Your video, Have You Ever Heard Of Conservapedia?, has made it into your personal Highest Rated Videos listing. Congratulations on a job well done. For you contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^filantropo:
This is bitter, not funny. Typical example of lesbian woman forcing her pseudo-heterosexuality by rejecting the outcome of a fabricated situation where helas the partner chooses love over prejudice.
It reminds me of this girl that asked me how hipotetically would I certify that my nails are clean if I were to do so. And she kinda demanded an exemplification over a verbal answer - it seems this would prove my true sexuality (desregard the everlasting banging that ceased 5 minutes before, sweetheart).
So I slapped her. That's how nails get clean, b tch.


Wait a sec till I get to your conservapedia-level discourse...

...

There.

YOUR A FAG.

Conspiracy theory of the year!

http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Barack_Obama#Hussein_Obama.27s_Birth_Certificate_Number

"Barry" voted yea for "an amendment prohibiting the use of any funds appropriated in the FY2007 Department of Homeland Security Act from being used to confiscate legal firearms during states of emergency or major disasters."

I'll give him some credit, but also: Big Deal. He never would've come up with it on his own, and anyway, it's crap from both sides of the aisle. The 2nd Amendment already covers 'states of emergency'.

This is an unfortunate feature of nearly every politician. Even the conservatives haven't been very conservative during the course of my lifetime. I don't agree with this approach either, but that's not to say that throwing money at a problem doesn't get results sometimes. Counting this against him is not unlike accusing him of only having two arms. When a three-armed candidate surfaces, then I'll care that the other candidates only have two.

I agree with you. But conservatives failing to be conservative and liberals being liberals are still two different animals.

>> ^quantumushroom:
He uses accusations of "racism" whenever he loses an argument (tho not exclusively a Marxist principle).

I've seen these accusations before but I've not seen the evidence. Perhaps you can show some? I'll continue to consider it partisan nonsense in the meantime.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/17/obama_invokes_rush_limbaugh_in.html

Here's the latest kerfuffle, Obama's campaign rearranging Rush Limbaugh's parodies to make him sound like a racist. Partisan? Yeah, the party that freed the slaves versus the party of Je$$e Jack$on.

And let's not forget this, Obama speaking: The choice is clear. Most of all we can choose between hope and fear. It is going to be very difficult for Republicans to run on their stewardship of the economy or their outstanding foreign policy. We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run. They’re going to try to make you afraid. They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?

Poor-me racially-charged victimhood from a man who is an American success story by ANY standard.

>> ^quantumushroom:
I safely predict Orwellian hate crimes and hate speech laws will strengthen under his rule, the closest to outright banning free speech we'll have.

I don't see any basis for this statement except perhaps the idea that 'them Negroes is always conspirin' against us good white folk.' I did notice that Obama voted against a bill to amend the constitution to make "Flag Desecration" illegal. That's big free speech support right there if you ask me. [ref]

I have said nothing here that indicates Obama's race factors into whether or not he supports hate crime legislation. It's more a left-wing thing, not a race thing. Hate crime = thoughtcrime, and I don't see Barry or any other left-winger challenging the constitutionally-unsound hate crimes laws. The right, as usual, will just be accused of being racists by the left when they point out the emperor wears no clothes.


>> ^quantumushroom:
A question for Obama supporters: let's say he gets his way and increases taxes on only "the wealthy". Do the middle and lower classes really think they won't suffer any adverse effects by having their employers' earnings slammed?

That all depends on what is done with the money. Not waging a 100 year war with no goals would be a good start.

McCain wasn't referring to 100 years of war, it's a deliberate distortion. He meant something along the lines (I think) of North and South Korea, establishing a lasting military presence there. And yes, I like the idea of B-52s less than 10 minutes from Tehran.

"What is done" with the money, I think you already know, most of it will be pissed away by graft and corruption, bailouts, paying for ongoing failures like the Wars on Poverty, Drugs, and yes, even Terror. I don't see why the Fire Chief of Speckville, Indiana needs a million-dollar APC to defend against terrorists.

