Slashdot Mirror

Why are you so ashamed of our president and his middle name?

We are not ashamed. Hussein is actually a beautiful name. In fact, it basically means "beautiful" IIRC. The problem is nutjobs on the right who use it to claim that he is secretly a Muslim who plans on bringing jihad to America. Kind of like when Faux News did that whole long spiel about Obama going to school at a madrassa in Indonesia. Except of course that Indonesian schools are largely secular, and Obama's was very secular. Right wingers have been specifically emphasizing "Hussein" to try to tie him in with Saddam Hussein in a childish "oh, look, he has a funny name! Haw! Haw!" kind of bullshit. I mean, just read the Conservapedia article about him. It's chock full of the nutty stuff that has been said about him by you right-wing loons. The most egregious example is Man Coulter constantly referring to him as B. Hussein Obama. Yes, in a technical sense it is still correct. But, as with everything, context is important.

Seriously, you have issues.

Yes, we have issues. We are sick to death of fear-mongering, race-baiting shitbags like you.

The only possible way to answer this question is with Conservapedia, which is strangely silent on the issue. Some questions are clearly beyond mortal knowledge.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution Wow ... I first thought this was joke site, but, just wow ...

I disagree, it must be a joke site. This has to be about the funniest goddamn thing I've ever read:

In addition to the evolutionary position lacking evidential support and being counterevidence, 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.

The evangelicals already took their ball away and now nobody plays with them, however if there was a cult of Christians as dedicated to spreading misinformation, they too should be banned (as should a cult of atheists with a similar goal)

I learned quite a bit on evolution there... o_O

http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution

Wow ... I first thought this was joke site, but, just wow ...

Wikipedia 2

Well, when the conservatives felt that Wikipedia had too much of a liberal bias, they went and founded Conservapedia, so maybe COS could start scientolopedia.com or something?

Yes, I do.

Freaking hilarious. While it's possible that original troll is just an imitation of stupidity as opposed to the real thing, your reasoning is tortured.

— not GP AC

I bet it isn't as bad as Conservapedia, which is just chock full of nonsense.

Heck, they could even construct their own version of Wikipedia that touts creationism and eliminates or disputes evolution.

They already did:

http://www.conservapedia.com/

Lies. All God fearing Americans know the Earth is only about 6000 years young

In regards to the adequacy of homeschooling, may I direct you to this font of knowledge advocating homeschooling:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page

On the other hand there is site:

http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Main_Page

This site, RationalWiki, which was set up to viciously mock and debunk Conservapedia and other similar sources with similar content as well. I think that RationalWiki does does a pretty good job at this.

The alternative will be Britannica.

I always tell people to check out conservapedia.com. It was started because Wikipedia is edited by YOU and YOU are too biased to provide neutral information.

Here's a section from their page on Barack Hussein Obama
(redirected from Barack Obama)

Doctors from the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons have stated that Obama uses techniques of mind control in his speeches and campaign symbols. For example, one speech declared, "a light will shine down from somewhere, it will light upon you, you will experience an epiphany, and you will say to yourself, 'I have to vote for Barack.'"[26]

Oh my God, this is terrible! Our president is using techniques of mind control on us! What does Wikipedia have on this subject? Not a thing. Because a light shone down on YOU, YOU experienced an epiphany, and YOU said to yourself, 'I have to censor Barack's Wikipedia page.'

Obama may be the first Muslim President
The argument that Obama is a Muslim is largely based on his Islamic background. It also includes:

• Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.[28] [29]
• (more bullet points)
• Contrary to Christianity, the Islamic doctrine of taqiyya encourages adherents to deny they are Muslim if it advances the cause of Islam.
• Obama uses the Muslim Pakistani pronunciation for "Pakistan" rather than the common American one.
• (still more bullet points)
• Obama has chosen the Secret Service code name "Renegade". "Renegade" conventionally describes someone who goes against normal conventions of behavior, but its first usage was to describe someone who has turned from their religion. It is a word derived from the Spanish renegado, meaning "Christian turned Muslim."[42]
• Obama enjoyed a bigger increase in voter support in 2008 (compared to 2004) by Muslims than by any other voting group, including blacks;[43] "Muslim turnout in the U.S. elections reached 95 percent, the highest Muslim turnout in U.S. history."[44]>
• "President-elect Barack Obama has yet to attend [Sunday or Christmas] church services since winning the White House ..., a departure from the example of his two immediate predecessors."[45]
• Many atheists claim that Obama is one of them, yet he displays none of the characteristics common to atheism: Obama has not expressed offense at prayer by others, he has not promoted the theory of evolution, and he has never expressed a disdain for religious belief.

