I feel that this requires the full thing, typed out: OH FOR FUCK’S SAKE. Goddamn.

Truth has a well known liberal bias.  Besides, we have an obligation to present all points of view, regardless of whether they fit “the facts”, or “reality”, etc. 

To refuse to do so, in fact to stifle attempts to give people The Truth, represents an egregious assault on the very heart of America’s Conservo-Judeo-Christian values, and indeed on Her True President John Sidney McCain III, still leading America while in exile in the Cheney Bunker with the help of Ronald Reagan (whose supposed death was widely and incorrectly reported by by the PaleoMedia, when in fact he’s merely been taking a several-year nap, something that’s not at all unusual for a man if his years…)...

If there’s a post that can’t be improved by an apropos reference to bad late 80s/early 90s action movies, this isn’t it.

And why does Klejerusalem21in care, doesn’t everyone just use conservapedia now?

God, it’s too fucking early for this level of stupid.

I get the feeling that Mr. Klein/Jerusalem21, along with most neoCons, isn’t quite grasping the mission of Wikipedia. Maybe they can start their own site: straussiantextopedia.com.

Conservapedia is completely absurd and a central meeting place for tinfoil hat wearers.

The Web site is so over the top that I sometimes I suspect that it’s just one big spoof run by liberals who are (once again) trying to make conservatives look bad.  Given the liberal track record of demonizing and deriding valid conservative principles, I wouldn’t be surprised if this was actually true.

-A

The Web site is so over the top that I sometimes I suspect that it’s just one big spoof run by liberals who are (once again) trying to make conservatives look bad.  Given the liberal track record of demonizing and deriding valid conservative principles, I wouldn’t be surprised if this was actually true.

What’s funny is that you *derided* tinfoil hat wearers just a sentence earlier…

Well, Jesse, one just never knows.  We’ve all seen the various examples of “grass roots” organizations that are just corporate-funded, astroturf frauds; sometimes things are never what they seem to be.

I wouldn’t be too sure that Conservapedia is as genuine as you’d like to believe, despite how neatly it fits into the liberal view of “wingnut” behavior.

-A

You do know that there’s a search engine called “The Google” which can tell you the history of Conservapedia, don’t you?

Us liberals have perpetrated many massive conspiracies, chief among them is convincing Truthers and the like that wearing a tinfoil hat will protect them:

Wearing a tinfoil hat to deflect government mind-control radio waves is even more foolish than most people think. [...] The [MIT] students note that “the helmets amplify frequency bands that coincide with those allocated to the US government between 1.2 Ghz and 1.4 Ghz. According to the FCC, These bands are supposedly reserved for ‘radio location’ (ie, GPS), and other communications with satellites.”

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/11/11/tinfoil_hats_as_government_plot/

Now that we have a gay fundamentalist Muslim as the total dictator of the United States for life, it’s so nice to be able to talk about all of our conspiracies out in the open.  I hear Rush Limbaugh’s programmers are going to cancel the radio program and show everyone that Rush has always been a robot operated by Michael Moore and George Soros.

And did you hear how George W. Bush was actually a liberal?  That was another good one.

Yay hurrah! Time for the <a href=“http://eclectech.co.uk/mindcontrol.php”>

Indeed, because everyone knows that search results via Teh Google should always be trusted implicitly and without skepticism.  The Mainstream Media doesn’t fact-check, either, so it’s all good.

After all, that Conservapedia entry on President Obama is absolutely sincere and a precise view of how conservatives regard the man in the Oval Office.  “Obama is likely the first Muslim President.”

Wow.  That reads like something out of The Onion.

But keep believing what you want to believe, logic and reason be damned.

-A

That reads like something out of The Onion.

Thank you for making an obvious point - most wingnuttery ala tinfoille DOES sound like The Onion.  In fact, you can make this into a party game by printing out various articles from WingNut Daily and The Onion, excising identifiers, and having people read it and guess.

Nearly as much fun as the “Pokemon? Or New Drug?” game we put together.  C’mon, make a guess: which is Lunesta?