There is nothing magical that happens when you give your money to the government. You and I know the value of a dollar, and I trust a dollar in the hands of the average citizen will go much farther than it will in a politician's budget. That's the essence of libertarianism. BTW, it's YOUR dollar!


Obama is nearly a lifelong member of a "church" that promotes Black Liberation Theology. Few things lie closer to a believers' hearts than their faith, whatever it may be. How is it Barry has to disavow his church? Could it be because it's backwards and against not only basic Xtian principles but American principles?

Was a member of said church for less than half his life, actually. If you read up on Trinity United, you'll see they've promoted a number of different ideas about race interaction over the decades as the times and leadership have changed. So, too, has "Black Liberation Theology" changed its implications with time. I know you like to put -ism and -ist labels on everyone and everything, but sometimes it's not that simple and you need full sentences, paragraphs or even pages to explain something adequately.

You and others wish to blast Palin on the "Sambo' remark, which was a fabrication (aka a LIE). You've already decided she's a racist based on something that didn't even happen. Now you expect me and every other person who has a problem with Obama's radical, racist church to simply forget he was a member for over 2 decades and gave them 22K? I'm not saying Obama shares all of Wright's wacky beliefs, but then if McCain said "Bless You" when David Duke sneezed, we both know the level of liberal hysteria that would ensue.

Since you've not attributed this quote, I'm not going to address it. Without knowing if it's from a reliable source or just some conservapedia article, I've really got nothing to go on.

Fair enough. http://www.publicallies.org/site/c.liKUL3PNLvF/b.3960231/

Obama's relations to this organization.


>> ^quantumushroom:
What I'm addressing here has nothing to do with why people support Obama. Facts and logic are out the window, Obamites are electrified by these vague messages of "hope" and "change" or still part of the "Anybody but Bush" mindset.

There is some validity to what you say here. Obama is a charismatic and exciting guy and many people have not looked beyond that. It's important to acknowledge that this is the failing of those people and not of Obama, just as it is your failing to make so many false assumptions about him based on his party, race and background rather than documented facts.

You recognize that it is a failing of the people to not know their candidate. Yes, I will blame the American people if Obama is elected, just as you will blame the other half if McCain is elected.

Yes, I have some assumptions about Obama, but they're based on the many quotes he's made as well as the considerable information about his background, his (in)experience, the company he keeps and his voting record (to the left of Ted Kennedy). I personally don't give a damn about his racial background; if he supported conservative principles with the same thin resume, I'd have a serious choice to make whether he would be better than McCain.

Thanks to all who responded. Yes MINK, you're the Master of Europe and I am at your mercy. You and I have written enough to make a book.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Like all Big Government liberals, Barry O is against citizens owning firearms. For many that alone is a key indicator of whether we're dealing with a potential tyrant.

"Barry" voted yea for "an amendment prohibiting the use of any funds appropriated in the FY2007 Department of Homeland Security Act from being used to confiscate legal firearms during states of emergency or major disasters." [ref]

>> ^quantumushroom:
Obama believes in an all-powerful centrist government. There's nothing government can't fix, if only they have the money...

This is an unfortunate feature of nearly every politician. Even the conservatives haven't been very conservative during the course of my lifetime. I don't agree with this approach either, but that's not to say that throwing money at a problem doesn't get results sometimes. Counting this against him is not unlike accusing him of only having two arms. When a three-armed candidate surfaces, then I'll care that the other candidates only have two.

>> ^quantumushroom:
He uses accusations of "racism" whenever he loses an argument (tho not exclusively a Marxist principle).

I've seen these accusations before but I've not seen the evidence. Perhaps you can show some? I'll continue to consider it partisan nonsense in the meantime.

>> ^quantumushroom:
I safely predict Orwellian hate crimes and hate speech laws will strengthen under his rule, the closest to outright banning free speech we'll have.

