Conservatives Definition of Obama

[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?

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!

Haha, fair enough. I'm probably raging a little myself but I feel it shouldn't be allowed in THIS format. And as I said, I do think those who wish to express themselves may as long as their prepared to whether the backlash.

My HUGE, Unwavering issue is that it's claims to be an encyclopedia, yes in Wiki format but not everyone knows that. Wiki is ironically more reliable because of the amount of peer-review those articles receive.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

Conservapedia makes me want to throw up.

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

It certainly seems that way.

There is something deeply disturbing about the inability of American culture to actually accept that anything it does or has done has been in any way wrong. Torture in Guantanamo bay is an example - they said it wasn't really torture not because people weren't treated extremely badly and had inhumane treatment inflicted upon them, but merely because Americans did it, and therefore couldn't have been wrong.

 

[Aardvark Soup]

I seriously found that pretty funny. I'm still wondering wheter the people behind conservapedia truly are that stupid or most of them are making these articles as clever satire of conservatism. Probably a bit of both.

 

[kdragon1010]

Conservapedia makes me want to throw up.

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

It certainly seems that way.

There is something deeply disturbing about the inability of American culture to actually accept that anything it does or has done has been in any way wrong. Torture in Guantanamo bay is an example - they said it wasn't really torture not because people weren't treated extremely badly and had inhumane treatment inflicted upon them, but merely because Americans did it, and therefore couldn't have been wrong.

Yeah it was wrong, but seriously what would have happended if any government official had said as much? Not a whole lot it would have gone something like this: "we're sorry it was wrong of us to do that, now if you'll look at this picture of a pony while we pretend like this never happend this will be much less frustrating"

 

[Puppeteer Putin]

Conservapedia makes me want to throw up.

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

It certainly seems that way.

There is something deeply disturbing about the inability of American culture to actually accept that anything it does or has done has been in any way wrong. Torture in Guantanamo bay is an example - they said it wasn't really torture not because people weren't treated extremely badly and had inhumane treatment inflicted upon them, but merely because Americans did it, and therefore couldn't have been wrong.

Well their justification was based on gaining information on the War on terror and preventing future attacks. Or so that claim, not that case at Abu Ghraib scandal.

History should never BE bias, this is my issue. Any authentic historical record would say "Guantanamo broke human rights laws and the public opinion of the time was blah blah blah", instead those who are historically ignorant and wish to portray their own bias will say "Guantanamo hurt innocent people, they were guilty before proven innocent", essentially these are saying the same thing, but it's the use of language, there is no point over that sentence where anyone could argue one way or the other, it doesn't lend itself to debate.

 

[JWAN]

well its harsh,
but for being all about the poor he sure has not spread his wealth around a lot.

 

[Art Axiv]

What if ... they are right there somewhere? Just a thought. I find it funny as well.

 

[rossatdi]

Conservapedia makes me want to throw up.

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

It certainly seems that way.

There is something deeply disturbing about the inability of American culture to actually accept that anything it does or has done has been in any way wrong. Torture in Guantanamo bay is an example - they said it wasn't really torture not because people weren't treated extremely badly and had inhumane treatment inflicted upon them, but merely because Americans did it, and therefore couldn't have been wrong.

Yeah it was wrong, but seriously what would have happended if any government official had said as much? Not a whole lot it would have gone something like this: "we're sorry it was wrong of us to do that, now if you'll look at this picture of a pony while we pretend like this never happend this will be much less frustrating"

Maybe if they just didn't torture captured enemy combatants? You know, kind of like what the Geneva Convention says?

When someone shoots at you in war, you shoot back. When someone is completely at your mercy you do not take a copy of their holy text and put it in the toilet, nor do you get them to pile up naked but holiday snaps with a dog leash.

Wtf is wrong with people?

 

[rossatdi]

What if ... they are right there somewhere? Just a thought. I find it funny as well.

They're not wrong all the time, which is part of what makes it so insidious. A lot of its danger is in the subtle twisting of the truth.

 

[curlycrouton]

That website is nothing but ridiculous Republican propaganda. I refuse to take that article with any degree of seriousness.

That website should be shut down.

 

[Church5193]

Ach. Pathetic. Who cares what religion our president is? It's called Separation of Church & State. Besides, no religious person could ever effectively run a country unless they left their religious views behind.

And to say that Obama uses "mind control" is horribly paranoid.

 

[J-Man]

This is practically propaganda. It brings up the question of net neutrality, and I'm undecided. People are entitled to their views, no matter how backwards, but I would prefer for this sort of stuff to be destroyed. Then again, I am a communist.

Ach. Pathetic. Who cares what religion our president is? It's called Separation of Church & State. Besides, no religious person could ever effectively run a country unless they left their religious views behind.

Seconded.

 

[Puppeteer Putin]

That website is nothing but ridiculous Republican propaganda. I refuse to take that article with any degree of seriousness.

That website should be shut down.

Exactly. To reiterate I agree with the right to express ones view but it should never claim the pretext of being a historically accurate archival document, ie. an encyclopedia.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

Besides, no religious person could ever effectively run a country unless they left their religious views behind.

I disagree. During history there have been many theist leaders who have been good for their respective nations as well as people throught history who have been religious and done a lot of good in the world. Look at Ghandi or William Wilberforce for instance.

 

[kdragon1010]

Yah shut down that website because I don't like how they present things to people! Hey let's burn some books because I don't like the message that's in them!

 

[mokes310]

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

But... They're serious!?

Yup, they are as serious as herpes.

 

[Puppeteer Putin]

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

But... They're serious!?

Yup, they are as serious as herpes.

Serious condition with hilarious innuendo if you're not a sufferer?

 

[Church5193]

Besides, no religious person could ever effectively run a country unless they left their religious views behind.

I disagree. During history there have been many theist leaders who have been good for their respective nations as well as people throught history who have been religious and done a lot of good in the world. Look at Ghandi or William Wilberforce for instance.

Sure, but none of them ever held an office as important as the US presidency. And that was all a long time ago, back when religion was blindly accepted and followed. If you didn't believe in your country's main religion, you were imprisoned or executed. And that's why America was founded; to escape from that.

 

[Doctor Panda]

Ahh conservapaedia. This is by far not the most ridiculous of their articles - a particularly interesting read is their discussion pages, where somewhat more reasoned conservatives occasionally suggest that maybe the more obvious lies should be omitted, or that a particular fact needs review, and are almost immediately threatened with banning by the overseer of the site.

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons is an interesting body too, not least of which because it is not an association of physicians and surgeons. It's an ultra-right political group that uses its official-sounding name to release the most amazing nonsense.

 

[Ancientgamer]

http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/George_W._Bush

Guess what, liberal's have a site that's exactly the same.

Makes me want to throw up.