Welcome to Gaia! ::

Steam Punk Adept's avatar

Witty Genius

9,000 Points
  • Partygoer 500
  • Conventioneer 300
  • Perfect Attendance 400
Heimdalr
These people have created their own Wikipedia, you know. It's called Conservapedia and it's free from the usual liberal bias.
Yeah, after reading THIS article on Conservapedia, I can't take anything they say seriously. Of course the site is free of this so-called "liberal" bias. That's because it's nothing but right-wing propaganda and tripe.

THIS about sums it up
Quote:
Conservapedia is a deceitful, heavily biased and willfully ignorant wiki-based encyclopedia blog project written from a far right and supposedly Christian point of view. It is better viewed as an online guide to understanding how a particular segment of the American Religious Right "thinks" than as an actual encyclopedia, as the site's administrators see liberals, atheists, and homosexuals (along with whoever the "bête noire du jour" is, like Islam) as being the cause of all society's ills. Their attacks on these groups are fueled by traditionalism and jingoistic pro-Americanism, and often make liberal (zing!) use of ad hominem. This political clap-trap automatically considers somebody a liberal (whether they are or not) if they fail to toe the party line on any given issue; even the use of British spelling is considered evidence that one is of the liberal flavour flavor.

The site was founded on 21 November 2006 by Andrew Schlafly,[1] spawn of professional anti-feminist Phyllis Schlafly,[2] in an attempt to offset what he perceived as an excessive liberal bias at Wikipedia.[1] Conservapedia's goal is to try to create a version of Wikipedia that has an, er...conservative bias, especially when it comes to issues where politics and fundamentalist Christianity overlap, such as creationism, evolution, sexuality, and morality. One of the most bizarre aspects of the site is its rejection of most of modern science, for example characterizing Einstein's famous equation E=mc2 as "liberal claptrap."

No prominent conservative politician, writer or pundit (except Andy's mom on one of her podcasts) has ever aligned themself with, or recommended, Conservapedia, making it extremely unpopular, and non-prominent. After all, aligning with Conservapedia would be committing an act of career suicide.

As a result of its extremist wingnut views, the site has attracted many parodist and vandalism-only accounts. Because of this, the site has enacted various forms of censorship, abuse of the "checkuser" function, and groupthink-style "rationalizing." New users, therefore, are almost always blocked shortly after editing for some perfunctory reason.
Heimdalr's avatar

Mega Noob

It also being free from verifiability, history and science is a rather unpleasant side effect.
All media is owned by the owners.
Synoxide
        Catches so much hell for being right-wing.
        When 90% of media in general is left-wing.
        Gee.

Cheers.
Christien Chalfant 's avatar

Fashionable Capitalist

7,650 Points
  • Wall Street 200
  • Consumer 100
  • Profitable 100
Steam Punk Adept
Synoxide
Steam Punk Adept
Synoxide
        Catches so much hell for being right-wing.
        When 90% of media in general is left-wing.
        Gee.
No, Fox News catches hell because they don't report News. They catch hell because they report political propaganda for the Republican party


        Which is completely unlike NBC. Right.
NBC actually reports News, which is why YES, Fox News is COMPLETELY unlike NBC. But no, you keep living in your dream world where the Right Wing Propaganda Machine called Faux News is actually a News station and not a "News" station. You are entitled to your opinion, even if it is factually incorrect. That's the great thing about America. You can be a complete and total dumb a** (like you), have an opinion that has no basis in reality, and I'll still do everything I can to ensure you have the right to look like a complete ******** moron.


You just attacked the person and not their argument. You just lost all credibility.
Steam Punk Adept's avatar

Witty Genius

9,000 Points
  • Partygoer 500
  • Conventioneer 300
  • Perfect Attendance 400
Commander Kojiro
Steam Punk Adept
Synoxide
Steam Punk Adept
Synoxide
        Catches so much hell for being right-wing.
        When 90% of media in general is left-wing.
        Gee.
No, Fox News catches hell because they don't report News. They catch hell because they report political propaganda for the Republican party


        Which is completely unlike NBC. Right.
NBC actually reports News, which is why YES, Fox News is COMPLETELY unlike NBC. But no, you keep living in your dream world where the Right Wing Propaganda Machine called Faux News is actually a News station and not a "News" station. You are entitled to your opinion, even if it is factually incorrect. That's the great thing about America. You can be a complete and total dumb a** (like you), have an opinion that has no basis in reality, and I'll still do everything I can to ensure you have the right to look like a complete ******** moron.


