NationStates Jolt Archive

So let me get this straight:

Conservatives, who are usually in favor of the free market, have claimed that Wikipedia, edited by it's readers -- does a market GET any more free than the Internet? -- is liberally biased.

Thus, Conservapedia (http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page).

I am staggered by the sheer, deliberate blindness to reality of some people -- I suppose I should have been pessimistic enough to anticipate that someone would think that a site whose content is open to popular revision is still somehow biased. Even further, I shouldn't have been surprised that uberconservatives would never admit that, given equal access to the Internet, the facts tend to skew against their occasionally ridiculous beliefs, and would, in fact, substitute this horseshit in its place.

Oy gevalt. Comments? Refutations? Ideas?

EDIT: There's also the YouTube conservative alternative, QubeTV (http://www.qubetv.tv/), 'cause YouTube, where what's popular is what comes up, is somehow biased. YOUTUBE IS BIASED?!?!?!? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over?

*snip*

From the site itself...

July 11

* 1796 - The United States receives Detroit from Great Britain under terms of the Jay Treaty.

July 12

* 1796 - The United States tries to give Detroit back, Great Britain refuses

You can learn things from the most unlikely of places it seems

So this is the "truth" about homosexuality (for example)?

http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality

Holy shit. Literally.

Huh? How does the free market protect us from bias, again? :p Not that I have anything against Wikipedia, but it's no conflict to say that bias can exist in a free-market situation. ;)

So this is the "truth" about homosexuality (for example)?

http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality

From their subjective viewpoint - yes.
From an objective viewpoint - nope. But who cares about such silly and unholy things ?

Tried looking up dinosaurs, they're weren't none.

This thread reminds me of the time I had déjà vu.

This thread reminds me of the time I had déjà vu.

Re-post, really? Was it recent? :(

The documentary film A Nation Adrift chronicles some of the events that took place during the Hamilton Square Baptist Church riot in San Francisco in which a angry group of male homosexuals and lesbians vandalized church property, assaulted church members, terrorized church congregants, screamed profanity, threw rocks, harrassed and scared children, and disrupted a church service.[38][39] [40][41] During the riot the rioters pounded on the church doors and attempted to kick them down. When the rioters saw church children standing in the lobby, they shouted "We want your children. Give us your children." [42]

lmao, wtf?

If it doesn't have "GOD" or "JESUS" written all over it, they think it's biased. Like the theory of evolution, which is obviously biased against them because the theory is based on those little annoying things like "FACTS", "RESEARCH" and a whole bunch of godless sciences. Why trust the scientists of the world when you can trust...erm, which one are we worshipping today?

Reality has a liberal bias. Thus conservatives must form their own reality. With blackjack, and hookers(but only if you're a married politician).

PS They're f***ing nutters. Check out what they have to say on global warming as well. And search for "Liberal Bias".

Huh? How does the free market protect us from bias, again? :p Not that I have anything against Wikipedia, but it's no conflict to say that bias can exist in a free-market situation. ;)
It's nonsense on the part of conservatives though. They're just whining that more individuals have liberal tendencies and it seems they're blaming the market (i.e. the sum of individuals - the self-same individuals - engaging in economic transactions) of sharing this bias. Well whoop-dee-do! They're inconsistent as it is, so why stop now?

It's nonsense on the part of conservatives though. They're just whining that more individuals have liberal tendencies and it seems they're blaming the market (i.e. the sum of individuals - the self-same individuals - engaging in economic transactions) of sharing this bias. Well whoop-dee-do! They're inconsistent as it is, so why stop now?

I'm not sure who the authors of conservapedia are or what their motives are - it could be that they're simply promoting their spin on issues, and since they're not hiding that fact (calling it conservapedia is kind of a tip-off), I'm not against it. If anything, it's kind of a shame seeing some of the out-there religious stuff labeled 'conservative' when most of us don't believe any such thing. :p

I'm not sure who the authors of conservapedia are or what their motives are - it could be that they're simply promoting their spin on issues, and since they're not hiding that fact (calling it conservapedia is kind of a tip-off), I'm not against it. If anything, it's kind of a shame seeing some of the out-there religious stuff labeled 'conservative' when most of us don't believe any such thing. :p
I don't know if you can even call American neocons and fundies "conservatives". What, exactly, are they conserving? They have their own new world order in mind, much like the Nazis did. Appeals to tradition do not suffice in their case to make them conservatives.

I don't know if you can even call American neocons and fundies "conservatives". What, exactly, are they conserving? They have their own new world order in mind, much like the Nazis did. Appeals to tradition do not suffice in their case to make them conservatives.

I think it's a misconception to equate conservatism with traditionalism. It's there in some cultures to some degree, but not at all in others. Same goes for religious fundamentalists, I've seen. Most conservatives I know simply believe in a freer economic climate, smaller government and either a loosening or a tightening of social controls, depending who you talk to. It's hard to pidgeonhole everyone - that's why I'm not exactly thrilled by conservapedia. There's no unified stance on each individual issue or topic that can be called the conservative opinion.

I don't know if you can even call American neocons and fundies "conservatives". What, exactly, are they conserving? They have their own new world order in mind, much like the Nazis did. Appeals to tradition do not suffice in their case to make them conservatives.

What they're trying to conserve may never have actually existed. They just don't know that yet.

Amusing Wordage:
Conservatives rarely try to conserve anything
Conservationists are also rarely seen conservating.

What they're trying to conserve may never have actually existed. They just don't know that yet.
I suppose that makes them dirty lefties then! :eek:

I suppose that makes them dirty lefties then! :eek:

Indeed. But don't tell them.

I find Conservapedia morally bankrupt, repulsive and otherwise terribly offensive to my sensitive liberal needs.

Re-post, really? Was it recent? :(

We vandalized soon after creation (well, I vandalized :p), then when TDS mentioned it, and now.

Three times in a bunch of months.

Most conservatives I know simply believe in a freer economic climate, smaller government and either a loosening or a tightening of social controls, depending who you talk to.
I don't know where you live, but in the USA conservatives have been all about big government since the days of Reagan. They just like to harp about the importance of "small government" when it comes to actually paying taxes for all the big government programs they've set up.

I think conservapedia is a big giant hoax/parody.......but I have just come upon this belief this week.

Re-post, really? Was it recent? :(
Naw. Before your time (unless you're a repeat of a deated NS'er).
Nazz made a thread about it a while ago, urging ppl to log and edit it for other's amusement. As a result the conservapedians closed the editing function for quite some time.

So let me get this straight:

Conservatives, who are usually in favor of the free market, have claimed that Wikipedia, edited by it's readers -- does a market GET any more free than the Internet? -- is liberally biased.

