Conservatives Definition of Obama

[kdragon1010]

This thread is a good example of why you never believe anything you read unless multiple sources are saying the same thing.

Unfortuneately I think a lot of people forget that and blindly believe anything they read on the internet. (or elseware for that matter)

 

[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.

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.

That does not preclude the possibility of a president who believes in god (or doesn't believe in god for that matter) from being a good president. As with everything else, it depends entirely upon the individual.

 

[Puppeteer Putin]

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.

That's a good find great. Now that site I don't mind as much as they point out that it is from the democratic point of view and is liable to contain bias. The same introductory blurb for the conservative site it says:

The truth shall set you free.

They don't acknowledge their bias tenancies, simply stating the number of articles and edits they receive.

That's my issue. Also, they changed it from the encyclopedia to dKosopedia, they are NOT an encyclopedia, rather a variant with a democratic skew.

 

[Riicek]

That website should be shut down.

Really? I don't even need to explain how wrong you are, I just want to know, are you serious?

 

[curlycrouton]

That website should be shut down.

Really? I don't even need to explain how wrong you are, I just want to know, are you serious?

Well yes, since it claims to be an encyclopedia, which should be a completely non-biased source of information, any hint of bias is completely innapropriate in this situation, whether that bias be Republican, Democratic, Fascist or Communist.

 

[beddo]

Well of course, this is just right wing propagandist nonsense.

What does annoy me is that people seem to believe that Barack Obama is going to be this great saviour. In the UK Barack Obama would actually be considered to have a very conservative opinion. The Lib Dems must appears like full on socialists to Americans!

Obama is just like Tony Blair was in 1997. It's all hopes and dreams now but it won't be long before the mismanagement and scandals hit. Unfortunately all politicians are corrupt, you can't trust any of them to look after the inteerests of their countrymen over themselves.


I find it peculiar that the conservative Americans are worried about the possibility that Barack Obama may be a muslim. I thought a major point about the Constitution was that all people have freedom of religion. Many conservatives clearly don't care about the ideals that the United States were built upon.

 

[Riicek]

That website should be shut down.

Really? I don't even need to explain how wrong you are, I just want to know, are you serious?

Well yes, since it claims to be an encyclopedia, which should be a completely non-biased source of information, any hint of bias is completely innapropriate in this situation, whether that bias be Republican, Democratic, Fascist or Communist.

From Merriam - Webster :
Encyclopedia - noun : a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge or treats comprehensively a particular branch of knowledge usually in articles arranged alphabetically often by subject

 

[curlycrouton]

That website should be shut down.

Really? I don't even need to explain how wrong you are, I just want to know, are you serious?

Well yes, since it claims to be an encyclopedia, which should be a completely non-biased source of information, any hint of bias is completely innapropriate in this situation, whether that bias be Republican, Democratic, Fascist or Communist.

From Merriam - Webster :
Encyclopedia - noun : a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge or treats comprehensively a particular branch of knowledge usually in articles arranged alphabetically often by subject

Where does that definition even mention anything to do with political bias? The fact remains that an Encyclopedia must be a completely unbiased source of knowledge.

 

[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.

That's a good find great. Now that site I don't mind as much as they point out that it is from the democratic point of view and is liable to contain bias. The same introductory blurb for the conservative site it says:

The truth shall set you free.

They don't acknowledge their bias tenancies, simply stating the number of articles and edits they receive.

That's my issue. Also, they changed it from the encyclopedia to dKosopedia, they are NOT an encyclopedia, rather a variant with a democratic skew.

You don't think the fact it's called conservapaedia is acknowledging that it's got political bias? Moreso than dKos certainly. If by your definition changing the name qualifies it, than they're on equal footing at least. Also, dKosopedia, they state "while also attempting to fairly acknowledge the other side's take" which they clearly never do. That could be construed as falsely impling objectivity. Something which conservapedia takes no pretense to.


Now let me qualify that. Both sites are incredibly and equally retarded, there is no point in trying to argue which wrong extremest group is less wrong, because they'll still both be wrong.I was mearly trying to point out that this thread ignores the fact that there's people like this on both sides of the line.