You just attacked the person and not their argument. You just lost all credibility.
Actually, I attacked both, but I see that your reading comprehension could use some work, since you missed that part.
Christien Chalfant 's avatar

Fashionable Capitalist

7,650 Points
  • Wall Street 200
  • Consumer 100
  • Profitable 100
Steam Punk Adept
Commander Kojiro
Steam Punk Adept
Synoxide
Steam Punk Adept
Synoxide
        Catches so much hell for being right-wing.
        When 90% of media in general is left-wing.
        Gee.
No, Fox News catches hell because they don't report News. They catch hell because they report political propaganda for the Republican party


        Which is completely unlike NBC. Right.
NBC actually reports News, which is why YES, Fox News is COMPLETELY unlike NBC. But no, you keep living in your dream world where the Right Wing Propaganda Machine called Faux News is actually a News station and not a "News" station. You are entitled to your opinion, even if it is factually incorrect. That's the great thing about America. You can be a complete and total dumb a** (like you), have an opinion that has no basis in reality, and I'll still do everything I can to ensure you have the right to look like a complete ******** moron.


You just attacked the person and not their argument. You just lost all credibility.
Actually, I attacked both, but I see that your reading comprehension could use some work, since you missed that part.


It doesn't matter if you attacked the argument while simultaneously attacking the person directly. Ad Hominem is still Ad Hominem.
Steam Punk Adept's avatar

Witty Genius

9,000 Points
  • Partygoer 500
  • Conventioneer 300
  • Perfect Attendance 400
Commander Kojiro
Steam Punk Adept
Commander Kojiro
Steam Punk Adept
Synoxide


        Which is completely unlike NBC. Right.
NBC actually reports News, which is why YES, Fox News is COMPLETELY unlike NBC. But no, you keep living in your dream world where the Right Wing Propaganda Machine called Faux News is actually a News station and not a "News" station. You are entitled to your opinion, even if it is factually incorrect. That's the great thing about America. You can be a complete and total dumb a** (like you), have an opinion that has no basis in reality, and I'll still do everything I can to ensure you have the right to look like a complete ******** moron.


You just attacked the person and not their argument. You just lost all credibility.
Actually, I attacked both, but I see that your reading comprehension could use some work, since you missed that part.


It doesn't matter if you attacked the argument while simultaneously attacking the person directly. Ad Hominem is still Ad Hominem.
Ad Hominum is dismissing an argument by attacking the one who provides it. It is not Ad Hominum if you attack both the person and the argument. But hey, if you want to keep believing those flawed facts you're spewing, then go for it. That's what America is all about, the right to be a complete ignoramus if you so choose. Hell, it worked for Bush, and he got elected President (once).

By the by, which is it, did I attack the person and not the argument, or did I do both. You seem conflicted suddenly on which one of those is true. Which, I guess, makes you a flip-flopper.
Christien Chalfant 's avatar

Fashionable Capitalist

7,650 Points
  • Wall Street 200
  • Consumer 100
  • Profitable 100
Steam Punk Adept
can be a complete and total dumb a** (like you)
Christien Chalfant 's avatar

Fashionable Capitalist

7,650 Points
  • Wall Street 200
  • Consumer 100
  • Profitable 100
Steam Punk Adept
Ad Hominum is dismissing an argument by attacking the one who provides it. It is not Ad Hominum if you attack both the person and the argument. But hey, if you want to keep believing those flawed facts you're spewing, then go for it. That's what America is all about, the right to be a complete ignoramus if you so choose. Hell, it worked for Bush, and he got elected President (once).

By the by, which is it, did I attack the person and not the argument, or did I do both. You seem conflicted suddenly on which one of those is true. Which, I guess, makes you a flip-flopper.