Thus, Conservapedia (http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page).

I am staggered by the sheer, deliberate blindness to reality of some people -- I suppose I should have been pessimistic enough to anticipate that someone would think that a site whose content is open to popular revision is still somehow biased. Even further, I shouldn't have been surprised that uberconservatives would never admit that, given equal access to the Internet, the facts tend to skew against their occasionally ridiculous beliefs, and would, in fact, substitute this horseshit in its place.

Oy gevalt. Comments? Refutations? Ideas?

EDIT: There's also the YouTube conservative alternative, QubeTV (http://www.qubetv.tv/), 'cause YouTube, where what's popular is what comes up, is somehow biased. YOUTUBE IS BIASED?!?!?!? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over?
I guess conservatives don't understand the idea of user-generated content.

Naw. Before your time (unless you're a repeat of a deated NS'er).
Nazz made a thread about it a while ago, urging ppl to log and edit it for other's amusement. As a result the conservapedians closed the editing function for quite some time.

*is a veteran*

banned by ASchafly himself, creator of the site.

*is a veteran*

banned by ASchafly himself, creator of the site.

I've still got my account.

I'm just lurking for the day when I can go in and wreak sweet havoc on some of the touchier articles.

Reality has a liberal bias. Thus conservatives must form their own reality. With blackjack, and hookers(but only if you're a married politician).

lol. You win the thread.

I've still got my account.

I'm just lurking for the day when I can go in and wreak sweet havoc on some of the touchier articles.

I violated the holy place of Saint Ronald, so they broke their own Commandments (any parallels? :rolleyes:) to IP ban me.

You know what? This is from work.

*schemes*

*is a veteran*

banned by ASchafly himself, creator of the site.

Took me about 5 minuets ... and I did not even do anything lol

Either way they are lucky I do not really care to write a bot. I have spent a year or so writing ANTI-Vandal bots for a bunch of wiki's and their bot check is pathetic (a MATH problem, not even images)

Can you still edit it, or did they lock it?

Took me about 5 minuets ... and I did not even do anything lol

Either way they are lucky I do not really care to write a bot. I have spent a year or so writing ANTI-Vandal bots for a bunch of wiki's and their bot check is pathetic (a MATH problem, not even images)

I guess they think bot-check images have a liberal bias.

Tried looking up dinosaurs, they're weren't none.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Dinosaur


dinosaurs were created on day 6 of the creation week[5] approximately 6,000 years ago, along with other land animals, and therefore co-existed with humans. As such, they reject the Theory of Evolution and the beliefs of evolutionary scientists about the age of the earth.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Dinosaur

Interesting mix of sources.

They've deleted their page on 'Creation Myth' and protected it to make sure nobody recreates it. Methinks they protest too much... ;)

I found this thing

for lolz (http://www.wikiality.com/Main_Page)

I found this thing

for lolz (http://www.wikiality.com/Main_Page)

Love this from the Jesus Christ article.

However, when he said "turn the other cheek", he meant so you could wind up a good uppercut to the jaw.

Quick, before they change it!
http://www.conservapedia.com/Internet

"Oh, that Wikipedia IS biased!" they'll say...

Of course it is. People without internet or computerknowledge are not really represented there ;)

So let me get this straight:

Conservatives, who are usually in favor of the free market, have claimed that Wikipedia, edited by it's readers -- does a market GET any more free than the Internet? -- is liberally biased.

Thus, Conservapedia (http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page).

I am staggered by the sheer, deliberate blindness to reality of some people -- I suppose I should have been pessimistic enough to anticipate that someone would think that a site whose content is open to popular revision is still somehow biased. Even further, I shouldn't have been surprised that uberconservatives would never admit that, given equal access to the Internet, the facts tend to skew against their occasionally ridiculous beliefs, and would, in fact, substitute this horseshit in its place.

Oy gevalt. Comments? Refutations? Ideas?

EDIT: There's also the YouTube conservative alternative, QubeTV (http://www.qubetv.tv/), 'cause YouTube, where what's popular is what comes up, is somehow biased. YOUTUBE IS BIASED?!?!?!? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over?

Not everything in Wikipedia is open to public revision. Eventually, some controversial topics are locked down, and subject to revision only by a few editors chosen by the people running the site.

I wouldn't say that Wikipedia has a bias in any direction overall. On some topics, the bias runs one way or another, but it's pretty well balanced IMHO.

*waits for people to kneejerk post that RO is lying*

"Oh, that Wikipedia IS biased!" they'll say...

Wikipedia I've found IS liberally biased. While the users themselves are fine, the wiki appoints administrators, who 1. tend to be people who have lots of time to spend constantly editing, and 2. have the power to BAN anyone they don't like from editing. These folks tend to be academics, grad students and the like. With 85% of those folks voting democrat, it doesn't take a rocket scientist...It isn't supposed to work that way, of course.

What's supposed to happen is one is supposed to assume "Good Faith" on the part of someone else editing. However, many administrators become propietary regarding their favorite articles. I got banned once for a week because a judge from singapore decided that he disagreed with me over whether a "Doctor Who" character was a companion or not! He would accept no dissent nor would he allow the users to debate the subject, I was wrong and that was that. There is a process to dispute being banned of course, the arcanity of which makes the star chamber seem legally simple to negotiate. Also, you have to wait until your ban is up to dispute whether it was fairly imposed.

So let me get this straight:

Conservatives, who are usually in favor of the free market, have claimed that Wikipedia, edited by it's readers -- does a market GET any more free than the Internet? -- is liberally biased.

Thus, Conservapedia (http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page).

I am staggered by the sheer, deliberate blindness to reality of some people -- I suppose I should have been pessimistic enough to anticipate that someone would think that a site whose content is open to popular revision is still somehow biased. Even further, I shouldn't have been surprised that uberconservatives would never admit that, given equal access to the Internet, the facts tend to skew against their occasionally ridiculous beliefs, and would, in fact, substitute this horseshit in its place.

Oy gevalt. Comments? Refutations? Ideas?

EDIT: There's also the YouTube conservative alternative, QubeTV (http://www.qubetv.tv/), 'cause YouTube, where what's popular is what comes up, is somehow biased. YOUTUBE IS BIASED?!?!?!? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over?
I found this "discussion" in Conservapedia quite interesting and telling?

