NationStates Jolt Archive

"Bush has presided over a period of general economic growth. " (http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&oldid=578117)

right-wingers, i love you guys. how will we ever survive with you all banished to being a regional pro-great depression 2.0 party?

Conservapedia is mostly full of people trolling it. Honestly amazed it hasn't been taken down.

Conservapedia is mostly full of people trolling it. Honestly amazed it hasn't been taken down.

what's really funny about that is they have tried so hard to get rid of the obvious trolls that they are often left with just the ones who are too subtle/accurate to be noticed by conservatives - a sort of inverse poe's law for politics.

Conservapedia is mostly full of people trolling it. Honestly amazed it hasn't been taken down.Because the owners are fundamentalist Christians and trolling them fuels their martyr complex.

I would also point out the statement in the OP is basically true. The DOW Jones nearly doubled in value during Bush's tenure. If you overlook the massive crash at the end here that has taken nearly all those gains away. So until the economy recesses back to it's pre-Bush level it can be taken as truthful, albeit dishonest.

Oh dear. Oh dear oh dear. Horrifically biased article. You can't expect them to acknowledge reality though, can you? Reality has a well-known liberal bias.

Honestly, I regard Conservapaedia as less factually based than Uncyclopedia. Certainly, this recent article (http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/UnNews:In_last_weeks_of_presidency%2C_Bush_saves_world) is no more ridiculous than the one from the OP.

Ironically, most of them aren't trolls.

They really believe this shit.

I would also point out the statement in the OP is basically true. The DOW Jones nearly doubled in value during Bush's tenure. If you overlook the massive crash at the end here that has taken nearly all those gains away. So until the economy recesses back to it's pre-Bush level it can be taken as truthful, albeit dishonest.

on both the dow and s&p indexes it's already at pre-bush levels

on both the dow and s&p indexes it's already at pre-bush levels

Huh, you're right, Jan 19 2001 the dow closed at 10587.59. Thought it was in the 7000s when he took office. Oh well, carry on then.

Point of fact the Dow has lost 21.6%, 2273.23 points total.

Huh, you're right, Jan 19 2001 the dow closed at 10587.59. Thought it was in the 7000s when he took office. Oh well, carry on then.

i think it got down that low halfway through the first term of the bush presidency, so people take that as the 'starting point' of the bush economy.

Have you read their page on Obama?

i think it got down that low halfway through the first term of the bush presidency, so people take that as the 'starting point' of the bush economy.

Maybe they think it'll rally by a couple thousand points as the Bush years dwindle to a close.

Have you read their page on Obama?

I tried to read it, but it was so full of bullshit that I couldn't read it.

Have you read their page on Obama?I don't want to give them hits.

Have you read their page on Obama?

Do we really want to?

Have you read their page on Obama?

haha, oh wow. andy schlafly is an "obama is a secret muslim non-citizen born in kenya" believer.

I read the Obama page...and I thought Alex Jones was bad.

I tried to read it, but it was so full of bullshit that I couldn't read it.

Actually, I found it to be a nice fantasy break from reality. I have seen a lot worse in the Sci Fi Channel.:p

Actually, I found it to be a nice fantasy break from reality. I have seen a lot worse in the Sci Fi Channel.:pAnd I've seen better in porn.

I like Conservapedia, even if its just for the fact that they admit that they're biased.

They are very full of shit, though.

i think it got down that low halfway through the first term of the bush presidency, so people take that as the 'starting point' of the bush economy.

A lot of people like to use the post-9/11 beating that the Dow took as Bush's 'starting point', since it was just 8 months into his presidency.

Ooh, ooh, now I get to post my favorite Conservapedia article ever!

Patriotism
From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Patriotism, or love of country, is the highest American virtue. Patriotism means unquestioning obedience and loyalty to the Leader of the country. The opposite of patriotism, treason, is the act of questioning, criticizing or voting against the Leader.