Holy shit.  I just tried to read Conservapedia’s Obama link.

Just…abbasj asdn sdlk

I mean, I sort of expected the conspiracy theories to be presented as fact, but I thought the point was to pretend to be a neutral, censorship-free zone that tells the truth that the LIBERAL MSM hides. 

But that article is full of shit like “Hussein” wants to force us into “a poorly run single-payer system” (how do you know it will be poorly run?) and claiming “most Christians would not retain” a Muslim middle name (really?  Why?  Citation?) were so blatantly biased, that it undermines the point.

Conservapedia as an “objective, bias-free piece from a conservative perspective” my ass. Apparently objectivity also has a liberal bias.

Ah, a nice logical fallacy.  Conservapedia makes conservatives look bad, so it’s No True Conservative, and is probably a big trick by liberals to make conservatives look bad.  The post started off nicely by agreeing that Conservapedia is absurd, but instead of pointing out that there is variation within any group, and that Conservapedia does not represent all conservatives, Atanarjaut tries to blame the big bad liberals.

Lunesta is a both a drug and a Bakugon!

It’s the sleep aid with the moth commercial.  Pick a harder one, Ms. Kate!

Yeah, catgirl, but it was the first time Atanarjuat made me laugh.

Parasect!  Drug or Japanese Pocket Monster?

My particular favorites in the Conservapedia entry:

Obama “graduated without honors.” So did I, and lots of other people. It’s only a small percentage who graduate cum laude (or magna or summa. It doesn’t imply dishonor, just that you weren’t in the top few percent of the class.

Also, “He graduated magna cum laude with his J.D. in 1991, but did not serve in a clerkship. Federal clerkships are the typical post-graduate position for top law students.” Oh, noes! I’d better go inform my brother-in-law, who was also on Harvard Law Review and also graduated magna cum laude, that he made a mistake in accepting the offer from one of the biggest firms in the US and was supposed to clerk instead!

claiming “most Christians would not retain” a Muslim middle name

I’m continually astonished by how woefully ignorant some people choose to be about history. How do they do it? I mean, how?

A man I work with, who is much older than I, very wise, intelligent, and experienced, was shocked and horrified when I told him last month that the days of the week were largely named for pagan gods. He didn’t believe me until I carefully explained Thor’s Day, Woden’s Day, Frig Day, etc. And the look on his face was so pained. Horror, that he’d been using gods’ names all this time that weren’t his Officially Sanctioned God. Destitute sadness, that this fact had impinged itself on him before he died. And then, relief, as his brain kicked in to rationalize that, hell, it didn’t matter because THOSE gods were just make-believe, not like HIS god.

I couldn’t help but point out that Christmas trees are of pagan origin, too, and he hurriedly changed the subject.

All of that to say, most “Christian” names are much less “Christian” than they might think…

“The Web site is so over the top that I sometimes I suspect that it’s just one big spoof run by liberals who are (once again) trying to make conservatives look bad.”

Come on, -A, you can do better than that, can’t you? 

Besides, you “conservatives” do such a great job of making yourselves look bad all on your own there’s no room for a Vast Left Wing Conspiracy to form and do anything.  Plus, people on the Left are so generally disorganized we couldn’t pull it off if we tried. 

But hey, I hear that Newt said something bad about Rush, and Rush didn’t like it, so I wonder what’s going to happen…not…

Ah, yes.  Liberals inseminated Phyllis Schlafly, forcing her to pop out a son, who then spent 46 years of his life laying as a sleeper until he could take faux-credit for the little-read conservative answer to Wikipedia.  That was after they spent decades building up Schlafly as a titan of the conservative movement, even sacrificing the Equal Rights Amendment so that they could have a funny “website” 30 years later, despite the Internet not actually existing.

U R a genyus.