This is probably the worst wiki I have ever seen. (http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page)

You allow no neutrality. You lock articles to make sure they stay the same. I can not edit homosexuality to change the bullsh*t that's in there. GayMan 17:23, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

If you're not happy with how things are run here, feel free to start your own "Homopedia" or something.--Conservateur 17:31, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
So then you admit that this wiki is not neutral. Nice comment by the way, mature and helpful and relevant etc... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wow (talk)

I wouldn't take what an editor with a red link to his name says as necessarily representing Conservapedia, but yes, this Wiki aims to be accurate and fair, not neutral. Philip J. Rayment 18:52, 1 July 2007 (EDT)
Mr. Rayment, your consistent hypocrisy across this messageboard is quite frankly jaw-dropping. Are you seriously claiming that neutrality is not the hallmark of an unbiased article? I find it bizarre that anyone would claim that an opinionated point of view makes for a fair and accurate article. I thought this website was created as an alternative to Wikipedia because it was 'too biased'... and from what i've read here you seem to be saying that Conservapedia is biased, and therefore 'accurate and fair'. If that's the case, what's Conservapedia's problem with Wikipedia?
signed, noform
Constant hypocrisy? Perhaps you could point out a specific example? Or withdraw the accusation.
Did I say "neutrality is not the hallmark of an unbiased article"? I don't believe that I did.
No, as I understand it (and I didn't start it), this web-site was not created as an alternative to Wikipedia "because it was 'too biased'", but because it had liberal and anti-American biases. I'm not saying that Conservapedia is "accurate and fair" because it is biased. I'm saying that it has a bias towards conservatism (among other things), and tries to be truthful, accurate, and fair. You seem to be implying that if one is biased (regardless of the bias), one cannot be truthful, accurate, or fair? How is that?
Philip J. Rayment 06:41, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
I didn't see any specific suggestions, but I did see an instance of hate speech, which is itself a form of blatant bias.

Liberals often pretend they have something important to say, but then lapse into name-calling, profanity, or other tricks to change the subject. What is missing from the homosexuality article? Please suggest it here - or, preferably, at talk:Homosexuality. --Ed Poor Talk 19:25, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
Too funny!!

Anybody who quotes "Conservapedia" as a source should be heaped with derision and ridicule. :)

Not everything in Wikipedia is open to public revision. Eventually, some controversial topics are locked down, and subject to revision only by a few editors chosen by the people running the site.

I wouldn't say that Wikipedia has a bias in any direction overall. On some topics, the bias runs one way or another, but it's pretty well balanced IMHO.

*waits for people to kneejerk post that RO is lying*

"Oh, that Wikipedia IS biased!" they'll say...

"Oh, RO DOES have a persecution complex" they'll say. . .

I don't know if you can even call American neocons and fundies "conservatives". What, exactly, are they conserving? They have their own new world order in mind, much like the Nazis did. Appeals to tradition do not suffice in their case to make them conservatives.

They are conserving the right to be asshols and trample other people.

Wow. I looked up Scotland. Apparently I hail from "a dark country full of homosexuals."

http://www.conservapedia.com/Scotland

Wow. I looked up Scotland. Apparently I hail from "a dark country full of homosexuals."

http://www.conservapedia.com/Scotland

ROFLMAO.

Scotland is historically Christian, the national church is the Church of Scotland and it is sympathetic to the the homosexual agenda[2]. This has led the leading conservative Christian Pat Robertson to describe Scotland as "dark country full of homosexuals"[3]. This homosexual agenda is exemplified by:

* the repeal of laws banning the promotion of homosexuality in schools[4]
* the legalization of same-sex marriage[5]
* the adoption of children by homosexuals[6]
* teaching homosexuality in schools[7]
* affirmative action for homosexual soldiers and policemen[8]
* forcing religious schools to employ atheist teachers[9]
* an increase in abortion[10]
* protection for pedophiles [11]
* and the banning of the expression of pro-Christian sentiment at sports events[12].

How is employing "atheist teachers" a part of the homosexual agenda?
How is an increase in abortion a part of the homosexual agenda (do homosexuals ever get in a position to have an abortion)?
Pedophilia is not restricted to homosexuals - plenty of hetero pedos out there.
How is banning the expression of pro-Christian sentiment a part of the homosexual agenda?

ROFLMAO.



How is employing "atheist teachers" a part of the homosexual agenda?
How is an increase in abortion a part of the homosexual agenda (do homosexuals ever get in a position to have an abortion)?
Pedophilia is not restricted to homosexuals - plenty of hetero pedos out there.
How is banning the expression of pro-Christian sentiment a part of the homosexual agenda?

How do you "teach homosexuality"?

*new vocab* Are they part of the Homintern?

ROFLMAO.



How is employing "atheist teachers" a part of the homosexual agenda?
How is an increase in abortion a part of the homosexual agenda (do homosexuals ever get in a position to have an abortion)?
Pedophilia is not restricted to homosexuals - plenty of hetero pedos out there.
How is banning the expression of pro-Christian sentiment a part of the homosexual agenda?

Facts have no sway over what appears on conservapedia. The conservatives that smart don't think they need their own wiki site.

How do you "teach homosexuality"?

*new vocab* Are they part of the Homintern?

Homosexuality 101: Proper use of Pink Pistols :D

I was ... surprised.. at the article about the Netherlands. It seems the author actually approves of the "condonement" of drugs, and there are no real negative statements - even though it was the first country to allow gaymarriage and has prostitution, abortion and euthanasia legalised.

Oh. My. God.

And Ed Poor, please can you stop removing the kilt picture. It is incredibly disrespectful to the Scots to remove not only a picture depicting their National dress but also their First Minister. The kilt has nothing to do with homosexuality, which frankly, is a topic that is discussed far too often on this site.

It's only because I know of so many brainy Americans that I haven't given up on your country. Good GOD. No research. Whatsoever.

Wow. I looked up Scotland. Apparently I hail from "a dark country full of homosexuals."

http://www.conservapedia.com/Scotland

The talk page is incredible:

Liberalism seems to have won the day and the truth about the pernicious homosexual agenda has been hidden away in the article Church of Scotland where I assume the hope is that no one will find it.
People looking for information about Scotland are being denied some very important conservative facts. Auld Nick 12:05, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservative_bias

Liberals claim conservative bias is found through citizens expressing opposition to the presentation of discredited junk science as mainstream scientific theory (Evolution in particular), opposition to the gay agenda, opposition to condom distribution, support for elected officials, and anti-terrorism efforts. Criticism outside of the mainstream is considered "radical", "politically impossible", and most often "left-wing". Noam Chomsky, deconstructionist guru, is said to have exposed these right-wing conspiracies in Manufacturing Consent.:eek: I have officially lost all faith in humanity.

Religous Fundies- gotta love'em:p

Quick, before they change it!
http://www.conservapedia.com/Internet

What? No mention of CERN?

I don't know if you can even call American neocons and fundies "conservatives". What, exactly, are they conserving? They have their own new world order in mind, much like the Nazis did. Appeals to tradition do not suffice in their case to make them conservatives.