Patriotism comes from the Latin. An ancient Latino poet wrote "Dulce et decorum est pro Patria mori", which means "It is sweet and decorative for patriots to die".

-Conservapedia, "humor removed" version, 2/24/06

I like Conservapedia, even if its just for the fact that they admit that they're biased.

Oh they drove the bus past biased, and drove it off the cliff of sanity into the valleys of paranoia.

Oh they drove the bus past biased, and drove it off the cliff of sanity into the valleys of paranoia.
Well, yeah.

But they admit it, I think it's hats-off to them for doing that, even though I disagree with basically everything they have on that site.

why always the conservatives when there are so many different idiot wiki's to poke fun of (which is pretty much anyone who cares deeply about politics)

http://www.anarchyteaparty.org/: its shitty and rundown much like its politics
http://communistwiki.wikispaces.com/: flopping around like a fish (http://communistwiki.wikispaces.com/Josef+Stalin)
http://green.wikia.com: actually not bad just rather like it was made by a bunch of 19 year olds who think their cool (http://green.wikia.com/wiki/Nuclear_Power)

And I've seen better in porn.

I don't know I mean some of that is pretty deep stuff like the man who makes 3 different clones of the same woman because she died or something (I was busy at the time >.>)

why always the conservatives when there are so many different idiot wiki's to poke fun of

because they are the ones with the backing of a major political movement whose wiki was created explicitly to counter the 'bias' of wikipedia? i mean, it's like asking why we always make fun of famous people rather than some guy nobody has ever heard of that hasn't done anything of note.

"Bush has presided over a period of general economic growth. " (http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&oldid=578117)

right-wingers, i love you guys. how will we ever survive with you all banished to being a regional pro-great depression 2.0 party?

Wait till the Leftist Liberal Democrats are out of power, it will happen eventually, lol.

"Bush has presided over a period of general economic growth. " (http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&oldid=578117)

right-wingers, i love you guys. how will we ever survive with you all banished to being a regional pro-great depression 2.0 party?

Actually, if you think about it, Bush did preside over a period of general economic growth. It has only been in the last year that the shit has hit the fan, so to speak.

Also, I don't think we are going to have Great Depression 2.0. Depressions are impossible to get when you have a fiat currency system.

Well, general economic growth is factual. Of course, economic growth means jack shit if household income and wages/salaries are stagnant as has been the case for the past eight years. It also means shit if you're not getting any of the gains from it; income inequality has worsened over the past eight years; income inequality grew as fast or faster in the 1990's, but unlike back then none of the growth in the upper levels has trickled down to lower income brackets.

You can't eat industrial production or heat your house with GDP growth...

I'm not buying that conservopedia is serious. They're trolling as far as I'm concerned.

The Obama page is hilarious.

The Obama page is hilarious.

Not quite as hilarious as the page on Atheism. That's some good black humour there.

I like Conservapedia, even if its just for the fact that they admit that they're biased.

Yeah, it's kind of weird. The argument seems to be "Wikipedia has a liberal bias, so it does not adequately reflect reality." This is wrong, of course, an encyclopedia anyone can edit having a liberal bias is like a die having a five bias; it's random. But what's even odder is that to counter this bias, they propose...a different bias. There is no goal to report the truth, it is explicitly to offer a different pair of rose-colored glasses. I'm not sure how someone could both know this and still accept the veracity of articles there. Very odd.

Yeah, it's kind of weird. The argument seems to be "Wikipedia has a liberal bias, so it does not adequately reflect reality." This is wrong, of course, an encyclopedia anyone can edit having a liberal bias is like a die having a five bias; it's random. But what's even odder is that to counter this bias, they propose...a different bias. There is no goal to report the truth, it is explicitly to offer a different pair of rose-colored glasses. I'm not sure how someone could both know this and still accept the veracity of articles there. Very odd.

The Learned Elders of Wikipedia are out to defame conservatives, obviously.