How does this eventually end?  I mean, we’ve got this huge section of the country that’s completely lost their capacity for reason or human decency.  I don’t know why I’m surprised; I guess I thought more folks were confused by Bush and our Traditional Media than were actively on board with the agenda.  But the question remains—how do we get through to people like the birthers and the homophobes and the Ayers obsessives?  We can’t remain a house this divided, with an entire political movement eligible for diagnosis as paranoid psychotics.

Liberals inseminated Phyllis Schlafly

*shudder*

You people have ruined my concept of what WND stands for. Most of the time I can’t remember its proper name, and think of it always as WingNut Daily. Not that it’s undeserved, just… what’s its real name again?

“But the question remains—how do we get through to people like the birthers and the homophobes and the Ayers obsessives?”

You can’t reach these people any more than you can reach the alien abduction people, the “Elvis is still alive!” people, the “JFK was killed by the mafia!” people, or followers of any of dozens of other conspiracy beliefs that border on the weird (or cross straight over into the abyss).

All you can hope to do is keep them marginalized. 

The more you try to offer evidence their beliefs are wrong, the stronger they will cling to them.  At least that’s what the chip the government implanted in my head tells me…

Thank you, Jesse, but I must humbly pass on the Genius Trophy to the truly enlightened among us who take Google search results at absolute, 100% truthful face value without the need to fact-check (you know, that pesky procedure of actually interviewing the people allegedly involved).

And yes, catgirl, of course there’s always variation within any group, and conservatives are no exception.  There’s no uber-hive mind that gives the conservative masses their marching orders.  Which is why it’s beyond silly to take Conservapedia as a valid measure of conservative thought on any topic.

As everyone here agrees, the entries in Conservapedia are flatly ridiculous, many “facts” simply manufactured out of whole cloth or attributed to fringe blogs or opinion pieces that are backed by nothing more than echo chamber repetition.

But to listen to you liberals go on about Conservapedia, you’d think that most Republicans and conservatives think that Obama is a Muslim Manchurian Candidate, or that his name is really Barry Saetoro, having been born in Kenya and not at all an American citizen.

Absolutely false.  The ravings of a few lunatics do not reflect the entirety of any movement.  Please get a grip.

-A

“Liberals inseminated Phyllis Schlafly
*shudder*”

...look at the bright side: at least only a turkey baster was defiled in the process…

28% of Americans call themselves Republicans. This is the lunatic fringe (ie, the same percentage of Americans who still support GW Bush). So I think it is fair to argue that anyone who still calls themselves a Republican, rather than an independent, is probably pretty far off the rails at this point. Certainly I’ve been getting “birth certificate” e-mails from people who, despite being outwardly functional people, identify themselves as registered Republicans. The Republican party itself is, at the moment, something that only appeals to the lunatic fringe at this point.

“But to listen to you liberals go on about Conservapedia, you’d think that most Republicans and conservatives think that Obama is a Muslim Manchurian Candidate, or that his name is really Barry Saetoro, having been born in Kenya and not at all an American citizen.”

...right…

I bet a survey of Republicans/Conservatives would show that at least a third to a half believe Obama is a Muslim, whether they think he’s a “Manchurian Candidate” or not.  But I guess the definition of the “ravings of a few lunatics” could vary pretty widely too…

Thank you, Jesse, but I must humbly pass on the Genius Trophy to the truly enlightened among us who take Google search results at absolute, 100% truthful face value without the need to fact-check (you know, that pesky procedure of actually interviewing the people allegedly involved).

What are the facts you have that Conservapedia was created by liberals?

-A, what evidence do you require besides a news story, backed up by every concurrent piece of evidence, that the site was founded by and for conservatives?

Please, share with us your wisdom.

Atanarjuat: drug, or Pokemon?

Hell, I don’t think Atanarjuat went far enough. The “neoconservatives” who got us into war in Iraq probably were liberal agents provocateurs who wanted to bog America down in a pointless war so that Dubya would be discredited.

In fact, liberals probably rigged the Supreme Court ruling that put Bush in the White House in 2000, because they knew how badly he’d screw up, thereby crippling the GOP for a generation.

