Conservapedia on Obama.

Hobbes

http://www.conservapedia.com/Barack_Obama

Very funny yet disturbing read. I understand the site is supposed to have a conservative slant but this page is just taking the p!ss.

Things like: "Obama is the first person having ties to a known terrorist to gain control over America's nuclear weapons." (then cites two stories which don't back it up).

or "President-elect Obama will likely become the first Muslim President," and then make their own checklist as to why they think he is Muslim. :rolleyes:

Conservatives want to be taken serious?

Overheal

Let them eat cake. I can foresee the day when the Republican Party crumbles and is replaced by some other organisation in American Politics. After all the Green Party will need to get its comeuppance before the Apocalypse.

Nodin

Hobbes wrote: »

http://www.conservapedia.com/Barack_Obama

Very funny yet disturbing read. I understand the site is supposed to have a conservative slant but this page is just taking the p!ss.

Things like: "Obama is the first person having ties to a known terrorist to gain control over America's nuclear weapons." (then cites two stories which don't back it up).

or "President-elect Obama will likely become the first Muslim President," and then make their own checklist as to why they think he is Muslim. :rolleyes:

Conservatives want to be taken serious?

Its rather disturbing, but par for the course. Even the more 'mainstream' conservative commentators pander to this kind of lunacy occassionally, and theres an entire network of stations, papers and pundits (not forgetting the larger blogs) out there to reassure everyone that their worst nightmares are indeed true. It's like loony left conspiracy nonsense, except far more extensive.

Its worth remembering too that they have no legislation that requires radio and the like to include all viewpoints. Therefore if a station wants to run an entire line up of far right ranters, they're perfectly free to do so, and don't have to provide a counter. Talk radio actually suits them down to the ground as a platform.

I think part of the problem as well is that we expect better from the Americans, somehow, being Irish and it being the preferred destination for a long time.

bnt

I'm surprised that Conservapedia haven't yet done a number on Rahm Emanuel, but I suppose it's only a matter of time. After all, he was (allegedly) the inspiration for the character of Josh Lyman in The West Wing, a.k.a. "The Left Wing". :eek:

Hobbes

I like thier evolution page. They manage to godwin it in the first part.

Also finding places I never heard of before who would of thought it there would be a godtube.com!

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

there's also a jewtube

Simi

Mordeth wrote: »

there's also a jewtube

Jewtube? This sounds promising... I actually read the Barack Obama article the other day & couldn't stop laughing. Is it wrong to laugh at the mentally handicapped? Their citations are brilliant. Random blogs of right wing nut jobs held up as fact, along with fox news articles etc. It's just a fantastic site.

Nodin

Simi wrote: »

Jewtube? This sounds promising... I actually read the Barack Obama article the other day & couldn't stop laughing. Is it wrong to laugh at the mentally handicapped? Their citations are brilliant. Random blogs of right wing nut jobs held up as fact, along with fox news articles etc. It's just a fantastic site.

Try World Net Daily. Similarily, its funny because they're serious.

Running Bing

Hobbes wrote: »

http://www.conservapedia.com/Barack_Obama

Very funny yet disturbing read. I understand the site is supposed to have a conservative slant but this page is just taking the p!ss.

Things like: "Obama is the first person having ties to a known terrorist to gain control over America's nuclear weapons." (then cites two stories which don't back it up).

or "President-elect Obama will likely become the first Muslim President," and then make their own checklist as to why they think he is Muslim. :rolleyes:

Conservatives want to be taken serious?

Yes because this website is a perfect representation of center right conservative thinking:rolleyes:


Thank god Barack is a sensible pragmatic individual because if he looked on Republicans the way many people seem to now the future would be very bleak.

There's small minded idiots at every dimension of the political spectrum, there's also open minded intelligent people like Barack Obama and John McCain.

Hobbes

Babybing wrote: »

Yes because this website is a perfect representation of center right conservative thinking:rolleyes:

Actually I would say it is more reflective of a far right vocal group within the conservative spectrum. But it certainly doesn't make a conservative look good.

Running Bing

Hobbes wrote: »

Actually I would say it is more reflective of a far right vocal group within the conservative spectrum. But it certainly doesn't make a conservative look good.

Not necessarily. They do not represent all conservatives or even the majority of conservatives.

Your statement is the equivalent of saying the views of extreme left dictators do not make liberals look good.

My point is take it for what it is.

Hobbes

Babybing wrote: »

Not necessarily. They do not represent all conservatives or even the majority of conservatives.

While that may be true, nearly every thing I see being spouted off as Truth from the GOP and its supporters is pretty much documented there.