Lol... Let's all get together and delete all their articles and spam them to death.

The Learned Elders of Wikipedia are out to defame conservatives, obviously.

Yeah. We should write a book... called the "The Protocols of the Elders of Wikipedia".

Wait till the Leftist Liberal Democrats are out of power, it will happen eventually, lol.

i approve of this plan for republican resurgence

"guys, it's easy. all we have to do is wait for the other guys to lose!"

i approve of this plan for republican resurgence

"guys, it's easy. all we have to do is wait for the other guys to lose!"

That is their plan. It worked in 1994...

Why anyone would take a source so unobjective as to openly declare themselves as part of an ideology is beyond me....

That is their plan. It worked in 1994...

i thought their 90s plan involved going on a witch hunt and demonization and a concerted effort to dominate and marginalize independent voices in the press, with a side of extremist coddling.

i thought their 90s plan involved going on a witch hunt and demonization and a concerted effort to dominate and marginalize independent voices in the press, with a side of extremist coddling.

Nah, thats just the Party Platform, lol

I would also point out the statement in the OP is basically true. The DOW Jones nearly doubled in value during Bush's tenure. If you overlook the massive crash at the end here that has taken nearly all those gains away. So until the economy recesses back to it's pre-Bush level it can be taken as truthful, albeit dishonest.

But the economy always grows, over time. Every president has presided over a period of economic growth. For a president to serve even one term and not have one moment at which the economy grows would be a disaster. No president could last a single term.

But to claim that he presided over a period of economic growth implies that the economy grew at a rate higher than most other periods. It's like saying "President Bush is one of those people who inhales mostly nitrogen gas rather than oxygen or carbon dioxide. In fact, he inhales more nitrogen than all other gasses combined." Or, "president Bush was the only president in the 21st century not to have his arms amputated upon taking office." Yes, it's true, but it's true of everyone and offers no information to the reader.

It doesn't say anything. And the English language is structured in such a way that when someone makes a statement that doesn't seem to say anything meaningful, you have to assume that there is some implied piece of information that makes that statement meaningful.

For example, the famous conjunction fallacy:
Which is more likely?

1. Linda is a bank teller.
2. Linda is a bank teller and is active in the feminist movement.

A logician will tell you that the first must be more likely, because only her not being a banker can make that statement untrue, but the second statement can be made untrue by Linda not being a banker ornot being active in the feminist movement. The logician then points to this as evidence that most people are unable to think critically or understand the world.

What that logician is forgetting is that most people read the above statements in English, not logician's technical jargon. Just like if a person says to you, "come here," the 'you' is implied. You understand that the statement means "you, come here." By the same token, any normal person would understand the first of the Linda statements to mean, "Linda is a bank teller, and is not active in the feminist movement," because in context, any other interpretation is stupid.

The same with saying that Dubya presided over a period of economic growth. It implies that other presidents don't.

Conservapedia is so funny to me. Unfortunately, it's probably because I'm not quite well.

Yeah, it's kind of weird. The argument seems to be "Wikipedia has a liberal bias, so it does not adequately reflect reality." This is wrong, of course, an encyclopedia anyone can edit having a liberal bias is like a die having a five bias; it's random. But what's even odder is that to counter this bias, they propose...a different bias. There is no goal to report the truth, it is explicitly to offer a different pair of rose-colored glasses. I'm not sure how someone could both know this and still accept the veracity of articles there. Very odd.
That is what exactly strikes me as nuts about their website. They attempt to counter a supposed bias by being biased in the other direction - when usually people tend to accuse their opposites of being biased and hugging to the imagined fact that they are being non-biased.

They basically undermine their own argument and are happy to do so. They hang themselves by their own rope.

Bush: "Campaigning on the notion that the United States should not be in the business of nation-building"

ARE THEY SERIOUS!? lmfao

Bush: "Campaigning on the notion that the United States should not be in the business of nation-building"

ARE THEY SERIOUS!? lmfao
Crap, they've got funnier things than that.