Let’s just cut to the chase. Everything that every conservative has said or done in, oh, the last eight years or so has been a plot by liberals to make conservatives look bad.

It’s an explanation that makes as much sense as the real one.

“Atanarjuat: drug, or Pokemon?”

Ruiner of a perfectly innocent Inuit name?...

I don’t, XtinaS, and that’s that point; nobody has the “true” cross-checked facts on the origins of Conservapedia, but what we do have is a total lack of skepticism from liberals who want to believe that this nutty Web site is a fair representation of conservative ideology.

I can appreciate partisanship in support of a popular cause, but this naive credulity on the part of liberals is just a bit much.  As I said, get a grip.  Conservapedia is a complete joke, a farce, a true rising well of stupidity.

When you can post a youtube clip of David Brooks or Mike Murphy quoting extensively from Conservapedia, then I’ll buy into this notion that this fount of nutiness is representative of anything other than deranged people, or, as I’ve been speculating, a bunch of gigglling liberals who are using this to smear their ideological opponents.

-A

Punditus: Ideological quarantine, which would paradoxically reduce the number of posts by about 40% and eliminate the artificial glee and internet resume-padding received by ‘besting’ obviously insane people and their troll minions.

It doesn’t seem right, to assume that in the absence of data, the real source is liberals.  Could you be more specific as to why you think it’s more likely to be liberals than conservatives?

Punditus: And, while the needless comment-generation using an obvious bad-faith troll continues, here is a videographic representation of what I was talking about.

nobody has the “true” cross-checked facts on the origins of Conservapedia

Hasn’t whatshisface Schlafly come out and openly affirmed that he is the creator of Conservapedia?  I mean, do you think he’s lying, or a liberal plant, or what?

Every time I get too smug about the idiots on the right that believe the “Birther” nonsense, I think about the arguments I’ve had with tinfoil-heads on the DU: the anti-vax crowd, the 9-11 truthers, the ones who think every terror attack was a false flag (The Bali bombing was a CIA-nuke!).  Wikipedia went through the same battles before with their 9-11 pages that they are having now over President Obama’s birthplace.  We all have political brethren that believe the stupidest conspiracy nonsense.  It’s fascinating and frustrating both.  No matter how much evidence piles up against their belief, the tinfoil heads cling to their worldview.  It really does move into the realm of religion at some point.  The bumpersticker “God said it, I believe it, that settles it” so favored by some fundies would work just as well if you substitute “God” with Alex Jones or Ron Paul or whoever. 

Yesterday at the Post Office I got into an argument with some OWG*  who was harassing the Post Office clerk insisting, INSISTING VERY LOUDLY, that a 39 cent stamp was good enough for a First Class letter because it said “First Class” on it.  (it was one of the old plain ones with no postage amount on it). He admitted he had paid 39 cents for it but was dead certain that it was now good for a 42 cent letter because it had the magic words “First Class” on it.  it didn’t matter what the clerks said, or what anyone said, he was right and his belief would not be shaken dagnabit!  No argument would shake his belief. 

On the other hand, the 28% who thought Bush was doing a good job were just plain old MORONS.

*OWG=old white guy.,

Atanarjuat: drug, or Pokemon?

Pokemon on drugs.

XtinaS, it thinks it’s more likely to be liberals than conservatives because it makes conservatives look bad.  Conservatives never do anything bad, thus anything that may look bad is, in fact, the work of liberal agents provocateurs.  It’s amazing the lengths people will go to to avoid the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.

Hell, I don’t think Atanarjuat went far enough. The “neoconservatives” who got us into war in Iraq probably were liberal agents provocateurs who wanted to bog America down in a pointless war so that Dubya would be discredited.

I’ll go you one better: those neoconservatives were also (wait for it) Da Joooos, which of course means that the crafty puppetmaster Soros is behind it all.

I wish I could say I came up with that one myself, but it’s pretty much conventional wisdom amongst the Pat Buchanan set.

But the question remains—how do we get through to people like the birthers and the homophobes and the Ayers obsessives?

