Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich would increase doubts that RINO Mitt Romney should be the nominee.
  • A “dream ticket” of conservatives Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich for the Presidential Election 2012 is possible, as their combined delegate totals increase at a faster rate than RINO Mitt Romney’s.  After adjustment for the challenged delegates improperly given to Romney by Florida, Romney’s delegate lead over the field has essentially evaporated.
  • Conservative landslides in the Mississippi and Alabama primaries: Rick Santorum wins both and Mitt Romney fails to gain even a third of the vote. A frontrunner who repeatedly finishes in third place?
  • RINOs can muster only 21% for Mitt Romney.  A Republican nominee for president who wins only 21% in his own primary in Kansas??
  • Even Mitt Romney’s biggest supporters — the lamestream media — admit that he fell short on Super Tuesday of what he needed, and now Romney will likely lose big in Alabama and Mississippi next Tuesday.

And so on.  By comparison, Schlafly was waxing almost orgasmic over Santorum. (Yes, I know, unfortunate… but intentional… choice of words.) Here’s a few examples:

  • Despite being outspent by a 4-1 margin by RINOs, conservative Rick Santorum is in a tight race for the pivotal Wisconsin primary for the Presidential Election 2012. Santorum said in response to Mitt Romney’s smear tactics, “Calling Rick Santorum a friend of labor is like calling Mitt Romney a conservative. Neither are true.”
  • Liberal double standard: the lamestream media publicizes how conservative Rick Santorum cursed at a ”New York Times” reporter, but how often does the media publicize cursing by Democrats?
  • A “dream ticket” of conservatives Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich is increasingly likely

Needless to say, everybody in the real world knew that Romney had the nomination in the bag, and eventually Santorum threw in the towel. Now, if there’s one thing Schalfly doesn’t like, it’s losers. We’ve already seen him turn on George W Bush and John McCain in the past and now it was no different. All of a sudden, we went from the “great conservative hope” to Santorum being a stalking horse for Romney, who would likely endorse him. Schlafly even went as far as to throw together a “Mystery” about why Santorum threw in the towel.

Suddenly, Schlafly was faced with a likely Republican nominee that not only didn’t he agree with, but that he’d slated publicly on CP. This could not be. You see, in what passes for Schlafly’s mind, there are no shades of gray. You are either the true-blue, conservative Republican nominee, or you’re not. There MUST a united front… he even laughingly proposed that his heretical conservative Bible could be the basis for uniting all the candidates of different faiths.

Once again Schalfly sets out to alter the truth on Conservapedia, to the one that suits him. It’s fairly obvious that the man has no backbone and cannot stand up for anything. Instead of saying “the Republicans have nominated a candidate with whom I do not agree” he now delves back into CP’s history and in true Ministry of Truth style, begins changing things to suit the New Truth.

Here’s a few examples:

  • Reference to “multiple choice Mitt” is removed from the article
  • Reference to his family’s money is removed, although the RINO tag remains
  • Reference to him being “to the left of Ted Kennedy” is removed
  • His name was removed from the PLINO (pro-life in name only) article

No doubt we’ll see many more examples to come as the election draws near, but even these are enough to show that Conservapedia is not an encyclopaedia, but merely a forum for Schlafly to spout whatever version of the truth happens to suit him at a particular moment.

Of course, one thing we all know is coming: when Romney loses to Obama, it’ll be because he’s a filthy RINO, and if only the GOP had put forward a true conservative like Santorum or Gingrich, all would have been well.

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, Terry Hurlbut and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to We have always been at war with Eurasia!

  1. T of P says:

    Romney wilkl become more and more of a “conservative” on CP (watch for the RINO tag to disappear between now and the convention in the near term. When he loses in November, he will go back to being a moderate-Republican-pro-choice-Romneycare-passing RINO, and Andy will be free to crow about how if only the party had listened to him and chosen a True Conservative ™, they would have won.

    • PsyGremlin says:

      Oh absolutely. I’m just waiting for the “Conservapedia proven right” post. Because, as you know, all good en cyclopaedias give commentary and make projections.

  2. Pi says:

    I think what we are seeing is the beginning of the divorce between the evangelicals and the GOP. Before 1979 this group didn’t even vote until Reagan managed to convince them that they were on their side about abortion and gay rights. However people that have these two issues as their major deciding factor in voting are dying out and the GOP is faced with the choice of abandoning this shrinking, but dedicated demographic, or heading to irrelevancy. Last election Farah wrote a book calling for a boycott of the election entirely until the GOP starts putting forward more conservative candidates and already there is a book discussing the possibility of a future third party as it looked inevitable Romney would win. You only have to look at how the GOP overplayed their hand on birth control, something that is no longer controversial, in an attempt to rally the troops ahead of the election. When conservative states are rejecting your proposal by 79% you are standing on the wrong side of history.

Comments are closed.