One of the ideals of Neo-conservatism is that a world government is a bad thing.

Its in Wikipedia.

One of the ideals of Neo-conservatism is that a world government is a bad thing.

Its in Wikipedia.

If you haven't noticed, the closest thing we have to world government is the UN, and it has presided over, allowed, or been witness to the massacre of more people since its inception than were killed in the camps by the Germans.

If that's "world government" you can keep it.

2000 - The Adaptations of the Euro as the national currency is rejected by 53%. Referenda are held on all major issues in Denmark.

There was no referenda in Denmark concerning the euro. It was deemed unnecessary following the rejection by France and The Netherlands.

So much for facts...

If you haven't noticed, the closest thing we have to world government is the UN, and it has presided over, allowed, or been witness to the massacre of more people since its inception than were killed in the camps by the Germans.

If that's "world government" you can keep it.

That and it has failed to do anything in Darfur, Rwanda, and numerous other genocides.

Originally, all the UN was supposed to do was to broker treaties and provide a forum for peacefully talks between countries, and possibly intervene.

Fails to its own charter.

Their article on Communism is great.

I dont care what the rest of you say, Conservapedia is GREAT. I love browsing it.
Man, those rainy days just FLY by when you can read through stuff like:

"Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged." Gospel of Matthew, 7:1-2
http://www.conservapedia.com/Irony

Oh dear god.

They have a page on 'The Homosexual Agenda'...

There was no referenda in Denmark concerning the euro. It was deemed unnecessary following the rejection by France and The Netherlands.

So much for facts...

France and the Netherlands did not reject the Euro, but the EU constitution. Both countries adopted the Euro in its first year.

If you haven't noticed, the closest thing we have to world government is the UN, and it has presided over, allowed, or been witness to the massacre of more people since its inception than were killed in the camps by the Germans.

If that's "world government" you can keep it.

Do you support the UN?

France and the Netherlands did not reject the Euro, but the EU constitution. Both countries adopted the Euro in its first year.

Sorry, my mind was off track and you are correct.

Oh dear god.

They have a page on 'The Homosexual Agenda'...

They also quote Leviticus in their article on homosexuality.
There is no hope for them, just laugh and be on your way :P

We vandalized soon after creation (well, I vandalized :p), then when TDS mentioned it, and now.

Three times in a bunch of months.

My apologies, then -- this was the first i'd heard of either it or the neo-con QubeTV.

They both strike me as insanely unnecessary. Like Lewis Black said about FOX's Half Hour News Hour attempt at comedy news: "If FOX News is going to do fake news, it should be REAL news!"

They also quote Leviticus in their article on homosexuality.
There is no hope for them, just laugh and be on your way :P

But laughter soon turns to tears… tears of rage!

But laughter soon turns to tears… tears of rage!

Rage brings on tears? Me it's generally a violent frenzy. I guess everyone responds to it differently then.

Rage brings on tears? Me it's generally a violent frenzy. I guess everyone responds to it differently then.

No, Conservapedia brings on the tears of rage. The rage and the tears are not merely connected; they are one. :p

No, Conservapedia brings on the tears of rage. The rage and the tears are not merely connected; they are one. :p

[thinks of possible responses]

[choses RAGE and CONNECTEDNESS as themes]

[types]

NAMASTÉ, muthafucka!

It’s like the Colbert Report made manifest!

It would be funnier if people weren’t using this to ‘edumicate’ themselves and their children.

[thinks of possible responses]

[choses RAGE and CONNECTEDNESS as themes]

[types]

NAMASTÉ, muthafucka!

Have you ever heard a pissed off Indian say Namaste, or an equivalent phrase in one of the other languages? It's actually quite scary :eek:

[thinks of possible responses]

[choses RAGE and CONNECTEDNESS as themes]

[types]

NAMASTÉ, muthafucka!

1/2 polite, 1/2 rude… *mind breaks*

1/2 polite, 1/2 rude… *mind breaks*

My job here is done.

Have you ever heard a pissed off Indian say Namaste, or an equivalent phrase in one of the other languages? It's actually quite scary :eek:

I haven't -- it sounds dreadful!

You know what? There is no published work in existance that isn't biased in some way for or against something. We can't give the facts without tainting them with our 'voice' for good or for ill.

Intelligent people take their facts from several different sources to come to their own conclusions.

Everything I looked at on this site was so far-fetched and ridiculous that I am forced to conclude that it's a parody.


EDIT: Smunkee beat me to that conclusion.

So let me get this straight:

Conservatives, who are usually in favor of the free market, have claimed that Wikipedia, edited by it's readers -- does a market GET any more free than the Internet? -- is liberally biased.

Thus, Conservapedia (http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page).

I am staggered by the sheer, deliberate blindness to reality of some people -- I suppose I should have been pessimistic enough to anticipate that someone would think that a site whose content is open to popular revision is still somehow biased. Even further, I shouldn't have been surprised that uberconservatives would never admit that, given equal access to the Internet, the facts tend to skew against their occasionally ridiculous beliefs, and would, in fact, substitute this horseshit in its place.

Oy gevalt. Comments? Refutations? Ideas?

EDIT: There's also the YouTube conservative alternative, QubeTV (http://www.qubetv.tv/), 'cause YouTube, where what's popular is what comes up, is somehow biased. YOUTUBE IS BIASED?!?!?!? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over?

Yes, but you see the general public has a liberal bias. This is because what most people know is based largely in reality. Since reality has a liberal bias (largely evidenced in how it routinely portrays conservatives as foolish, deceitful, angry, and intolerant) it is not surprising that wikipedia would also have a liberal bias.

So pronounced is this liberal bias that even Conservapedia.com displays it.

e.g. The Conservapedia entry on "Roman Catholic."
To belong to the Catholic Church one must accept as factually true the gospel of our lord Jesus Christ...

...The term Catholic Church is, literally, the Universal Church of Jesus Christ (from the Greek katholikos, "universal"

All good Conservative Christians know that Catholics worship graven images and are blood-drinking cannibals who worship the sun-god Lord of the Flies, and that the term "Catholic" comes from "Catamite" meaning "boy who has sex with old men."

I don't think there's any question that there is a strong liberal bias to Wikipedia. That being said, I don't see any harm to it, as long as you don't make the claim that it is an objective and reliable information source. Everyone contributes to it, from thinking, reasonable and intelligent persons, right on down to the shouting lunatic in the street. Democracy at it's finest, in its' pure raw form. But as an example of unbiased fact, it's ludicrous to an extreme to accept it as such. If it is that, then the National Enquirer should also be considered serious journalism.

Take it all with a grain of salt and you'll be fine.