We don’t. Take, for example, Atanarjuat—assuming that he’s not a parody (and with this very amusing thread, I’m less likely to accept that assumption), there’s simply no way the reality-based community could do anything to get through to him or those like him. Beyond the fun of taking pokes at self-righteous dullards and ignorami and fantasists, it’s wasted energy. These types only change as a result of severe personal trauma, at which point the already sub-grade raw material is so damaged that the end result is politically useless to us.

We can’t remain a house this divided, with an entire political movement eligible for diagnosis as paranoid psychotics.

All things considered, I think we’re looking at perhaps 20% of the electorate falling (for the moment) for the line pushed by the neoCon-men and moneyCon-men (the other 8%)—a very significant proportion, but not quite a house divided (especially since they’re somewhat diluted geographically).

MikeEss has the right idea: marginalise their cynical “leaders” politically by calling them on their more reality-challenged BS; defend the Bill of Rights against their attempts to undermine it; monitor their shift to more dangerous Know-Nothing political movements; but otherwise ignore them and get on with business.

Woodrowfan; IIRC, the stamps with just letters on them ARE actually good for whatever it costs to send a normal letter.

I don’t, XtinaS, and that’s that point; nobody has the “true” cross-checked facts on the origins of Conservapedia, but what we do have is a total lack of skepticism from liberals who want to believe that this nutty Web site is a fair representation of conservative ideology.

Ah, the “gravity is only a theory” school of evidence.

God, it’s too fucking early for this level of stupid.

Stupidity never sleeps.  Come to think of it, I’m up pretty early as w- um, never mind.

What’s funny is that you *derided* tinfoil hat wearers just a sentence earlier…

What’s funny is that *he* derided tinfoil hat wearers just a sentence earlier…

Liberals inseminated Phyllis Schlafly

In their defense, they weren’t liberal until they woke up the next day and saw what they’d done…

Jesse:

Well, can you see gravity?  Can you touch it?  I mean, we have to make sure both sides of this debate are fairly represented!

...brb, shaving my tongue.

Mark T: it wasn’t one with a letter on it.  It just had a flag and “First Class.”  They didn’t put an amount on it because when they were printed it wasn’t certain how much of an increase the Postal Board would approve.  That’s why you can’t use them on International mail, according to treaty the receiving nation has to be able to tell the amount on the stamp.  The clerk was right, it was wroth 39 cents.  She even checked with the other clerks.

HEY!

Gravitation is a THEORY!

There is no theory or law uniting all the forces in universe.  YOU KNOW WHY? 

BECAUSE THAT UNIVERSAL FORCE IS GAWWD!

Seriously.  God, being omnipresent, has each and every one of us under His Almighty Thumbs, pressing hard, and that’s why we appear to stick to the Earth.

There is no gravity.  We are all under God’s Thumb.

The Web site is so over the top that I sometimes I suspect that it’s just one big spoof run by liberals who are (once again) trying to make conservatives look bad. 

-A

Tom Tomorrow covered this;

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3450/3312141412_982b2b72e8_m.jpg

Mark T: to be fair, I have gone to the USPS site and used the “Contact Us” form to ask so I can get an official answer…

Absolutely false.  The ravings of a few lunatics do not reflect the entirety of any movement.  Please get a grip.

Maybe not, but one of them has gotten his butt kissed by a Congressman and the RNC Chair so far.

Gravitation is a THEORY!

Gravitation is pretty boys fucking. ^_^

Even Jews consider Hussein a fine name to have. It means handsome, beautifull. It’s a common name in that part of the world. It and it’s alternative forms are quite common.

As is Barrack which is in the Bible as Barak in it’s original Hebrew form. First and middle name are semitic names.

Lots of Americans have Arabic origin names and don’t even realize it.

Why do conservatives have more faith in the accuracy of a Muslim school clerk in Indonesia (Barry Soetoro—Indonesian), than in the State of Hawaii (Barack Obama - Honolulu born)? I think Conservatives just like Muslims better—this explains why going into debt to rebuild Iraq is cool, while going into debt to rebuild America is anathema.

