How... How do you... How old is he? How do you reach that age without ever having opened a book on science or cosmology? Or hell, Wikipedia? That's right, I forgot. Conservapedia.

Jesus, Bill. You're fucking pathetic.

Oh purlease. Did she just go clicking about on Conservapedia for something to get riled about?

Reality and history have a liberal bias, so such a journalist would be severely disadvantaged from the outset.

See Conservapedia for confirmation.

if it's "conservapedia", why does it have american flag logo?
conservatives are only Americans?


but man, that guy's charisma is lower than a bag full of shit.

Concise? Click on the Conservapedia link for 'homosexuality'. LOL.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality

*promote. Conservapedia needs your help!

Yes, Quantumushroom. His answers will be taken out of context and distorted. Like....what Mr. Beck, Mr. Hannity, Mr. O'Reilly, Mr. Limbaugh, all the 'reporters' and 'journalists' at Fox 'News' does for anything from Democrats (like, Mr. Obama?). Yes, in this interview, he is one person, with one opinion. He's not elected to office, nor does have to be at all accountable to ANYONE. Huge amount of power, plus zero accountability, spells 'abuse of power'.

Actually, Mr. Obama gets many hard questions asked all the time. During any week, he has to figure out, how to solve many of the problems left over from the Republican's failed attempt at governing. Maybe if Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney weren't dithering around in Iraq and Afghanistan, we chould have had those issues cleared up before last November. Or stopped dithering around, and solved the economic problems we had and contiune to see. Maybe worked alittle on OUR COUNTRY, and not 'play' rulers of another land (like Iraq). You want to level serious questions towards Mr. Obama? Fine. Maybe sure you level the same amount of questions (and the intensity) towards the GOP. You can't do it, and everyone knows it.

So, what are the serious questions you have, that haven't been answered? You might try listening to the guy, instead of spewing irrelavent rumbish out of your mouth when he talks. I know alot about Mr. Obama. Unlike you, I do R-E-S-E-A-R-C-H. I look up on the web, in to the library, ask people around me, and even ask my cat (though, he seems to just lick his fur, want food, and a place to sleep...).

Here's a few places to start:

A) What 99% of people us, to start looking up information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrack_Obama

B) What the remaining 1% use to start looking up information: http://conservapedia.com/Barrack_Obama

Its rather amusing to read conservapedia from time to time. Even with Mr. Obama's information. Since, much of it is filled with half truths and out right lies of the facts.

I like the conservapedia logo tells you it's trustworthy

http://www.conservapedia.com/skins/common/images/conservlogo.png

wait, i thought conservapedia was a satire project?
apparently not
my faith for humanity just fell a few pegs

On the website for the Conservative Bible Project they claim,
"Liberal bias has become the single biggest distortion in modern Bible translations...Large reductions in this error can be attained simply by retranslating the KJV into modern English."

Really? King James was a modern liberal?

So what type of thing do they propose removing from the Bible? Here's a notable example:
"Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."

Man, I can't believe Jesus was such a fucking hippy Liberal. Perhaps we could replace that line with something more Conservative like, "Father...either you're with me, or you're with the Romans."

They go on to say, "The Conservative Bible could become a text for public school courses"

Oh, joy!

Well fucking said. I was nodding my head as I read your comment. Fucking spot on.

In reply to this comment by thinker247:
If there were intelligent and articulate right wing voices, proposing sound ideas for our future, then you'd be able to shut your fucking mouth in a second, wouldn't you? But those voices do not exist, so you lash out against Olbermann and Al Gore because you have nothing else to talk about. You don't even mention the subject of these videos, but only the characters. Go write an article for Conservapedia if you want people to lift you on a pedestal.

>> ^ShakaUVM:
Is Videosift just a vault for ultra-left wing youtube clips now? Olbermann, Olbermann, Olbermann, Gore.
If you say it three times in the mirror, you turn into a dirty hippie.

If there were intelligent and articulate right wing voices, proposing sound ideas for our future, then you'd be able to shut your fucking mouth in a second, wouldn't you? But those voices do not exist, so you lash out against Olbermann and Al Gore because you have nothing else to talk about. You don't even mention the subject of these videos, but only the characters. Go write an article for Conservapedia if you want people to lift you on a pedestal.