I have personal experience with someone who was subjected to Wikipedia's most glaring shortcoming, that being the fact that anyone who challenges or protests valid information in Wikipedia can then have that information removed. Censorship is a bad thing, I think we can all agree on that. But when ANYONE can challenge a fact posted on Wikipedia and have it excised from that website just because they don't like it, and for any reason without even having to produce PROOF, then the validity of that site has to be called into question. The fact that the information was reposted some time later on Wikipedia only partially addresses that concern. Would you like one nutcase to be able to silence YOU?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ravenswood_Media

The term the one man who protested found fault with was something called a webumentary, a short film made for viewing online. One person claimed it was self-promotional spamming, which it was not, as the site allows for free distribution of the videos in question and holds no copyright on the term "webumentary", and the Wikipedia response was to then remove it completely from its' site. I guess an online video can only be considered valid if it is posted on either YouTube or Google Video.

Wikipedia I've found IS liberally biased. While the users themselves are fine, the wiki appoints administrators, who 1. tend to be people who have lots of time to spend constantly editing, and 2. have the power to BAN anyone they don't like from editing. These folks tend to be academics, grad students and the like. With 85% of those folks voting democrat, it doesn't take a rocket scientist...It isn't supposed to work that way, of course.

What's supposed to happen is one is supposed to assume "Good Faith" on the part of someone else editing. However, many administrators become propietary regarding their favorite articles. I got banned once for a week because a judge from singapore decided that he disagreed with me over whether a "Doctor Who" character was a companion or not! He would accept no dissent nor would he allow the users to debate the subject, I was wrong and that was that. There is a process to dispute being banned of course, the arcanity of which makes the star chamber seem legally simple to negotiate. Also, you have to wait until your ban is up to dispute whether it was fairly imposed.

I looked up Conservapedia on Wikipedia. Apparently, of the 9,000 registered Conservapedia users, 4,000 are permanently blocked. I would say that's moderator promoted bias at its finest. Of course, the source of this info IS Wikipedia, but it IS cited back to Conservapedia.

What, exactly, are they conserving?

The predominant sociopolitical order (global corporate capitalism) and their domination of control over said order (local domination of right-wing (http://www.dnc.org/) politics (http://www.rnc.org/), and global military-industrial American hegemony)

Conservatism is simply to resist change and preserve the status-quo.

If you haven't noticed, the closest thing we have to world government is the UN...

The UN misses being a "world government" by about a few dozen widths of a galaxy. No legitimacy or sovereignty in its own right. No police or military force in its own right. Of course, the UN was never intended to be a world government, or government of any kind whatsoever.

To paraphrase a book I've read recently, people like to talk about how "the UN" did or didn't do something or another...


... and it has presided over, allowed, or been witness to the massacre of more people since its inception than were killed in the camps by the Germans.


...but the simple fact of the matter is that if such people were actually aware of how "the UN" is constructed and operated (exercise for the student: Read a document people like to have opinions about even though only about 0.000002% of them have actually read it (http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/)) they would realize that "the UN" doesn't do shit. "the UN" can't do shit. "the UN" was intentionally designed for the express purpose of not being able to do shit, in order to preserve national sovereignty, a key value of the UN Charter."

Signatories to the UN Charter ("member states") do things. Some have greater power than others, such as the Security Council, but the simple fact remains that "the UN" cannot ever do anything its individual members don't want to do themsleves.

This is because "the UN" amounts to nothing more than a protocol for defining how individual sovereign states make decisions or carry out actions together. Blaming "the UN" for not doing anything about genocide or other crime would be like blaming the conference table because the people sitting around it can't agree on something. Or blaming the telephone because the guy on the other end doesn't agree with me. "The UN" is a conference table or a telephone, nothing more.

If one wishes to cast blame for the lack of attention to genocide or other issues, cast it no farther than the congress/parliament/prime minister/president or whatever else in your own capital city.

Otherwise, you're just yelling at a piece of furniture. And that makes you look rather silly. :D

</rant>


If that's "world government" you can keep it.


If anything, the unwillingness of world leaders to deal with the problems you mention reveals the incompetence of local/national government. Which might actually strengthen the case for world government by demonstrating the inability of national government to deal with international issues.

All good Conservative Christians know that Catholics worship graven images and are blood-drinking cannibals who worship the sun-god Lord of the Flies, and that the term "Catholic" comes from "Catamite" meaning "boy who has sex with old men."

Since this bit of text is not in your quote from Conservapedia, I have to assume you meant to type it and hope that you're joking.

The UN misses being a "world government" by about a few dozen widths of a galaxy. No legitimacy or sovereignty in its own right. No police or military force in its own right. Of course, the UN was never intended to be a world government, or government of any kind whatsoever.

To paraphrase a book I've read recently, people like to talk about how "the UN" did or didn't do something or another...



...but the simple fact of the matter is that if such people were actually aware of how "the UN" is constructed and operated (exercise for the student: Read a document everyone has an opinion on even though only about 0.000002% of them have actually read it (http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/)) they would realize that "the UN" doesn't do shit. "the UN" can't do shit. "the UN" was intentionally designed for the express purpose of not being able to do shit, in order to preserve national sovereignty, a key value of the UN Charter."

Signatories to the UN Charter ("member states") do things. Some have greater power than others, such as the Security Council, but the simple fact remains that "the UN" cannot ever do anything its individual members don't want to do themsleves.

This is because "the UN" amounts to nothing more than a protocol for defining how individual sovereign states make decisions or carry out actions together. Blaming "the UN" for not doing anything about genocide or other crime would be like blaming the conference table because the people sitting around it can't agree on something. Or blaming the telephone because the guy on the other end doesn't agree with me. "The UN" is a conference table or a telephone, nothing more.

If one wishes to cast blame for the lack of attention to genocide or other issues, cast it no farther than the congress/parliament/prime minister/president or whatever else in your own capital city.

Otherwise, you're just yelling at a piece of furniture. And that makes you look rather silly. :D

</rant>



If anything, the unwillingness of world leaders to deal with the problems you mention reveals the incompetence of local/national government. Which might actually strengthen the case for world government by demonstrating the inability of national government to deal with international issues.

As continuations of partial threadjacks go, that was pretty damned good.

As continuations of partial threadjacks go, that was pretty damned good.

I used to make the same mistakes described, so I feel a certain duty. At any rate, nonsense and misinformation about the UN is very common among the right-wing conservatives...someone post Conservapedia's UN article so my rant becomes thread-relevant. :D

Since their site goes on about how wiki has liberal bias. If there was a subject that was on wiki, but wasn't on conservapedia, would that mean that the information on the page was liberal bias and has just been made up?...or maybe it's just that conservapedia is lacking...in alot of things.

well I just wanted to stop in a say hi and thank all those libs out there for telling me about a site where I don't have to listen to the garbage of liberals(youtube, wiki is only partialy biased).