-It's spelled Ad Hominem. Not hominum.
-Bush was elected twice.
-Ad Hominem Fallacy
-You're telling me that I'm conflicted? I'm glad you know me so well because I wouldn't have even known I was conflicted.
-By the by, even if I was conflicted about what you attacked, you can't say I flip flopped. Because I consistently said that you attacked the person.
Steam Punk Adept's avatar

Witty Genius

9,000 Points
  • Partygoer 500
  • Conventioneer 300
  • Perfect Attendance 400
Commander Kojiro
Steam Punk Adept
Ad Hominum is dismissing an argument by attacking the one who provides it. It is not Ad Hominum if you attack both the person and the argument. But hey, if you want to keep believing those flawed facts you're spewing, then go for it. That's what America is all about, the right to be a complete ignoramus if you so choose. Hell, it worked for Bush, and he got elected President (once).

By the by, which is it, did I attack the person and not the argument, or did I do both. You seem conflicted suddenly on which one of those is true. Which, I guess, makes you a flip-flopper.


-It's spelled Ad Hominem. Not hominum.
-Bush was elected twice.
-Ad Hominem Fallacy
-You're telling me that I'm conflicted? I'm glad you know me so well because I wouldn't have even known I was conflicted.
-By the by, even if I was conflicted about what you attacked, you can't say I flip flopped. Because I consistently said that you attacked the person.
I say you flip-flopped because you started saying that I ONLY attacked the person and then you admitted that I attacked both.

It'd only be Ad Hominem if I put the entire basis of my argument against his on him being a complete idiot, where I actually presented a valid point, then proceeded to attack him for being an idiot (which was completely irrelevant to the point I made against his argument)

Bush was only elected once. The recount in the 2000 election was never completed because the Supreme Court in Florida intervened and GAVE the electoral votes to Bush, which puts the entire election into question. Even barring that, I could have just as easily been talking about Bush Senior, who was also elected into office once.

But no, you're right, because it appears to severely damage your ego to be wrong.
Christien Chalfant 's avatar

Fashionable Capitalist

7,650 Points
  • Wall Street 200
  • Consumer 100
  • Profitable 100
Steam Punk Adept
Commander Kojiro
Steam Punk Adept
Ad Hominum is dismissing an argument by attacking the one who provides it. It is not Ad Hominum if you attack both the person and the argument. But hey, if you want to keep believing those flawed facts you're spewing, then go for it. That's what America is all about, the right to be a complete ignoramus if you so choose. Hell, it worked for Bush, and he got elected President (once).

By the by, which is it, did I attack the person and not the argument, or did I do both. You seem conflicted suddenly on which one of those is true. Which, I guess, makes you a flip-flopper.


-It's spelled Ad Hominem. Not hominum.
-Bush was elected twice.
-Ad Hominem Fallacy
-You're telling me that I'm conflicted? I'm glad you know me so well because I wouldn't have even known I was conflicted.
-By the by, even if I was conflicted about what you attacked, you can't say I flip flopped. Because I consistently said that you attacked the person.
I say you flip-flopped because you started saying that I ONLY attacked the person and then you admitted that I attacked both.

It'd only be Ad Hominem if I put the entire basis of my argument against his on him being a complete idiot, where I actually presented a valid point, then proceeded to attack him for being an idiot (which was completely irrelevant to the point I made against his argument)

Bush was only elected once. The recount in the 2000 election was never completed because the Supreme Court in Florida intervened and GAVE the electoral votes to Bush, which puts the entire election into question. Even barring that, I could have just as easily been talking about Bush Senior, who was also elected into office once.

But no, you're right, because it appears to severely damage your ego to be wrong.


Fine, you're right. You only attacked him and not his argument at all. That really makes it better for you?
You presented a valid point? There wasn't much evidence was there? Nothing but throwing curse words at the person.
There were two terms. Two elections. He was elected twice.
Except there hasn't been much talk about Daddy Bush in a real long while....when people mention Bush in negative connotations, it most recently always applies to Baby Bush.
Steam Punk Adept's avatar

Witty Genius

9,000 Points
  • Partygoer 500
  • Conventioneer 300
  • Perfect Attendance 400
In regards to Bush only having been elected once
Supreme Court Decides President

Quote:
The presidential election results in 2000 will probably go down in history as the most contested results in American history, especially as the final outcome was so close and had to be ultimately decided by the Supreme Court.