Wow…just wow. 

I knew Conservapedia was a breeding ground for stupid, but I had no idea that teh stupid was of such fine weapons grade.

Someone call the UN inspectors, stat!

Jesse Taylor said:

Ah, the “gravity is only a theory” school of evidence.

Of course!  Conflate two mutually exclusive things and pretend you’ve trounced the other’s argument.

Ah, indeed.

Fine.  For the sake of reducing the debate to its core element, I’ll agree with you.  There’s no doubt that Conservapedia is run by a coterie of conservative kooks.  Moreover, there’s no exaggeration or calumny great enough not to publish on that Web site, so long as it attacks liberals and smears them in every way.

Since I doubt anyone will disagree with this characterization, considering the remarks in this thread, how does this invalidate the point I’ve made repeatedly, which is simply this: Conservapedia is not representative of most conservatives or what most of them think and feel on any given topic.

Thank you.

-A

No true Scotsman would write all those things on Scotsopedia.

Conservapedia is not representative of most conservatives or what most of them think and feel on any given topic.

But you are, aren’t you, you special little snowflake you?

“Conservapedia is not representative of most conservatives or what most of them think and feel on any given topic.”

If you differentiate between Republicans and Conservatives, then I would agree that back in the day there were Republicans who were not batshit insane.

However, the history of the Conservative movement in this country shows there were few conservatives who were not crazy back then, and no one who isn’t crazy now. 

And since right now Conservatives = Republicans = Conservatives (with any reasonable Republicans having been purged), there really is no one left but the loonies…

A: 

You are correct on this one point:  that Conservapedia is the Great Arsenal of Teh Stupid does not in any way mean that it is representative of the opinions of most conservatives.  Of course, polling data may indicate otherwise, but I’m too lazy to look it up.

Frankly, I think you have your hands full defending “mainstream” conservative opinion:  Fox News, Limbaugh, Hannity, O’Reilly, et al.  I grant you leave to return to that pursuit, confident that you will have job security in perpetuity.

Now, we’re having a little schadenfreude here—do you mind?

But you didn’t say that.  You said:

Conservapedia is completely absurd and a central meeting place for tinfoil hat wearers.

The Web site is so over the top that I sometimes I suspect that it’s just one big spoof run by liberals who are (once again) trying to make conservatives look bad.  Given the liberal track record of demonizing and deriding valid conservative principles, I wouldn’t be surprised if this was actually true.

The point didn’t seem to be about whether CP represents conservatives.  You seemed to be focusing more on your theory that liberals were behind it, as supported by your later comment:

I wouldn’t be too sure that Conservapedia is as genuine as you’d like to believe, despite how neatly it fits into the liberal view of “wingnut” behavior.

So if one takes as given that you had two points, that this doesn’t represent conservatives and that you suspect liberals are behind it, your latest comment has conceded one point and continued with the other.  Point 1: liberals are behind it:

For the sake of reducing the debate to its core element, I’ll agree with you.  There’s no doubt that Conservapedia is run by a coterie of conservative kooks.

This is you conceding that it is not run by a coterie of “giggling liberals”.  Your next point, that it doesn’t represent most conservatives, is not only what you’ve been saying, it’s what we’ve been saying would be a more reasonable point, for some version of “reasonable”.  (catgirl said this specifically.)

So since your remaining point is that it doesn’t represent most conservatives, on what do you base this claim?

Not to belabor the whole “stamp” thing but I would swear in court to remembering when the Post Office sold stamps that would weather price increases, specifically in the way this guy thinks. That they were actually marketed as such: Buy these stamps now, they’ll still be good after whatever price increase we’re able to get.

So maybe I’d be the OWG too.

This.

The stamps this guy thinks he had definitely exist. Apparently he just didn’t have them. Or the USPS guy was ripping him off.

