Conservatives Definition of Obama

[Puppeteer Putin]

http://www.conservapedia.com/Barack_Obama

A friend sent this article to me today, it's the conservatives wiki, along with the tagline "The Trustworth Encyclopedia". Read on, does it fit your definition?

Post-election, Obama's aides surprised some by indicating that he would make an unprecedented speech within his first 100 days from a Muslim capital.[6] Obama will use his Muslim middle name when sworn into office.[7][8] Elected by claiming he's a Christian, Obama avoided attending church on Christmas and otherwise since Election Day.[9]

He will always be remembered for his lacking church attendance and his middle-eastern middle-name, because those characteristics might just hint at his terrorism supporting desires.

To announce his trip to Berlin in July 2008, Obama used posters which show a marked similarity to posters of Lenin.[13] During Obama's youth in Hawaii, he developed a strong, almost Father/Son relationship with Frank Marshall Davis, a known Communist.[14]

Big fat cup of McCarthyism anyone?

Doctors from the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons have stated that Obama uses techniques of mind control in his speeches and campaign symbols. For example, one speech declared, "a light will shine down from somewhere, it will light upon you, you will experience an epiphany, and you will say to yourself, 'I have to vote for Barack.'"[25]

Are they accurately recording the American President characteristic, achievements, and aims? Oh no wait, they're judging him before he has done anything, and being blatantly prejudice as well.

This entry is essentially the definition of Spin. I am aware that it is on a conservative encyclopedia but honestly, but none of it is presented objectively. It's just rallying hate against the future president. It looks like it was written by a KKK member. I honestly hope that the Conservatives don't recognize this elephant in the room.

For those that don't know the definition of spin doctoring, it's:
"a political party or member responsible for ensuring that others interpret an event from a particular point of view."

What do you reckon? Do you believe these sites should have the right to exist, especially when they claim to be historically accurate encyclopedias? If they were the conservative encyclopedia, could they record in detail and objectively, the aims and actions of republican party rather than judging their opponents through the bastardization of archiving?

 

[rossatdi]

Ah Conservapedia, because the truth has an unfair liberal bias.

Freedom of speech, has to be left to happen. Doesn't mean anyone will take it seriously though? Only the idiots who would normally be persuaded by right wing propaganda would fall for any of it anyway.

 

[Mr.Pandah]

Meh, I personally never pay attention to articles that only spew hatred for a man that we must support no matter what. He is our President after all (if you live in the US that is). I don't really put any faith in these signs of terrorism that the conservatives are so wrapped up in. While the conservatives are a part of the republican party, these appear to be the extremists within it.

I'll wait and see before I judge Obama's terms in office. I just have to laugh at the fact that his inauguration is 160million dollars+ at this point. Meanwhile Bush's was 24 million and Clinton's was 33 million. I wonder where all that taxpayer money is going...

 

[Hunde Des Krieg]

I don't see how someone's name has to do with anything related to terrorism, he was born in the US and as far as I am aware has always lived here. It's like saying that if my last name was Hitler (which is completely beyond my control) that I would be an anti-semite. Oh and mind control doesn't exist, unless you count evangelism.

Also, he went to church this morning, the pastor hugged Obama and his Wife.

 

[Trivun]

I think these sites still have a right to exist and to say what they like about someone (provided it isn't offensive, as that would be classed as slander), since this is what constitutes free speech. Of course, a site claiming to be historically accurate and truthful should only post information that can be shown to be definitely truthful and historically accurate. About Obama not attending church at Christmas or since his election victory, not all Christians attend church on a regular basis. I am Christian and don't attend church, although I have been to church on ocassion. Same applies to a flatmate who mentioned yesterday she used to go to church at her home in Liverpool but hasn't been to a church at all since arriving at university. As for the use of Obama's middle name, Hussein, that doesn't necessarily mean anything. In fact I would say it shows a (fundamentally Christian approved) willingness to embrace diversity and to show that not every Christian is a Bible-waving hardline Republican (yes, I know Obama is Democrat) who refuses to allow any middle ground in dealings with Muslims and the Middle East. With regards to the fact that he was friends with a known Communist, again that doesn't mean anything. I am a capitalist and will always remain so, despite constant pressure within my own Student Union to support socialism and communism from various socialist groups. However, I have no problem with communists even if I don't believe in their ideas and would happily be friends with a communist. It doesn't mean that I am one, and the same applies for Obama. Finally, use of mind control in speeches is just silly. It's like saying he hypnotised people into voting for him. 'Look into my eyes, you will vote Obama'. How stupid can you get?

 

[Liverandbacon]

Wait, I found conservapedia ages ago. I thought it was a humourous wiki ala Colbert?

But... They're serious!?

 

[Puppeteer Putin]

Ah Conservapedia, because the truth has an unfair liberal bias.

Freedom of speech, has to be left to happen. Doesn't mean anyone will take it seriously though? Only the idiots who would normally be persuaded by right wing propaganda would fall for any of it anyway.

I understand that, but it claims to be an encyclopedia. That is "a book or set of books containing articles on various topics, usually in alphabetical arrangement, covering all branches of knowledge or, less commonly, all aspects of one subject." They display one, and that's right wing bollocks.

They're slanting history, claiming to be a credible archival resource. For example if put in an entry about the Holocaust and ended the article with "oh, but it never happened, this is what the jews claimed" that is a blatant untruth, and those who claim that on media are chased down like the plague. Why not the same for bias in encyclopedias?

Yes perhaps only those that were prone to the propagandist in the first place will notice, but younger generations won't know this. If they find that whilst writing a school assignment, how are they to know it's political spin rather than fact?