Oh and if you happen to run in to a conservative myspace please tell me Tom is getting on my nerves.

I love Conservapedia. It's great for belly laughs. :D

I love Conservapedia. It's great for belly laughs. :D

No kidding. Baramins!:D

well I just wanted to stop in a say hi and thank all those libs out there for telling me about a site where I don't have to listen to the garbage of liberals(youtube, wiki is only partialy biased).

Oh and if you happen to run in to a conservative myspace please tell me Tom is getting on my nerves.

Myspace is trash ... a conservative myspace can only be worse though I am not sure how you can make a MYspace and have it be only one political point of view.

I love Conservapedia. It's great for belly laughs. :D

yeah well wiki is good for excruciating pain in stomach and severe headaches.

No kidding. Baramins!:D

Baramins?

Well, their "Commandments" are interesting.

...
Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry. Opinions can be posted on Talk:pages or on debate or discussion pages.

This just seems like it's going way too far:
When referencing dates based on the approximate birth of Jesus, give appropriate credit for the basis of the date (B.C. or A.D.). "BCE" and "CE" are unacceptable substitutes because they deny the historical basis. See CE.

The whole site is so frustrating, especially the same-sex marriage article (http://www.conservapedia.com/Same-sex_marriage). So many biased statements...my head may very well explode at any moment.

Myspace is trash ... a conservative myspace can only be worse though I am not sure how you can make a MYspace and have it be only one political point of view.

well you see tom is a how shall we put this in a word that won't get me banned......a....MORON!!!! every time I try and show somthing that is even remotely conservative he takes it off and makes it to where I can't do somthing on myspace weather it is blogs or music or pictures he takes that privalidge.

well you see tom is a how shall we put this in a word that won't get me banned......a....MORON!!!! every time I try and show somthing that is even remotely conservative he takes it off and makes it to where I can't do somthing on myspace weather it is blogs or music or pictures he takes that privalidge.

I know someone who has a pro life video that shows pictures of little infants, and it's been there for months. Unless I'm misunderstanding you...

yah I saw that one I'm not really sure why he let that one pass but when ever I show somthing that is going on in iraq he cuts it off and makes me pay.

well you see tom is a how shall we put this in a word that won't get me banned......a....MORON!!!! every time I try and show somthing that is even remotely conservative he takes it off and makes it to where I can't do somthing on myspace weather it is blogs or music or pictures he takes that privalidge.

Examples? Or are we just gonna have to take your word for it?

yah I saw that one I'm not really sure why he let that one pass but when ever I show somthing that is going on in iraq he cuts it off and makes me pay.

"Somthing [sic] that is going on in Iraq"

"Makes you pay"?

Can you please be more specific?

Baramins?

It's in the creation section, if I recall correctly. Funny as hell.

well I had a video of the dictator hussien having his guards beat people and he took it off and as for how he made me pay is he took away my ability to blog for a week.

well you see tom is a how shall we put this in a word that won't get me banned......a....MORON!!!! every time I try and show somthing that is even remotely conservative he takes it off and makes it to where I can't do somthing on myspace weather it is blogs or music or pictures he takes that privalidge.

I do not think that is tom ... either way I found one

DittyTalk.com it is Christian not expressly conservative but ...

well I had a video of the dictator hussien having his guards beat people and he took it off and as for how he made me pay is he took away my ability to blog for a week.

Ever stop to think it was maybe the violent content? I am not positive but they probably have a content restriction rule (things like nudity restrictions and such)

Ever stop to think it was maybe the violent content? I am not positive but they probably have a content restriction rule (things like nudity restrictions and such)

No! It must be liberal bias!

Ever stop to think it was maybe the violent content? I am not positive but they probably have a content restriction rule (things like nudity restrictions and such)

and death would be less (regarding to the earlyer post)?

No! It must be liberal bias!

That is not what i meant I was only saying that if you ban that from video why would you let a video of far greater maginitude on there.

It's in the creation section, if I recall correctly. Funny as hell.

Ah, okay, thanks. :)

That is not what i meant I was only saying that if you ban that from video why would you let a video of far greater maginitude on there.

What other video ... I am sorry maybe I am tired but your posts are a bit confusing.

Either way maybe it was not violence maybe it was copyright problems or a tone of other things

Lol, I am going to have some fun edits now.

What other video ... I am sorry maybe I am tired but your posts are a bit confusing.

Either way maybe it was not violence maybe it was copyright problems or a tone of other things
im not sure but im tired now and i need sleep so good night all (that includes all you libs to :p).

Lol, I am going to have some fun edits now.

They got me quick and I was actually not doing anything other then material clarification ... and adding some "citation needed" links for some of the claims (they do it all the time so I do not know why me)

im not sure but im tired now and i need sleep so good night all (that includes all you libs to :p).

Gee, thanks, Your Magnanimity. :rolleyes:

I suppose the point in the OP is that "news" is already become subject to any number of points of view because some people just don't like what's being reported.

If that's happening to resource materials now -- despite the fact that the wiki concept isn't exactly the best reference to begin with -- are we to live now in a world where facts are what you want them to be? Is that the kind of world in which anyone with a conscience really wants to live?

I suppose the point in the OP is that "news" is already become subject to any number of points of view because some people just don't like what's being reported.

If that's happening to resource materials now -- despite the fact that the wiki concept isn't exactly the best reference to begin with -- are we to live now in a world where facts are what you want them to be? Is that the kind of world in which anyone with a conscience really wants to live?

Probably not. But there's always a few good, largely non-biased sources close at hand, and journalists supposedly have their standards. :p I don't think we're heading into a post-modern nightmare of wiki-everything taking over. ;)

Lol, I am going to have some fun edits now.

They locked all the pages and prevented users from making new ones. :(

Why doesn't it surprise me that this thing's logo has an USA flag on it and their article on homosexuality starts with biblical quotations...it's astounding how those people say that Wikipedia is biased and then solve it by creating that crap...

That site's actually very funny when you put aside the cold malice and hatred it's founded upon.

i love the notion that the world - reality - is too liberal and not god-fearing enough. so they go make their own reality. its truly retarded.

i also love this:

Tired of the LIBERAL BIAS every time you search on Google and a Wikipedia page appears? Our study suggests that Wikipedia is 6 times more liberal than the American public.

possibly because Wikipedia isn't just an American institution. the whole world's gone commie and is out to get them!!

I suppose that makes them dirty lefties then! :eek:

Sure, as a general rule I wouldn't give those people soap even if they were called lefties :D .

