[Lets see how mature you are] The conservapedia Topic

[Sakoda]

Ok , what do you people think of Conservapedia ?

RuleZ 1.: You have to have acctually gone to conservapedia and searched for atleast 2 topics which you have read
2. Abide by the LD4all Rules(which means no NO FLAMING

-greets Sakoda (with capital “S”)

[Petter]

Allright, here’s a little subjctive view after reading the articles about liberals

conservapedia.com/Liberal

And the “norway” topic (+ looking trough a few others, for ex. the “iraqi freedom movement” and the one about terrorism + generally browsing around the site).

1st of, it sounds awfully US. centered. US. first, then the rest of the world as something else, something that don’t applies to the rules.

Now, the ENTIRE site is influenced by conservative thinking. They are making fun of liberals, and using good words for americas wars ("The iraqi freedom movement? At least bloody call it what it is, a war). I’m in the belief of that a lexicon should be as unpolitical, neutral place to look for info. I’m however ALSO in the belief that this is impossible, but at least let someone that is close to neutral, or a discussion between the sites, decide the words/etc.

It might be that the wiki is a bit leftist (I don’t know the facts here) but can’t believe the majority is making it that way intentionally. However, this piece of crap of an encyclopedia is free to use wikipedia content and are perfectly free to make a wiki of their own. But I hope they don’t disappear from the “real” one, so the discussions and articles won’t see the case from all sides.

I’ll keep one using the good ol’ one.

[shatterspike1]

My bullshit meter went off the charts a few times.

[The_Nameless_One]

@shatterspike1

My bullshit meter went off the charts a few times.

Sigged.

[Sakoda]

@shatterspike1

My bullshit meter went off the charts a few times.

Please post two examples ( im curious…)

[shatterspike1]

@Sakoda

@shatterspike1

My bullshit meter went off the charts a few times.

Please post two examples (that isnt the rule , which i can’t enforce anyway XD , but im curious…)

@Conservapedia

Finally, Obama broke the cardinal rule of declaring he would not use nuclear weapons, removing the element of bluff U.S. Presidents had vitally depended upon throughout the Cold War era. The incidents all added up to a picture of a candidate ill-prepared and ill-advised, lacking in a basic understanding of the Office of the Presidency, and failing to surround himself with appointees able to make up for his deficiencies.

How is that a bad thing? They want politicians to lie to them, apperantely.

Also, Gun control is listed under liberal falsehoods. In fact, gun control could actually prevent crime. In columbine, the guns were legally bought by people and transferred to the two kids who ended up killing thirteen people.

On same-sex marriage:

@Conservapedia

In regards to homosexuality and marriage, the same-sex “marriage” movement is seeks to destroy the sanctity of marriage by using political power to enforce a redefinition of the concept. The aim is to prevent any criticism, particularly religious-based criticism, of homosexual relationships.

The rationale goes like this:

Marriage is good.
No one can criticize what is good.
A same-sex union, defined as marriage, is good.
Therefore, no one can criticize same-sex unions.

What the ■■■■? Have they not heard that this is only wanted for basic legal rights? It has nothing to do with criticism. They say that allowing this (gay marriage) will open up “Militant Homosexual Violence.” I shouldn’t even need to elaborate on how retarded that sounds.

On What Liberals Suppot:

@Conservapedia

censorship of prayer in classrooms

Bullshit. I’m a liberal, and prayer is fine in classrooms. People are free to do what they want with religon. What I would say is not supported is prayer supported by the school, because this ignores other religons.

In short, this site is so full of bullshit, my head might explode if I read any more of it.

[Sakoda]

Ayup , thanks well im a bit conservative but i think too that they really dhould re-investigate their believs …