>> ^ShakaUVM:
Is Videosift just a vault for ultra-left wing youtube clips now? Olbermann, Olbermann, Olbermann, Gore.
If you say it three times in the mirror, you turn into a dirty hippie.

Yeah, not a conversation anymore.

The burden of proof here was on you. Democrats themselves say they were founded by Jefferson. Even your proposed alternate founder said this. As counter evidence you provided what? A logo? A single dictionary entry?

Was there a contemporary of Jackson who disputed that claim? Was there some historian who disputed it later? I couldn't find anyone who did, except you and Conservapedia, and neither of those sources are exactly reliable sources for history. Imagine turning in a research paper with those citations. Talk about a bloodbath.

I start these fights to try to learn something. You're not teaching me anything, you're just saying "nuh-uh".

At least I've had an excuse/opportunity to read up on my party's history. Puts the more recent tussles into perspective. I wish you'd been able to provide a non-blankfist source for your version of history. Believe it or not, I secretly love being proven wrong.

I wish there were debate judges around to score this, but I'm sure you'd just accuse them of a liberal bias if they said you lost.

Regardless, I'm resting my case. If you find some sourced material to support yours, let me know.

NetRunner, you are out of steam. "dissolve" instead of "split"? Seriously? I said the Democratic Republican Party was split into multiple factions and dissolved. So, I said "dissolve" and "split".

You might want to actually read my comments first before you try to dance around them. And nice sophist move trying to discredit my comments by taking my facts out of context so you can relate them to things on conservapedia. Let's go over this again, shall we?

The Democrats now lay an absolute claim to the Democratic Republican Party. But, that's not accurate history. The Democratic Republican Party was split into factions, namely the Democratic Party and the National Republican Party (which became the Whigs and ultimately split as well into the Republican Party). And then the Democratic Republican Party was dissolved.

The Democratic Party is a descendant of the Democratic Republican Party. And so is the Republican Party. You could consider the Democratic Party to be a closer descendant, however, most appropriately the direct child of the Democratic Republican Party - that would make the Republican Party of today the Great Grandchild (National Republican > Whigs > Republican). That's fair, no?

What NetRunner claims I said: You say that I "keep harping on the logo and platform change" but then say "that's not my argument," yet you've offered nothing else.

What I really said: Secondly, you keep harping on the logo and platform change. That's not my argument. It's a piece of the argument to help illustrate how the parties are different, but you're making a wild assertion that I am resting my entire argument on the parties being different because the mascots or the platform changed.

Yawn.

^ I think this conversation has gone past the point of, well, being a conversation.

You claim "the best evidence you can offer is a link to the democrats website that makes claim to the party", despite the fact that I have actually given links to Encylopedia Britannica, US History Encylcopedia, the Law Encyclopedia, a transcript from the Democratic National Convention in 1872 where Jefferson's grandson says he's been in the Democratic-Republican party for 80 years, and Martin van Buren's Inquiry Into the Origin and Course of Political Parties in the United States, but apparently you are only able to notice that I also pointed out the Democratic Party itself makes the same claim.

You say that I "keep harping on the logo and platform change" but then say "that's not my argument," yet you've offered nothing else.

I'd never heard someone claim Jackson founded the Democratic party before, so when you first claimed it, I went and checked, because I thought I might be misremembering (they're both J-named Presidents, after all).

Everything I've said came from what I read, and only in my last response did I really try to draw my own inference.

You have yet to provide a source that frames the situation in the terms of "Andrew Jackson founded the Democratic Party" or even "The Democratic party begain in 1828".

For your convenience, I will provide the sole reference I've found that repeats your revisionist claims: Conservapedia. I'd think twice about trying to cite their credibility as being higher than Encyclopedia Britannica, though.

I'm not sure what, if anything, you're reading that backs you up beyond conservapedia, a single dictionary entry that used the word "dissolve" instead of "split", and your strongly held belief that Jefferson and the Democratic party are like oil and water. Sorry, I forgot, you don't like my analogies. I mean that you think Jefferson and the Democratic party can't possibly be combined.

My argument is pretty hard to refute; the people you claim "founded" the Democratic party themselves say they never left the Democratic-Republican party, they just changed the name.

If they say that, who's the supposed higher authority that gets to say "nice try guys, you really founded your own party"? Perhaps Adams or Clay could dispute it, but I've not found any source that says they made any attempt to dispute it. If they didn't, why are you?