Our study suggests that Wikipedia is 6 times more liberal than the American public.

How do you quantify liberalism?

i love the notion that the world - reality - is too liberal and not god-fearing enough. so they go make their own reality. its truly retarded.

i also love this:



possibly because Wikipedia isn't just an American institution. the whole world's gone commie and is out to get them!!

Not only that, but how the hell can anything calling itself a "study" show that anything is "6x more liberal" than anything else? Define that "6x" coefficient for me, please! And 6x more liberal than something as completely incalculable as "the American public"?!? Ludicrous. These assholes are even trying to subvert mathematics, fer cryin' out loud!

How do you quantify liberalism?

IQ?

*dons flame-proof suit and flees*

How do you quantify liberalism?

Liberals emit particles knows as "Liberalons". By measuring the liberalon output of the average American compared to the average Wikipedia user, it was found that output of the Wikipedian was 6 times higher than the American.
Currently liberal scientists are working towards a goal of 'splitting the liberalon', which could theoretically create undrainable supplies of liberalism.

That site's actually very funny when you put aside the cold malice and hatred it's founded upon.
Hatred and cold malice are antithetical. Hatred denotes strong emotion.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over?

I just wanted to say that that was cool....

Erm, yeah. Conservapedia. I had the privelege of getting to read it before. Although I couldn't comment because I couldn't get an account and I could not find how to get an account.......

Someone needs to gather an internet army and crush these people.

I think 4 to 5 website forums could do it. Including NSG.

Who knows how to plan these things? Seriously

We each choose 10 articles. Get around 1000+ raiders
Then attack!

Since this bit of text is not in your quote from Conservapedia, I have to assume you meant to type it and hope that you're joking.

That is the purpose of typing out of quote, yes.

But in the interest of full disclosure, I got the "catholic = catamite" joke from Landoverbaptist.org. The "reality has a liberal bias" bit however was mine before Stephen Colbert ever said it.

Hatred and cold malice are antithetical. Hatred denotes strong emotion.

Left and right are antithetical, but you try to stand on one of them and not the other, you're going to fall over.

Not only that, but how the hell can anything calling itself a "study" show that anything is "6x more liberal" than anything else? Define that "6x" coefficient for me, please! And 6x more liberal than something as completely incalculable as "the American public"?!? Ludicrous. These assholes are even trying to subvert mathematics, fer cryin' out loud!

It was probably done by the same mathematicians that told AOL that spyware can reduce your download speed by 500%.

Myspace is trash ... a conservative myspace can only be worse though I am not sure how you can make a MYspace and have it be only one political point of view.

Doesn't Rupert Murdoch, owner of FOX News, own Myspace?

How the hell are you going to get a conservative version of that?

How the hell are you going to get a conservative version of that?

Jesus is always number one on your Top Eight *nods*

Left and right are antithetical, but you try to stand on one of them and not the other, you're going to fall over.
How is this the same?

Liberals emit particles knows as "Liberalons". By measuring the liberalon output of the average American compared to the average Wikipedia user, it was found that output of the Wikipedian was 6 times higher than the American.
Currently liberal scientists are working towards a goal of 'splitting the liberalon', which could theoretically create undrainable supplies of liberalism.

I gotta streamline your nifty neologism there. "Liberalon" is too clunky. How about "liberon"? That way, it can go with the other particle, the "neocon". Liberons and neocons are, of course, subsets of the most common class of particle in the universe, the moron ("The two most common things in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity" -- Harlan Ellison).

I just wanted to say that that was cool....


I can't come close to claiming it. It crackles over the radios of those under fire in Iraq. I heard it on NPR as the title to a book that an embedded reporter has written about his time with a US Army unit there.

My brother, a vet of Gulf War One, would take slang abbreviations and elongate them with military codespeak in order to say things about people that would be impolite if said uncoded. Thus, his new employee at his store is nicknamed "Bravo Tango", code for "B.T.", short for "Bible Thumper", as she tends to wax scriptural at any opportunity.

My brother, a vet of Gulf War One, would take slang abbreviations and elongate them with military codespeak in order to say things about people that would be impolite if said uncoded. Thus, his new employee at his store is nicknamed "Bravo Tango", code for "B.T.", short for "Bible Thumper", as she tends to wax scriptural at any opportunity.

There are also hand and arm signals for such things.

Ask him about:

"Cover me, I'm fucked"
"Fuck you, I'm covering"
"Clusterfuck"
and others...

There are also hand and arm signals for such things.

Ask him about:

"Cover me, I'm fucked"
"Fuck you, I'm covering"
"Clusterfuck"
and others...

"Clusterfuck" is one of my all-time favorite military coinages. Seldom are there words which are not only perfectly accurate metaphors, but are also satisfying to use.

"Clusterfuck" is one of my all-time favorite military coinages. Seldom are there words which are not only perfectly accurate metaphors, but are also satisfying to use.

"Clusterfuck" is also satisfying in

"Clusterfuck to The White House"

"Clusterfuck" is one of my all-time favorite military coinages. Seldom are there words which are not only perfectly accurate metaphors, but are also satisfying to use.
Ah, clusterfuck. That is a great word.

Hatred and cold malice are antithetical. Hatred denotes strong emotion.

Ah, good point.

Ah, clusterfuck. That is a great word.

A good way to describe Conservapedia as well.

If the liberals can have their propaganda why can't the conservatives have theirs'?

If the liberals can have their propaganda why can't the conservatives have theirs'?

Lol I have yet to see a liberal spin of wikipedia

I hate to tell you there are a lot better platforms for propaganda than wikipedia out on the internet.

Like?

I hate to tell you there are a lot better platforms for propaganda than wikipedia out on the internet.

Most not quite as pathetic as conservopedia

As I see it, anything that disagrees with a personal point of view to a 'Conservative' is automatically liberal. I have often made political decisions based on what I hold as a personal belief. Sometimes this is a (supposedly) conservative view; othertimes, it is (supposedly) a liberal point of view. I rationalize this as being truly 'moderate'.

In reality, placing labels on political thought is senseless. Not all conservatives believe the way described as conservastive all of the time. Liberals, sorry to dissapoint GOP party members, do not believe the liberal view all of the time. We are independent thinkers (or at the least- we should be) and, therefore, carry our own decisions. We do not need a lying Rush Limbaugh or a pandering Fox News Channel to make our decisions for us.

Talk radio is conservative (ultra). The network TV media is also conservative, though not as ultra-conservative as some of the radio news jocks. There is no real liberal message in mass media today. Network TV is only going to report news in a fashion that is commercially viable and supported.