I don't see any basis for this statement except perhaps the idea that 'them Negroes is always conspirin' against us good white folk.' I did notice that Obama voted against a bill to amend the constitution to make "Flag Desecration" illegal. That's big free speech support right there if you ask me. [ref]

>> ^quantumushroom:
A question for Obama supporters: let's say he gets his way and increases taxes on only "the wealthy". Do the middle and lower classes really think they won't suffer any adverse effects by having their employers' earnings slammed?

That all depends on what is done with the money. Not waging a 100 year war with no goals would be a good start.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Obama is nearly a lifelong member of a "church" that promotes Black Liberation Theology. Few things lie closer to a believers' hearts than their faith, whatever it may be. How is it Barry has to disavow his church? Could it be because it's backwards and against not only basic Xtian principles but American principles?

Was a member of said church for less than half his life, actually. If you read up on Trinity United, you'll see they've promoted a number of different ideas about race interaction over the decades as the times and leadership have changed. So, too, has "Black Liberation Theology" changed its implications with time. I know you like to put -ism and -ist labels on everyone and everything, but sometimes it's not that simple and you need full sentences, paragraphs or even pages to explain something adequately.

>> ^quantumushroom:
And there's this:[snip]

Since you've not attributed this quote, I'm not going to address it. Without knowing if it's from a reliable source or just some conservapedia article, I've really got nothing to go on.

>> ^quantumushroom:
What I'm addressing here has nothing to do with why people support Obama. Facts and logic are out the window, Obamites are electrified by these vague messages of "hope" and "change" or still part of the "Anybody but Bush" mindset.

There is some validity to what you say here. Obama is a charismatic and exciting guy and many people have not looked beyond that. It's important to acknowledge that this is the failing of those people and not of Obama, just as it is your failing to make so many false assumptions about him based on his party, race and background rather than documented facts.

>> ^Quboid:
Great ending, I was worried the title was flame bait.
A couple of points:
1) I don't think it's established that it's a snake. Pretty sure it's a talking animal so this is a technicality, but that it's a snake is a myth. I think QI covered this and they are actually are beyond question.
2) I don't believe in evolution. OK, I agree in general, but does it explain what it aims to accurately and completely? I very much doubt it. In fact I'd be amazed if the original work wasn't mostly discredited by now, just like much of Newton's work, Einstein's work and so on. Darwin's work was certainly a big step in the evolution of knowledge
If you think about it, it's arrogant to the point of ludicrous to presume this generation has all the big stuff figured it. I'm sure as hell not a Christian or Creationist, I just think science is a work in progress and we're at a pretty early stage. I hope so! I quit Christianity when I grew out of invisible friends, but I didn't become an atheist just to join other zealots. Science is our friend, but keep questioning.

Pun / Ironic choice of phrase intentional.


You might find interesting this fascinating study this summer of unexpected evolution in bacteria cultures in the lab.

It's the first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait.

And because the species in question is a bacterium [with frozen samples every 500 generations], scientists have been able to replay [the history of the 44,000 bacteria generations] to show how this evolutionary novelty grew from the accumulation of unpredictable, chance events.

Dude, the "left" does NOT EXIST.

I wish that were the case.

you CANNOT group people into two halves.

You mean, like, the "haves" and "have-nots"?

Every time you say "the left" or "liberal" you sound like a fucking twat. Nobody knows what you mean by "left". Apparently to you it means "wrong", as in the opposite of "right". LOL.

Now now, no need to be profane or anti-fane. YOU may not know what a leftist is but a great many people do know what is meant by 'the left', leftist, socialist, etc. Obviously the term differs slightly from country to country. Both major parties in Britain are socialist; one is more conservative than the other.

The paradigm to replace "right" and "left" is "statist" versus "small-l" libertarian. It's not quite there yet, and in the meantime, "onservatism versus liberalism", or "right vs. left" will do.