 

[Trivun]

Wait, I found conservapedia ages ago. I thought it was a humourous wiki ala Colbert?

But... They're serious!?

Sadly yes.

 

[AnotherFineMess]

"Doctors from the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons have stated that Obama uses techniques of mind control in his speeches and campaign symbols."

Thank you, thank you so much. This just made my day.

Next thing you'll hear is that he's consorting with aliens to sell them earth.

 

[Hunde Des Krieg]

"Doctors from the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons have stated that Obama uses techniques of mind control in his speeches and campaign symbols."

Thank you, thank you so much. This just made my day.

Next thing you'll hear is that he's consorting with aliens to sell them earth.

You think I could buy part of Asia?

 

[LewsTherin]

It's Politics. Mudslinging is how they waste time until the next paycheck.

 

[rossatdi]

Conservapedia makes me want to throw up.

Apparently history stops being history if its anti-American. GRARARHH!

 

[Liverandbacon]

Wait, I found conservapedia ages ago. I thought it was a humourous wiki ala Colbert?

But... They're serious!?

Sadly yes.

And here I was thinking they were one of the funnier and subtler satirical wikis... damn.

 

[Puppeteer Putin]

Of course, a site claiming to be historically accurate and truthful should only post information that can be shown to be definitely truthful and historically accurate. About Obama not attending church at Christmas or since his election victory, not all Christians attend church on a regular basis. I am Christian and don't attend church, although I have been to church on ocassion. Same applies to a flatmate who mentioned yesterday she used to go to church at her home in Liverpool but hasn't been to a church at all since arriving at university. As for the use of Obama's middle name, Hussein, that doesn't necessarily mean anything. In fact I would say it shows a (fundamentally Christian approved) willingness to embrace diversity and to show that not every Christian is a Bible-waving hardline Republican (yes, I know Obama is Democrat) who refuses to allow any middle ground in dealings with Muslims and the Middle East. With regards to the fact that he was friends with a known Communist, again that doesn't mean anything. I am a capitalist and will always remain so, despite constant pressure within my own Student Union to support socialism and communism from various socialist groups. However, I have no problem with communists even if I don't believe in their ideas and would happily be friends with a communist. It doesn't mean that I am one, and the same applies for Obama. Finally, use of mind control in speeches is just silly. It's like saying he hypnotised people into voting for him. 'Look into my eyes, you will vote Obama'. How stupid can you get?

This is the point, it's inputting information that is objectively irrelevant. It's subtle use of language, the facts they choose to input rather than telling the whole story. I am fully aware that history is recorded by the victor but these facts are chosen to sway the mind of the undecided on a document that should "state the facts". They are grabbing the general audiences attention through a channel which is socially accepted as an credible source, the encyclopedia.

 

[kdragon1010]

Meh, I personally never pay attention to articles that only spew hatred for a man that we must support no matter what. He is our President after all (if you live in the US that is). I don't really put any faith in these signs of terrorism that the conservatives are so wrapped up in. While the conservatives are a part of the republican party, these appear to be the extremists within it.

I'll wait and see before I judge Obama's terms in office. I just have to laugh at the fact that his inauguration is 160million dollars+ at this point. Meanwhile Bush's was 24 million and Clinton's was 33 million. I wonder where all that taxpayer money is going...

Actually no you don't have to nor should you infact support him no matter what. Infact every American has the RESPONSIBILITY to voice thier objections to any actions taken by our elected officials.

That being said, don't object to his actions because you happen to not like his political party.

 

[AnotherFineMess]

"Doctors from the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons have stated that Obama uses techniques of mind control in his speeches and campaign symbols."

Thank you, thank you so much. This just made my day.

Next thing you'll hear is that he's consorting with aliens to sell them earth.

You think I could buy part of Asia?

At today's marked prices I don't think so. But surely after Obama uses he's awesomemindcontroltechniquesofdeath it will come at a more reasonable price. Thats when you should try it!

 

[dangerousdave_42]

personally if you are looking for a good honest conservative outlook on obama give this guy a chance he tends to avoid the more idiotic aspects of the exteame right
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gB4DFvWhfbQ&feature=channel_page

 

[rossatdi]

Ah Conservapedia, because the truth has an unfair liberal bias.

Freedom of speech, has to be left to happen. Doesn't mean anyone will take it seriously though? Only the idiots who would normally be persuaded by right wing propaganda would fall for any of it anyway.

I understand that, but it claims to be an encyclopedia. That is "a book or set of books containing articles on various topics, usually in alphabetical arrangement, covering all branches of knowledge or, less commonly, all aspects of one subject." They display one, and that's right wing bollocks.

They're slanting history, claiming to be a credible archival resource. For example if put in an entry about the Holocaust and ended the article with "oh, but it never happened, this is what the jews claimed" that is a blatant untruth, and those who claim that on media are chased down like the plague. Why not the same for bias in encyclopedias?

Yes perhaps only those that were prone to the propagandist in the first place will notice, but younger generations won't know this. If they find that whilst writing a school assignment, how are they to know it's political spin rather than fact?

I'm not saying its a defensible personal action for someone to take and I wish them all rapid transport to the made up hell they so believe in .... but, it's still their freedom to do it.

One would hope that a half decent education system that instilled the "no using wikipedia as a reference" would solve that rapidly. As soon as you try to source some of the more entertaining crap from Conservapedia you run into things like the suspiciously short article on the Crusades.

Ah, must leave it, anger building!

 

[kdragon1010]

personally if you are looking for a good honest conservative outlook on obama give this guy a chance he tends to avoid the more idiotic aspects of the exteame right
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gB4DFvWhfbQ&feature=channel_page

See conservatives can look at things reasonably once in a while