Those who respond with 'the liberal media' should rememnber that it was those 'liberal' networks that gave great coverage of the courageous steps Bush made to secure us from terrorists affecting our lives by removing as many obtrusive civil rights as we can under a law called 'The Patriot Act' and passed it by deciding that, as the evil Emporer from 'Star Wars' put it:

"You're either with us or you're against us."

That is great political debate, isn't it?

I've had 8 years of 'conservative' ideals. Let's get back to the 'liberal' ideas of government being responsible for 'helping' people - not opposing people whenever and whereever able to.

Government is meant to make the lives of its people better-not bitter. Social Security is an important program for all citizens. Universal health care should be reality not a program stopped because insurance companies might be thrown out of the health care business. Everyone should have the right to be able to support their families. If the wages that support this make a company unable to compete in the marketplace because it cannot give its employees a 'living wage', then the company should die. Lets see how many CEOs get $50 million in stock options and bonuses when the companies must share their wealth wth the employees that actually do the work, not those that decide to rid a company of its loyal workers as a means of balancing a budget bloated with company officer compensation.

Lets start putting the blame where it belongs. As actor Michael Douglas said in a movie: "Greed is good." We remember the quote but forget what happened in that movie. We have created a bunch of Geckos (from the movie) but we have forgotten to create those who would remind us of the consequences of our actions- corrupt or not.

Well said.

Too many false dichotomies in order to make "news" easier to consume.

Lol I have yet to see a liberal spin of wikipedia

I know, we could create Liberalipedia: The answer to the answer to Wikipedia! I wonder if they'd create a page for us on here...

I'm sure the liberal denizens of Conservapedia are working on it.

By the way, I was just looking at the letters to the editor in my belovèd local newspaper… I think that they may have been copied from Conservapedia entires. Not just the ideas, but the poor grammar too!

I've had 8 years of 'conservative' ideals. Let's get back to the 'liberal' ideas of government being responsible for 'helping' people - not opposing people whenever and whereever able to.

:shock!:

As I see it, anything that disagrees with a personal point of view to a 'Conservative' is automatically liberal. I have often made political decisions based on what I hold as a personal belief. Sometimes this is a (supposedly) conservative view; othertimes, it is (supposedly) a liberal point of view. I rationalize this as being truly 'moderate'.

In reality, placing labels on political thought is senseless. Not all conservatives believe the way described as conservastive all of the time. Liberals, sorry to dissapoint GOP party members, do not believe the liberal view all of the time. We are independent thinkers (or at the least- we should be) and, therefore, carry our own decisions. We do not need a lying Rush Limbaugh or a pandering Fox News Channel to make our decisions for us.

Talk radio is conservative (ultra). The network TV media is also conservative, though not as ultra-conservative as some of the radio news jocks. There is no real liberal message in mass media today. Network TV is only going to report news in a fashion that is commercially viable and supported.

Those who respond with 'the liberal media' should rememnber that it was those 'liberal' networks that gave great coverage of the courageous steps Bush made to secure us from terrorists affecting our lives by removing as many obtrusive civil rights as we can under a law called 'The Patriot Act' and passed it by deciding that, as the evil Emporer from 'Star Wars' put it:

"You're either with us or you're against us."

That is great political debate, isn't it?

I've had 8 years of 'conservative' ideals. Let's get back to the 'liberal' ideas of government being responsible for 'helping' people - not opposing people whenever and whereever able to.

Government is meant to make the lives of its people better-not bitter. Social Security is an important program for all citizens. Universal health care should be reality not a program stopped because insurance companies might be thrown out of the health care business. Everyone should have the right to be able to support their families. If the wages that support this make a company unable to compete in the marketplace because it cannot give its employees a 'living wage', then the company should die. Lets see how many CEOs get $50 million in stock options and bonuses when the companies must share their wealth wth the employees that actually do the work, not those that decide to rid a company of its loyal workers as a means of balancing a budget bloated with company officer compensation.

Lets start putting the blame where it belongs. As actor Michael Douglas said in a movie: "Greed is good." We remember the quote but forget what happened in that movie. We have created a bunch of Geckos (from the movie) but we have forgotten to create those who would remind us of the consequences of our actions- corrupt or not.

I need to keep this, could come in handy at some point. :)

PS They're f***ing nutters. Check out what they have to say on global warming as well. And search for "Liberal Bias".

:(

*cries*

That article on global warming is complete rubbish. The first few paragraphs weren't too bad, although still not good at all.

But when they said this: "As we learn more about climate, the "settled" conclusions of global-warming alarmists appear more ridiculous." they committed suicide in my mind.

I think we can all come to the conclusion that everything on Conservapedia is a load of rubbish, so I hereby declare that article to be proof of anthropogenic global warming. :)

But when they said this: "As we learn more about climate, the "settled" conclusions of global-warming alarmists appear more ridiculous." they committed suicide in my mind.

Our ancyclopedya is fre frum teh biaz!
But seriously, how can anyone see that as an unbiased statement? Even people who share those half-baked ideas (:eek:) should know that that statement is biased. How can something calling itself "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" be… SO… DARN… UNSTRUSTWORTHY??? *cries at lack of profanity*

Surely they must know they are the encylcopedian equivalent of a right-wing troll…

Know? Man, they're COUNTING on it. Conservapedia ain't for you. It's for the legions of Rushannitybeckoulterites who can now point to "a reference of their very own" when they argue online.

I seriously don't understand the US division of left and right being liberal and conservative, 'liberalism' especially in terms of economic policy is radically against socialism, neoliberalism enables concentration of the means of production.

I seriously don't understand the US division of left and right being liberal and conservative, 'liberalism' especially in terms of economic policy is radically against socialism, neoliberalism enables concentration of the means of production.

Just another largely successful lie, i'm afraid.
Helping to sew division helps them to finish their plans unabated.

Conservapedia seems awfully preoccupied with the 'homosexual agenda'. I think they might have 'conservative' confused with 'closeted Christian scared completely shitless by his own dark inner urges'.

"Must resist*wrenches*...sudden urge,errh, to watch..Fox News!!"

Conservapedia's list of famous vegetarians:

Pol Pot - Vegan Despot and Mass Murderer
Charles Manson - Vegan Animal Rights Activist, inspired his followers to commit murder
Volkert Van der Graaf - Vegan Assassin and Murderer
Adolf Hitler - Vegetarian Megalomaniac Mass Murderer
Squeaky Fromme - attempted assassination of President Gerald Ford

That's right, we're evil, EVIL people.

Conservapedia's list of famous vegetarians:



That's right, we're evil, EVIL people.

Well, duh. Meat purifies the soul, everyone knows that.

Just another largely successful lie, i'm afraid.
Helping to sew division helps them to finish their plans unabated.

Lies in the service of a Grand False Dichotomy. Well put.