I ask you this... where do you classify me? I like small government and nationalised healthcare. Yes you can have both. It doesn't

take much governmental apparatus to collect money and give it to hospitals.

You can have "both", but only for a very limited time, then it's over, and government balloons exponentially. Happens every single time it's been tried.

So am i "right" or "left"?

I don't believe gay marriage is the same as heterosexual marriage. I think abortion should be allowed, but restricted. I think

governments waste huge amounts of money. I think we need a government. I hate evil corporations. I agree with the principle of

property ownership. I love guns but I think they should be banned or at least restricted much more than they are in the USA. I served

in the RAF but I am a pacifist. But I would fight for my family. I opposed the war in Iraq for economic, constitutional and

humanitarian reasons. I hate the BBC, FOX, MOVEON, DISNEY, MTV, TYT, CONSERVAPEDIA, THE NATION, and i find DEMOCRACY

NOW intensely boring and annoying. I am agnostic about god.

SO fucking figure that out. Am I on the right? Or the left?

My interpretation? Generally speaking, I'd say you're left-leaning on most issues. You have an unexamined hostility towards capitalism and corporations, and while you're aware that government is wasteful and corrupt, you'd rather they wield the difference of power rather than 'the people'. You despise the major brands of media influence yet, like all artists, are frustrated because whether you support or oppose The Machine, you're still orbiting its imaginary center.

A pacifist is defined as "a person who believes in pacifism or is opposed to war or to violence of any kind." That being the case, you're employing a paradox by stating you'd wound or kill to defend your family. In other words, idealism ends when enemies present viable threats. What I find amusing is, if some wacko outside your window yelled, "I have a gun and I'm going to shoot you!" you wouldn't hesitate to grab your own gun, whether the wacko "proved" he actually had a gun or not. That's not paranoia, it's common sense. But when a wacko like Saddam announces he's got a gun, and he's proven in the past he'll use it indiscriminately, and all your neighbors also believe he will use the gun, the anti-war left would rather you just ignore the situation. WTF.

I think you have a young, unexamined yet comfortable worldview, and though you claim to chortle at "2 opposing sides" you tend to view things in black and white. Iraq good, USA bad. UN good, USA bad. War is always wrong. Torture is always wrong. Corporations are always evil. Those seeking "social justice" are always good and working for the best interest of all and NEVER for self-gain.

And as for your declaration that "inevitable genocide" is "unacceptable"... wow.

To leave Iraq before it's stabilized delivers it unto chaos. The left (statists) have made it clear they don't give a shit about any resulting genocide. Like spoiled children, they want what they want and that's that, don't care about anything else.

Based on your worldview, were I you I'd reach the exact same conclusions about the Iraq war that you have. The difference then, is that I'm taking into account all possible outcomes, not just the ones I'd like to see happen. Had we not taken out Saddam, he'd probably have died at a ripe old age and his thug sons would've taken over and Iraq would still be a backwards hellhole.

Think of it like this dude, although maybe you can twist words into comebacks, maybe you're not actually making a point, you're just "debating"... the way you have been trained to debate, i.e. with 2 sided arguments.

You and many others on the sift want 'wiggle room' for those times uncomfortable facts and logic make themselves known, and this wiggle room is usually provided by suggesting that "no labels apply" or that their unique views exist outside of categorization.
Liberalism is a starting point, not the finish line.

It's kinda like you live in a dictatorship and you have been brainwashed to think like that.

Once your eyes are opened and knowledge and experience received, you can't go back to being a leftist, because you won't be able to 'unsee' the inherent flaws in what amounts to an unworkable and unjust system even less fair than capitalism.

So you don't like "2-sided arguments"...all right then, have you ever gone beyond your own foregone conclusions and considered Iraq just might benefit in the long run, that the US has given them an opportunity to make their fledgling government work and given their people a real shot at self-determination? It's something the UN has never done for any country.