Try harder, man, try harder!

Bush: "Campaigning on the notion that the United States should not be in the business of nation-building"

ARE THEY SERIOUS!? lmfao

If you can remember the 2000 election campaign, I think you'll find that he did indeed campaign based on such a pledge. He even followed that idea until 9/11.

Check out "communism," "nixon," and "socialism." Now THIS is entertainment.

Bush: "Campaigning on the notion that the United States should not be in the business of nation-building"

ARE THEY SERIOUS!? lmfao

if anything, the bush admin seems to have taken that slogan even more literally than intended

if anything, the bush admin seems to have taken that slogan even more literally than intended

lol, Yeah, i guess so :rolleyes:

Nation building is "the idea of invading and occupying a land afflicted by dictatorship or civil war and turning it into a democracy."

Nation building is a controversial diplomatic and military initiative favored by neoconservatives, but generally opposed by conservatives. American government officials and others have expressed different opinions about its wisdom and practicality, particularly in regards to post-war Iraq.

Wow... this makes South Park look tame...

Richard Lenski's second letter (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Lenski_dialog) is the classic criticism of Conservapedia. Otherwise, I don't really want to give them the oxygen of publicity by clicking on their site.

"Bush has presided over a period of general economic growth. " (http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&oldid=578117)

right-wingers, i love you guys. how will we ever survive with you all banished to being a regional pro-great depression 2.0 party?

/facepalm

Ah, politicized versions of Wikipedia. God it is fun to surf through the satire.

Oh wait, they take themselves seriously...

A lot of their articles infuriated me. It's unbelievable how they blame the Left for everything and even go as far as to say that the NSDAP were Leftist in practice and that Anti-Semiticism emerged from the Left. However, it's just funny how they actually take themselves seriously.

Conservapedia makes real conservatives look centralist, independents on the left, and the liberals as communists.

Although I have to admit, it does give me a good laugh to look at this. :)

Conservapedia makes real conservatives look centralist, independents on the left, and the liberals as communists.

Although I have to admit, it does give me a good laugh to look at this. :)

Nearly made my head explode.

The commandments thing says you can get arrested and crap for vandalizing articles.

real conservatives

oh?

I wonder why there isn't a liberapedia?

This was my favorite, from the main page:

"Romania removes theory of evolution from school curriculum."[11] The former communist country has become more free than the United States on this issue! In recent years, the idea that the evolutionary position be taught in a more objective and critical manner has had some victories and momentum in the United States."

Ooh, ooh, now I get to post my favorite Conservapedia article ever!

Patriotism
From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Patriotism, or love of country, is the highest American virtue. Patriotism means unquestioning obedience and loyalty to the Leader of the country. The opposite of patriotism, treason, is the act of questioning, criticizing or voting against the Leader.

Patriotism comes from the Latin. An ancient Latino poet wrote "Dulce et decorum est pro Patria mori", which means "It is sweet and decorative for patriots to die".

-Conservapedia, "humor removed" version, 2/24/06

Epic bit of trolling, that last!

Hmm I am not sure what to be more amused or bothered, that they buchered qoutes of the Latin Languge and or that the Neoconservatives created their own website.

I had to chuckle at their bio of George Washington and some other political figures though.

Epic bit of trolling, that last!

If you really want to troll Conservapedia, bring up the FBI Incident. (http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Conservapedia:FBI_Incident)

read their obama article
http://www.conservapedia.com/Barack_Obama

Go to the Theory of Evolution page and see the wonderful photo that greets you.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution

"Bush has presided over a period of general economic growth. " (http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&oldid=578117)

right-wingers, i love you guys. how will we ever survive with you all banished to being a regional pro-great depression 2.0 party?

Well actually Bush did reside over a period of general economic growth.

http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/directors_charts/pi_9.pdf

But let's not get facts get in the way of the bashing of people who disagree with us.