The closeness of the result was unprecedented and it was made more controversial by the massive television and media coverage, which it prompted. There were constitutional provisions already established to deal with just such a situation that needed to be resolved before the next president could move into the White House. The position of president is the most powerful within the Federal Constitution, which is why presidential elections are so strongly contested. Indeed the separation of powers means that both Congress and the Supreme have constitutional responsibilities to settle disputed presidential election results like those of 2000 to ensure political stability in the country.

The presidential election of 2000 has thus far been the closest set of election results since the electoral college was established via the Federal Constitution at the end of the eighteenth century. The margin of victory or defeat in terms of the popular votes was a very slender one, with the candidate that gained the most votes actually losing in the electoral college. Indeed the Democratic party candidate, Senator Al Gore would have won the presidential election contest if it had been a straightforward poll between the two main contenders. Right across the United States, Al Gore received 337,576 votes more than the Republican nominee George W. Bush However, the outcome of the presidential election as always had to be decided through the electoral college process.

In 2000 the Supreme Court was called upon to fulfil its role of being a politically neutral arbiter of contested presidential election results to decide which votes were spoilt and which votes were not spoilt in the state of Florida. Besides deciding about the validity or other wise of ballot papers the Supreme Court also had to decide on how recounts were allowed. Those decisions would turn out to prove very controversial in the way in which the presidential election results of 2000 were finally settled.

The Republicans hoped that the Supreme Court would decide that none of the spoilt ballot papers were actually eligible votes, which should count. Not only did the Republicans want none of the spoilt ballot papers turned into votes, they also wished that the Supreme Court would only allow the barest minimum number of recounts in Florida. Conversely the Democrats argued that the Supreme Court should order that all the spoilt ballot papers be re-examined and that all necessary recounts should be allowed to reach the fairest possible results in Florida. Of course the opposing views of the Republicans and the Democrats were based around gaining the judgements that would maximise the chances of their respective candidates winning the presidential election.

The Supreme Court eventually made decisions that meant George W. Bush won the state of Florida, its electoral college votes and thus gained entry into the White House. The Democrats at the time complained about the Supreme Court being politically biased in favor of the Republicans, that bias was evident as the majority of the judges had right-wing political opinions that were similar to those of George W. Bush. Supreme Court judges are appointed in a process that involves Congress approving or rejecting nominations made by the president. Generally judges are known to have declared political allegiances, with the Supreme Court having a balance between Republican, Democrat and independent judges. As a result of President Reagan and Bush senior being able to have Republican judges appointed the political balance was definitely in George W. Bush’s favor when the issue of determining the Florida election result arose. Bush himself would increase the controversy surrounding the presidential election results of 2000 because of his more radically right-wing political views and subsequent policies once in the White House.

The presidential election of 2000 was without any doubt the most controversial contest for the White House yet experienced. It was only the fourth time when the presidential candidate with the lower share of the popular vote won the majority of electoral college votes. The presidential election of 2000 was the closest contest both in terms of the popular vote and the number of electoral college votes between Gore and Bush. In the end it was to be the vote in the state of Florida that decided the final out come. The contest in Florida had produced a much higher number of spoilt ballot papers than usual with the matter being referred to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court made decisions with regard to the eligibility of spoilt ballot papers and the number of recounts that put Bush into the presidency, with claims of the court being politically biased.


Evidence shows that Bush was installed by the Supreme Court that decided what votes in Florida could be counted. He was not elected by reason of controversial results in which the potential for him having lost the election remains.
It appears that people who watch Fox News are certainly the least informed. They are less informed than people who watch no news at all.

Quote:
Fox News viewers answered 1.08 questions correctly when asked about international stories, compared to a 1.23 score for MSNBC viewers, and a 1.33 score for CNN viewers. NPR listeners performed by far the best with a score of 1.97. The study actually found that Fox News and MSNBC viewers scored worse than those who consulted no news source at all over the last week.

The scores for Fox News viewers were worse on domestic story questions. Fox News viewers were able to answer 1.04 questions correctly, compared to a 1.22 score for those who watched no news at all, and a 1.26 score for MSNBC and CNN viewers. Once again, NPR listeners were the most informed with a score of 1.51.


Maybe more time should be spent on NPR and less on the TV shows.
Demon Kagerou's avatar

Sparkly Hunter

I'm pretty sure the only side the media is on is that of the benevolent corporate masters who rule the world in the name of capitalism.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games