If it is the GOP sending out these messages then the majority are either playing along with it, or it isn't the GOP anymore.

GuanYin

Hobbes wrote: »

Actually I would say it is more reflective of a far right vocal group within the conservative spectrum. But it certainly doesn't make a conservative look good.

There are plenty of left-wing liberals who are just as idiotic as the people who run that website, the focus rarely seems to move over them.

Olbermann is exactly the mirror opposite of many of these kind of people, despite the fact he takes himself seriously, he's revered among many boards posters here.

As has been said, there are idiots in every niche and honestly, painting all conservatives with the same brush Hobbes makes you look every bit as foolish as the people running that site.

GuanYin

Hobbes wrote: »

While that may be true, nearly every thing I see being spouted off as Truth from the GOP and its supporters is pretty much documented there.

If it is the GOP sending out these messages then the majority are either playing along with it, or it isn't the GOP anymore.

No, the boards posters pick and choose sources.

Empty vessels make the most sound and all that.

Hobbes

GuanYin wrote: »

There are plenty of left-wing liberals who are just as idiotic as the people who run that website, the focus rarely seems to move over them.

True. But this is actually cited as an encyclopedia site with conservative slant. While I can understand wanting to have a conservative slant, making that complete falsehoods or revisionist history does nothing to help.

Olbermann is exactly the mirror opposite of many of these kind of people,

I am not aware of any instances where Olbermann has straight out lied. Can you cite some examples? I even checked a few of the Right wing sites because I know if he was ever to do that they would be over it like a fly on poop.

despite the fact he takes himself seriously, he's revered among many boards posters here.

Actually I find him the real world version of TL;DR and boring. Most of what he says can be condensed. SNL did a nice sketch on it too.

As has been said, there are idiots in every niche and honestly, painting all conservatives with the same brush Hobbes makes you look every bit as foolish as the people running that site.

I think if the idiots are the ones with the voice and are claiming to represent something conservatives aren't, then it isn't me being the fool.

Like I said, a lot of the stuff on that site is being quoted as gospel as facts when it isn't even in the same reality. Stuff that the GOP have been pushing.

RichTea

They believe that Adam and Eve were riding around on dinosaurs about 6,000 years ago and that the rapture will save only a couple of hundred of thousand people from armageddon as the rest of us are then forced to be judged etc etc

To be fair they're awfully funny chaps, no convincing them I tell ya.

Running Bing

I am assuming your aware of the origins of Conservapedia and how wiki-based encyclopaedia's are compiled? i.e. it was started by a single person (a lawyer named Andrew Schlafly) and anybody can essentially add to it?


Here's a few articles that include views on the website from some notable conservatives.

http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=62814&archive=true

http://www.thestar.com/sciencetech/article/190501

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2008/08/22/think-wikipedia-biased-do-something-about-it


I really feel your way out of line on this one if you feel this random internet website is indicative of the views of 55 million registered republicans.

Like I said, a lot of the stuff on that site is being quoted as gospel as facts when it isn't even in the same reality. Stuff that the GOP have been pushing.

Examples?

Ziggurat

Babybing wrote: »

I am assuming your aware of the origins of Conservapedia and how wiki-based encyclopaedia's are compiled? i.e. it was started by a single person (a lawyer named Andrew Schlafly) and anybody can essentially add to it?

Ah, not true. Conservapedia is very, very carefully monitored to ensure no facts that may undo their opinions are allowed. Basically it's a place for those on the far-right to validate their warped view of reality.

Running Bing

Quinine wrote: »

Ah, not true. Conservapedia is very, very carefully monitored to ensure no facts that may undo their opinions are allowed. Basically it's a place for those on the far-right to validate their warped view of reality.

Ah, it is true.


Go on sign up and you can add to it. Of course dont count on your contribution staying up very long if the editors dont agree with it but anybody can add to it.

Your last sentence is spot on though and thats the point I am trying to make. Its not a mouthpiece for the Republican party or the 55 million Americans who are registered Republicans, or for people who class themselves as conservative or center right.

Ziggurat

Oh I agree. There are crazies on both sides of the political divide, and it is unfair to paint everyone as being like that. Sadly, they tend to drown everyone else out.

GuanYin

Quinine wrote: »

Ah, not true. Conservapedia is very, very carefully monitored to ensure no facts that may undo their opinions are allowed. Basically it's a place for those on the far-right to validate their warped view of reality.

So what you're saying is, the content is controlled by a small extremist opinioned minority of conservatives, rather that being the contributions and opinions of the conservative majority. Thank you, thats pretty much my point.