Of course in saying that Conservapedia is a bit of a joke and quite frankly shouldn't really be used as a resources. While Wikipedia is better it should only be used as general guide and even has a few biases of its own, though not as bad as Conservapedia or any of the others.

Well actually Bush did reside over a period of general economic growth.

your measure doesn't tell you what you think it tells you

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44392000/gif/_44392327_us_eco_gro_416gra.gif

Well how is this one then?

Epic bit of trolling, that last!

It's the fact that someone at Conservapedia honestly believed they'd removed everything funny or trollish from that version that kills me completely. The first time I read it, I was giggling uncontrollably by "voting against" and nearly fell out of my chair laughing by "an ancient Latino poet," so the decoratively-dying patriots were just icing on the cake. :D

Holy crap, it's like the Whole Earth Catalogue of every idiotic argument that's been thrown at me in the last 15 years. :eek2:

Have you read their page on Obama?

lololololol

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

A lot of their articles infuriated me. It's unbelievable how they blame the Left for everything and even go as far as to say that the NSDAP were Leftist in practice and that Anti-Semiticism emerged from the Left. However, it's just funny how they actually take themselves seriously.

Ascelonia, you need to read the following article

http://jonjayray.tripod.com/hitler.html (Hitler was a Socialist)

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44392000/gif/_44392327_us_eco_gro_416gra.gif

Well how is this one then?

still not saying what you think it is

Because the owners are fundamentalist Christians and trolling them fuels their martyr complex.
/thread

truthful, albeit dishonest.Republican epitaph in most cases.
Perhaps, more of truthiness than truth.

Ironically, most of them aren't trolls.

They really believe this shit.Qualifying themselves as ideological extremists with delusional principles ... what they've always been, and with some success, shall ever be quickly understood to be by public concern and dismissed as quickly regarding anything important.

Do we really want to?Don't worry - it's full of the collected wisdom of Palin's stumping after she hooked up with McCain.
And a collection of emails.

It's like saying "President Bush is one of those people who inhales mostly nitrogen gas rather than oxygen or carbon dioxide. In fact, he inhales more nitrogen than all other gasses combined." Or, "president Bush was the only president in the 21st century not to have his arms amputated upon taking office."
Straughn whispered that he still loves you.
:hail:

They basically undermine their own argument and are happy to do so. They hang themselves by their own rope.A primary characteristic of conservative philosophy in itself, it would appear.

They're not conservatives, they're morons with access to PHP/MySQL.

Ascelonia, you need to read the following article

http://jonjayray.tripod.com/hitler.html (Hitler was a Socialist)What a bunch of tripe.
/threadShould have. Unfortunately, it didn't, and Conservapedia got more hits and referral links...
They're not conservatives, they're morons with access to PHP/MySQL.The two are not mutually exclusive.

Oh dear. Oh dear oh dear. Horrifically biased article. You can't expect them to acknowledge reality though, can you? Reality has a well-known liberal bias.

Honestly, I regard Conservapaedia as less factually based than Uncyclopedia. Certainly, this recent article (http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/UnNews:In_last_weeks_of_presidency%2C_Bush_saves_world) is no more ridiculous than the one from the OP.

DI, I am siggin you.

What a bunch of tripe.

Explain.

Explain.Hitler wasn't a socialist. The collection of "evidence" that article cites doesn't change that.

Yeah, it's kind of weird. The argument seems to be "Wikipedia has a liberal bias, so it does not adequately reflect reality." This is wrong, of course, an encyclopedia anyone can edit having a liberal bias is like a die having a five bias; it's random. But what's even odder is that to counter this bias, they propose...a different bias. There is no goal to report the truth, it is explicitly to offer a different pair of rose-colored glasses. I'm not sure how someone could both know this and still accept the veracity of articles there. Very odd.

Almost on par with double think, one likes to believe.