Oh. And now I see hp posted two whole comments explaining the same thing that I’d somehow missed completely. Sorry about that.

A:

Please direct me to your book which defines the conservative movement, so that I may henceforward ignore all of the other publications put out by putative conservatives which do not correctly characterize the movement.

Alternately, provide me with a list of bestselling authors (Coulter, Limbaugh, Hannity, etc.) who are not, in fact, conservatives, despite claiming to be such and selling many books to others claiming to be such.

This isn’t about a fringe element.  This is about speakers at CPAC.

Auguste: different stamp, he didn’t have the Liberty Bell one. 8-)

I half expected the old guy to be waiting out in the parking lot to continue the argument.  he swore he’d “take his business elsewhere” but didn’t specify who, besides the USPS, would accept a USPS stamp….

As for Limbaugh not being a real conservative or whatever, I’d also like to see the official book.  He’s not some minor am radio host from a tiny farm town somewhere who no one ever hear d of.  He was the keynote speaker at CPAC!

Well, see, when they say Conservapedia is “Objective”, they mean in the sense of Objectivism, not that flaky liberal objectivity.

Punditus, “conservatism” is just like obscenity in that no one can tell you it is, but they know it when they see it.

It’s also very wily too, ‘cause somebody can seem to be conservative at one point (say George Bush Jr. in 2000) and then somehow, without changing what they say or do in any way, become liberal (like George Bush Jr. in 2008).

So it seems like conservatism is just plain hard to pin down…which makes things kind of difficult for liberals since the definition of “liberal” is “not conservative”...

I’m not sure if Indymedia is still around, but it was unintentionally hilarious.

If you mean the collectives that just let any right-wing or Truther troll post, sure. For those that had actual filters in place, I’d say it used to be the best way to get your news (that was before blogs made Indymedia mostly obsolete).

Conservapedia is not representative of most conservatives or what most of them think and feel on any given topic

You’re right.  Why couldn’t you just say this in the first place?  You didn’t have to stoop to the level of blaming liberals for Conservapedia to make this point.

XtinaS and the rest of you not-doubting Thomases:

Practically every entry in Conservapedia is batshit insane.  The whole Web site is representative of only one thing, which is simply this: there are a few deluded people out there are willing embrace the most off-the-wall lunacy in service of fringe political ideology.

That’s what you’re dealing with, and trying to fuse the asylum known as Conservapedia with the rest of mainstream conservatism is a frenzied act of desperation in of itself.  Come off it, already.

Even John Cole of Balloon-Juice thinks the whole thing’s too hysteria-driven to be real.

-A

Liberals inseminated Phyllis Schlafly

*shudder*

MAJeff, the God of Biscuits on 03/10 at 09:51 AM

Relax, Mike.  It was a very looooooooooooong turkey baster, with mirrors (like Thesues used with Medusa)  and they used an opague condom - on her head - just to make sure.

Juvenile, but sometimes, you just gotta let it out.

catgirl, I wasn’t exclusively “blaming” liberals for Conservapedia.  The Web site is so frigging over-the-top demented that I sometimes wondered if the whole thing wasn’t just a false front set up to discredit the opposition.

Anyway, that’s just a tangent from my main point to which you’ve already agreed.  Thank you.

-A

Atanarjuat:

XtinaS and the rest of you not-doubting Thomases

“Doubting Thomas is a term that is used to describe someone who will refuse to believe something without direct, physical, personal evidence; a skeptic.”

By that, we are Doubting Thomases - we doubt you, and your claims.  What would you prefer?

I love this whole birth certificate issue.  It’s just crazy enough…

Although I do have a real question:  Why did Hawaii pass such troublesome legislation in the first place?  Why hide your birth?  I would like to find a way to get that repealed.  Or have the Supreme Court strike it down as unconstitutional.

No, XtinaS, I’m referring to people who don’t doubt that Conservapedia is representative of mainstream conservatism.  That would be a not-doubting Thomas.

But perhaps I’m being unfair to you.  Do you or do you not doubt that Conservapedia is representative of mainstream conservatism?

