Conservatives Definition of Obama

Recommended Videos

Puppeteer Putin

New member
Jan 3, 2009
482
0
0
Madrak the Red said:
I am, personally liberal to the extent of nearing anarchy. I welcome the apocalypse, so we can be rid all this political feth and return to a world in which we are, undeniably, free to do as you please. a return to the land of do-as-you-please, please. Although, I can, in theory, do-as-I-please, I, in reality, can't. Free speech is free as long as it doesn't offend anyone of any race or religion who is not a white, middle-class, atheist male. Which I am. It is retarded. It's like with the BNP (british nationalist party) whose member list was recently published. This was big, as aforementioned members feared discrimination, accusations of racism, and so on. They would be accused of being facists and DISCRIMINATED against. This is not to say I agree with all their views. How the hell can I if I don't know them? The media won't publish them, not even the bloody daily mail! We are depriving them of free speech and discriminating against them for their views.

THis brings me neatly onto my next point, which is that of the website, and the closing down thereof. WRONG. Wrong wrong wrong. That would be depriving them of free speech and discriminating against them. We would be lowering oursleves to their level. Wrong. While it may stick of MaCarthyism and nationalism and I certainly don't support it, closing them down would be a gross violation of everything mankind ha struggled for since it was first shackled by oppresive churches and empires. The deprivation of free speech, my freinds, is something we shuld not lower oursleves to, as we are then equally as xenophobic as they are. Fearing new ideals, differnent ones. Dangerous ones. They want to deprive people of free speech. History is written by the victors, but they are not the victors. A more liberal, moderate view is the victor, and they will eventually fade into oblivion. Away, into our history where things like this can be used to show their views, and how we have bettered and changed, as a race. But let us not switch places with them, becoming our own enemy. It will be disregarded as more right-wing crap, and ridiculed. Like we are doing now.

And, as a final statement, can someone really explain to me why it matters so much, that he is Muslim or Black. I hear such news and I just think 'grow a modern mindset'.
Madrak, I couldn't agree more with you. I gripe is that it 'claims' to be a historic record. They SHOULD clearly describe their bias on the website, and show that some or all of it is loaded with opinions.

They don't, they have the tag like "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" and their motto is "The truth shall set you free." It's making a mockery of credible history sources and references.

ZacQuickSilver said:
*Snip*
Censorship is Censorship, no matter who is censored. You may shut it down only when you are willing to forgo your own right to the freedoms provided by the Constitution, at least if you are in the United States of America.

And those who will trade their rights for comfort deserve neither. Thank you Ben Franklin.
Great point. I know that history is written by the victor, we'll never escape that. My issue is that not only bias but blatant spin, they SEEM to be historically credible but of course they have only published information that's meaningful to their cause and the way it's written incriminates those they do not support. They are relying on peoples trust of encyclopedia's to lure them into this fallacies.

Those of us who are educated and know our political beliefs will not be swayed by it, those who are undecided or don't understand the pot holes of politics may not realise that it is opinionated load of tripe. They should openly display their bias, and made it be known that it's there.
 

Zetona

New member
Dec 20, 2008
846
0
0
It's Conservapedia, what would you expect? You don't go there if you want an unbiased article, or indeed much of an article at all. Conservapedia articles are significantly shorter and less-organized than Wikipedia articles.
 

Jack_the_Knife

New member
Nov 8, 2008
87
0
0
Given the fact that I'm a Chicago-born, FDR-avatar-wielding, proponent of social freedoms, and of course, longtime supporter of Obama since his 04 Senate run, you obviously can't ask me for an unbiased opinion.

If you did, I'd tell you he was going to usher in a new era of prosperity, eliminate poverty, possibly cure all diseases, etc., etc., because I'm a liberal like that.


Ahem, but in all seriousness, apparently you can be pro-abortion. [http://www.conservapedia.com/Barack_Obama#Positions_and_Qualifications]
 

RufusMcLaser

New member
Mar 27, 2008
714
0
0
I'm inclined to be distrustful of people who have a strong "cult of personality" going for them. Maybe it's because the last three presidents- the only ones I've been conscious of in any meaningful way- haven't had much in this department.
Where was I? Oh yes. Cult of personality. Right, I don't care for them because I worry that it will distance the cult-ee from accountability.
On! the! other! hand! I think the blather on Conservapedia, and a lot of other far-right-wing channels, is no different from the sort of thing the fringes have been indulging in all along. Ten years ago it was all about how Bill Clinton had been running cocaine out of Arkansas, had Vince Foster murdered, and was setting up the U.S. to be run by the United Nations, China, Russia, Mexico, Israel, or Sierra Leone. It never ends.
Does that mean Conservapedia should be shut down? Heck no. Let it exist. No one's shut down the Truther movement, Stormfront, or 4chan. People who call for such things are guilty of Serious Business and should have their internets revoked.
 

hypothetical fact

New member
Oct 8, 2008
1,601
0
0
Why would the president need any affiliation with terrorists, even if Obama was working with terrorists as that website suggests he would have no need to sabotage his own country as he runs it.