Check out "communism," "nixon," and "socialism." Now THIS is entertainment.

It's confusing on the whole socialism/communism thing, because working from their own (admittedly non-reality based) books, the Bible, it "tells us" that communism is the way of the Lord. (http://www.deism.com/communismbible.htm)

I wonder why there isn't a liberapedia?

It's called Wikipedia.

It's called Wikipedia.No, Rationalwiki

No, Rationalwiki

... :rolleyes:
I was joking.

Ascelonia, you need to read the following article

http://jonjayray.tripod.com/hitler.html (Hitler was a Socialist)

And Germany invading the Soviet Union in 1941 does not dampen your belief that Hitler believed in socialism?

In reality, Hitler was the kind of guy who didn't matter what he believed in to himself (it sure did to other people though), he believed in what would get him into power. Anti-Semitism was a clever ploy, especially since Europe had/(s?) deep-seated racial tensions. Martin Luther, the man who declared the Protestant church once wrote a 16,000 word essay on why Jews are bad.

Hitler was also related to the Freikorps by association of most members being WWI vets, who brutally put down the Sparticist (read:Communist) rebellion in '19, murdering the leaders, Karl Liebknecht and Rose Luxemburg (who was also raped).

Socialist in name, power-hungry fools in game.

And Germany invading the Soviet Union in 1941 does not dampen your belief that Hitler believed in socialism?
If anyone had Stalin just across the border, they'd be shitting themselves too.

If anyone had Stalin just across the border, they'd be shitting themselves too.Chinese and Iranians never invaded, though.

If you really want to troll Conservapedia, bring up the FBI Incident. (http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Conservapedia:FBI_Incident)

The song's called "I Fought The Law", idiot! (to Mr. Schafly)

Chinese and Iranians never invaded, though.
True.

But then China was in turmoil, although I've got no idea about Iran.

If anyone had Stalin just across the border, they'd be shitting themselves too.

The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov-Ribbentrop_Pact) meant nothing then?

The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov-Ribbentrop_Pact) meant nothing then?

No, seeing as Germany completed violated it.

Chinese and Iranians never invaded, though.
There were pitched battles along the border with China a couple of times, actually.

The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov-Ribbentrop_Pact) meant nothing then?It did. It came as a total shock to anyone that was convinced Hitler and Stalin were polar opposites politically. Course, Hitler proved his earlier self correct when he did end up attacking the Soviet Union. War between the two was inevitable.
There were pitched battles along the border with China a couple of times, actually.Which would not constitute the kind of invasion that happened in WWII.

It did. It came as a total shock to anyone that was convinced Hitler and Stalin were polar opposites politically. Course, Hitler proved his earlier self correct when he did end up attacking the Soviet Union.

Supports my argument of Hitler vying for power, I do think.

Well actually Bush did reside over a period of general economic growth.

the problem with using mere positive real gdp growth to claim 'general economic growth' is that it doesn't tell anywhere near the full story. i mean, everybody save hoover can make that claim on that evidence, and almost all of them have a stronger argument for it. bush's overall gdp growth rate looks like its gonna come out around 2%, which puts him significantly lower than, for example, carter.

hell, you have to be in a zimbabwe-esque societal collapse to see significant year after year negative gdp growth. even haiti has managed positive real gdp growth for the past couple years, and they have food riots.

Ascelonia, you need to read the following article

http://jonjayray.tripod.com/hitler.html (Hitler was a Socialist)

Youre opinion on anything related to history of anything just became void.

Let me guess, Liberal Facism was a credible source too, right?


The NSDAP was Socialist in the same sense that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a democratic republic.

Chinese and Iranians never invaded, though.

not that i buy into Hitler being socialist...*cough*bullshit*cough*...lol...

But, China in the Soviet era...and Iran possibly invading the USSR....just seems really unlikely, lol...

Germany was greater than them Militarily combined by at least an Order of Magnitude, lol...