-A

I haven’t the foggiest notion, as the closest I’ve gotten is looking at Wikipedia’s page for Conservapedia to find the cited sources for who created the site.  (I’d had no idea.)  What would your idea be of a good representation of mainstrean US conservatism, so that I could attempt to compare?

“Why did Hawaii pass such troublesome legislation in the first place?  Why hide your birth? “

It’s called identity theft prevention. States that allow any tom, dick and harry to walk in and look at birth certificate records as well as marriage and death certificates have very high rates of ID theft wheras states that don’t allow public viewing of one or more of the above records have very low rates. Besides the state register, state governer etc confirmed Barack had a Birth certificate on file. If he didn’t or it said he was adopted etc (which are valid ways to get US birth certificates in several states) the Republican gov would have helped out McCain with that bit of data. Much like Barack and everybody else who requests their birth certificate what they get is a certified copy. Most states give out a Certificate of Live Birth since guess what there is a Certificate of Fetal Death for stillborns. Both are birth certificates but obviously someone who is living has need of the COLB. Birth Certificates don’t have the babies feet on them because a lot of these birthers and well a lot of people who think Birth certificates have them have never obviously never wondered why identifying an abandoned baby or a dead one is often next to impossible unless someone comes forward so they can do DNA testing. After all wouldn’t the state have the baby’s hand and prints on files since the Birth certificate has them? Of course they don’t have them at all.

Also a lot of these birthers have obviously never called any hospital since 1999 asking about patient info or wheter someone was born there. Federal law since 1999 prevents hospitals from disclosing such info.

Anyway, that’s just a tangent from my main point to which you’ve already agreed.  Thank you.

Maybe people would take you more seriously if you just made your point and didn’t go on with all the insulting stuff like suggesting that liberals might be responsible for Conservapedia.  There have been a few times when your posts start out reasonable, but then it’s like you have a compulsion to disagree with liberals in some way and find some minor point to argue about.  It makes you look like you are intentionally trolling.  Do yourself a favor and leave the “tangents” for the posts where you obviously disagree with the poster.  Would it really be so hard to just say “I agree with your guys on this specific topic”?

To XtinaS:

The views espoused by David Frum, for example.  Or Michael Murphy, a Republican strategist.

-A

David Frum says Rush Limbaugh is the voice of modern conservatism.

“Federal law since 1999 prevents hospitals from disclosing such info.”

...well, isn’t THAT awfully convenient.  I bet they won’t disclose any information about that suspicious Roswell crash either…or even anything about the Pacific Northwest Arboreal Octopus, which was once featured in Conservapedia, but then the article mysteriously disappeared…

The agents of evil are all around us…

Atanarjuat: drug, or Pokemon?

Pokemon on drugs.

Hey now, let’s not smear the Pokemon, since most of them can’t speak in their own defense.

Well, I think Conservapedia looks like the wellspring for Glenn Beck’s show.

You know, that guy with a show on Fox News, the fair-and-balanced mainstream conservative mouthpiece.

Obama refers to America in the third person, as a foreigner would.

It’s a good thing I’m wearing a panty liner today, because that made me laugh so hard I think I might have peed a little.

I find it humorous that the same person I quoted above would go on to attack people for not properly researching things.

But that’s how these things work, clussman.  Conservatives know truth has a liberal bias, so they don’t ever do research or follow-up questions or properly debunk lies.  They, like traditional Catholic catechism, depend on flipping the question around.

Here, I shall make a goofy proposition, and when you question me, I will demand YOUR proofs for not only your own opinons, but also that I am wrong.  Since we all know “nobody knows what the “truth” is”, the best you can possibly hope for is a draw.  PWNED!

could someone prove to me that Atanarjuat is not a liberal mole seeking to discredit conservatives?

I hope that’s a business address, clussman.

”(oooh. they switched me from oxycodone to rapid-release morphine. can ya tell?)”

...sorry to hear that, unless you feel better, in which case I’m glad to hear that…