 

[Puppeteer Putin]

That website should be shut down.

Really? I don't even need to explain how wrong you are, I just want to know, are you serious?

Well yes, since it claims to be an encyclopedia, which should be a completely non-biased source of information, any hint of bias is completely innapropriate in this situation, whether that bias be Republican, Democratic, Fascist or Communist.

From Merriam - Webster :
Encyclopedia - noun : a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge or treats comprehensively a particular branch of knowledge usually in articles arranged alphabetically often by subject

Where does that definition even mention anything to do with political bias? The fact remains that an Encyclopedia must be a completely unbiased source of knowledge.

Here in lays the primary argument, it shouldn't present either bias. It should state objectively and clearly each political parties opinions on an issue or subject without endorsing either.

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.

That's a good find great. Now that site I don't mind as much as they point out that it is from the democratic point of view and is liable to contain bias. The same introductory blurb for the conservative site it says:

The truth shall set you free.

They don't acknowledge their bias tenancies, simply stating the number of articles and edits they receive.

That's my issue. Also, they changed it from the encyclopedia to dKosopedia, they are NOT an encyclopedia, rather a variant with a democratic skew.

You don't think the fact it's called conservapaedia is acknowledging that it's got political bias? Moreso than dKos certainly. If by your definition changing the name qualifies it, than they're on equal footing at least. Also, dKosopedia, they state "while also attempting to fairly acknowledge the other side's take" which they clearly never do. That could be construed as falsely impling objectivity. Something which conservapedia takes no pretense to.


Now let me qualify that. Both sites are incredibly and equally retarded, there is no point in trying to argue which wrong extremest group is less wrong, because they'll still both be wrong.I was mearly trying to point out that this thread ignores the fact that there's people like this on both sides of the line.

Very true, you have proven me to be the hypocritical fool.

I allowed my own political bias to over-ride my objectivity. Agreed they are both BS.

 

[ZacQuickSilver]

That website should be shut down.

Really? I don't even need to explain how wrong you are, I just want to know, are you serious?

Well yes, since it claims to be an encyclopedia, which should be a completely non-biased source of information, any hint of bias is completely innapropriate in this situation, whether that bias be Republican, Democratic, Fascist or Communist.

From Merriam - Webster :
Encyclopedia - noun : a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge or treats comprehensively a particular branch of knowledge usually in articles arranged alphabetically often by subject

Where does that definition even mention anything to do with political bias? The fact remains that an Encyclopedia must be a completely unbiased source of knowledge.

Okay. Find me ANY unbiased source of knowledge.

My World Books are biases (Pro-American). Encyclopedia Britannica is biased (slightly Pro-Brittan). Wikipedia is less biased, but it is (You can't make your own page unless you have achieved a certain level of fame and recognition for example: slightly biased towards the popular. And it's highly biased pro-internet).

To remove bias is impossible. It is part of human nature: we view everything through the eyes of our Selfs, and my Self sees things differently than your Self.



And while I disagree with that page (and probably most of that site), I know that, as an American, it is my duty to let it remain. I may not agree with your point of view, but if push comes to shove, I will fight, die and LIVE to let you say it.

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.

 

[Madrak the Red]

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'.

 

[Dudemeister]

Wait, so they're trying to say he's both an Islamic terrorist and a Communist and he employs mind control ?
How very believable.

 

[Avatar Roku]

I find it peculiar that the conservative Americans are worried about the possibility that Barack Obama may be a muslim. I thought a major point about the Constitution was that all people have freedom of religion. Many conservatives clearly don't care about the ideals that the United States were built upon.

That is my main problem with many conservatives. They undercut American freedoms (note:most of the conservatives I've seen, not all) while at the same time yelling about how great America is because of the freedoms. Hypocrisy at its lowest.

 

[Sindaine]

My aunt is absolutely pissing herself right now. She's one of the idiots screaming 'HUSSEIN Obama! HE A TERRIST WE ALL GUNNA DIE!!!'

I asked her if she'd accuse me of being smelly and hating Americans if she knew my middle name was Marie, a French name, even though there's not a drop of French in my blood. That shut her up pretty quick.