I'm not upset by opposing points of view, and once again, I never picked up a keyboard to change anyone's mind. We're all working thru the thing.

To be fair, the caller couldn't have known, since this example isn't in Conservapedias entry.

if the guy who founded the site talks like that, it's not surprising this "liberal" influence persists... and it's not a bad thing. i just wish people wouldn't use these stupid polarising words.

Anyone subservient enough to just subscribe their brain to a single political "genre" is obviously not thinking enough and should be ignored (see conservapedia or malkin or 911truth or moveon or peta for details... across the spectrum extremism is retarded)

While some people use the internet to censer their experience of the world by only having to deal with viewpoints that they already agree with ( see conservapedia) it seems that at least folks on the sift are not in that camp.

Many netizens attempt, in at least a juvenile way to interact with people who disagree with them (see flame wars), and so tend, in my experience, to have a more nuanced view of the world than most provincial real-world-only humans.

Take the Ron Paul thing, big on the net, small in the general population, but not really fitting current conceptions of lib/con. Similarly you will find much higher concentrations of people who define themselves outside of these boundaries, you are almost as likely to meet an anarchist or libertarian on the net as a democrat or republican.

I think the answer to your either-or question is no.

While funny, it's hard to actually make fun of them for their seemingly homosexual, ummm, tendancies (i suppose that would be the word) that they have over their at conservapedia. Seeing as how anybody can edit the articles, they could just be an immature joke (though unlikely given their prevelance throughout so many articles) and the attention drawn to these particular articles probably has a lot of random people looking at them. It's kind of like getting the chance to read Charles Manson's diary. What are these psychos REALLY thinking about all day? Well, "homos" apparently : )

I would like to detract my handful of hits from the number he claims are "flocking" to conservapedia for information. I merely stopped to see a bloody carwreck of human logic and stupidity. And I may have backed up to look a few more times. I'm such a lookie-loo...

By the way, someone already came up with a word to describe conservapedia: Truthiness. according to Wikiality (a clearly non-baised source for the definitions of made-up words...)- it is "the reality that is intuitively known without regard to liberal ideals such as reason and logic." Think about it. The site and its purpose was mocked before it was even created.

Taken from Conservapedia's evolution page:

"The great intellectuals in history such as Archimedes, Aristotle, St. Augustine, Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton and Lord Kelvin did not propose an evolutionary process for a species to transform into a more complex version. Even after the theory of evolution was proposed and promoted heavily in England and Germany, most leading scientists were against the theory of evolution."

What are they trying to say? How is this even relevant? Why is the fact that historical figures before Darwin's time didn't propose an evolutionary process for a species to transform into a more complex version relevant at all? Isn't that why we hold Darwin up as the father of the theory in the first place? Because he made the proposing first?

Could the following paragraph be included in the automobile section?:

"The great intellectuals in history such as Archimedes, Aristotle, St. Augustine, Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton and Lord Kelvin did not invent automobiles. Even after the invention of the automobile most leading scientists did not drive or use automobiles."

The whole paragraph doesn't bring any information to the table but it does subtly suggest that the Theory of Evolution is academically controversial. Wait, isn't that bias?

So is Conservapedia against bias as a principle or do they just not like being disagreed with?

Meh.

Surpassed Rush Limbaugh's traffic? Wow that explains everything about your politic views. Seems Ancient History on Wiki didn't have raptor Jesus in it.

Conservapedia is not conservative, its a website that is written from a (fundamentalist) Christian standpoint that brings in factual relativism to its articles adding homophobic, fascist and racist statements to other issues. It has fallen trap to the exact same criticism that it had leveled against Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia#Reactions_and_criticisms

But that's okay, the Internet is big enough for everyone, but what I think it does show that you can meld the Internet now to bring you whatever view point you possess regardless if it conflicts with the facts.

Their funniest article is this http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism

"Conservapedia."

The word makes me laugh every time.