Bet you didn't know he was a Muslim. But it isn't all about religion. They also get into flag pins.

Obama wore an American flag lapel pin after 9/11, but later stopped wearing it without adequate explanation.[58] Presumably it would have hurt him with anti-military campaign donors.In 2007, at critical moments in his campaign for the nomination, Obama had difficulties securing the support of anti-war activists.

The alternative will be Britannica.

I always tell people to check out conservapedia.com. It was started because Wikipedia is edited by YOU and YOU are too biased to provide neutral information.

Here's a section from their page on Barack Hussein Obama
(redirected from Barack Obama)

Doctors from the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons have stated that Obama uses techniques of mind control in his speeches and campaign symbols. For example, one speech declared, "a light will shine down from somewhere, it will light upon you, you will experience an epiphany, and you will say to yourself, 'I have to vote for Barack.'"[26]

Oh my God, this is terrible! Our president is using techniques of mind control on us! What does Wikipedia have on this subject? Not a thing. Because a light shone down on YOU, YOU experienced an epiphany, and YOU said to yourself, 'I have to censor Barack's Wikipedia page.'

Obama may be the first Muslim President
The argument that Obama is a Muslim is largely based on his Islamic background. It also includes:

• Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.[28] [29]
• (more bullet points)
• Contrary to Christianity, the Islamic doctrine of taqiyya encourages adherents to deny they are Muslim if it advances the cause of Islam.
• Obama uses the Muslim Pakistani pronunciation for "Pakistan" rather than the common American one.
• (still more bullet points)
• Obama has chosen the Secret Service code name "Renegade". "Renegade" conventionally describes someone who goes against normal conventions of behavior, but its first usage was to describe someone who has turned from their religion. It is a word derived from the Spanish renegado, meaning "Christian turned Muslim."[42]
• Obama enjoyed a bigger increase in voter support in 2008 (compared to 2004) by Muslims than by any other voting group, including blacks;[43] "Muslim turnout in the U.S. elections reached 95 percent, the highest Muslim turnout in U.S. history."[44]>
• "President-elect Barack Obama has yet to attend [Sunday or Christmas] church services since winning the White House ..., a departure from the example of his two immediate predecessors."[45]
• Many atheists claim that Obama is one of them, yet he displays none of the characteristics common to atheism: Obama has not expressed offense at prayer by others, he has not promoted the theory of evolution, and he has never expressed a disdain for religious belief.

Bet you didn't know he was a Muslim. But it isn't all about religion. They also get into flag pins.

Obama wore an American flag lapel pin after 9/11, but later stopped wearing it without adequate explanation.[58] Presumably it would have hurt him with anti-military campaign donors.In 2007, at critical moments in his campaign for the nomination, Obama had difficulties securing the support of anti-war activists.

I can't wait to see that added to this lovely page:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Barack_Obama

In case it's changed: The page as I write this. Note that the sysops there do have the habit of deleting history whenever they don't like it.

I knew of that site long before I knew about RationalWiki, which restores at least some of the faith in mankind that you lose when you visit Conservapedia.

And no mention of Conservapedia is complete without mentioning the game of Conservatroll.

I can't wait to see that added to this lovely page:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Barack_Obama

In case it's changed: The page as I write this. Note that the sysops there do have the habit of deleting history whenever they don't like it.

I knew of that site long before I knew about RationalWiki, which restores at least some of the faith in mankind that you lose when you visit Conservapedia.

And no mention of Conservapedia is complete without mentioning the game of Conservatroll.

Wikipedia is more like a discussion forum than a traditional encylopedia... which is what makes it more useful and typically more current and topical.

You might want to check out conservapedia.com to test that theory.

On the Lusitania (I got the spelling wrong) sinking: the Germans actually placed an advert not to travel on that ship. Also, there was a lot of ammunition placed on board (secretly), probably to make it burn harder.

The sinking was heavily used as war propaganda.

Is Evolution imho. http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution p.s. I'm a /. reader now for a view years. This is the first time i really had to finaly register to share my honest opinion. Have a nice day!

The concept of income redistribution is never a moral basis for a tax.

And if the majority of voters in a democracy disagree with this categorical assertion, as they have in the United States and around the world, what then? Secession?

And if the majority of editors on a Wikipedia article do not uphold your politically conservative viewpoint, what then? Secession?

Here you go, every scrap of tangential evidence pertaining, even remotely to WMDs. Clicky If this is the best that the world's right-wingers can come up with, I'd consider Enderandrew throughly debunked.

Here you go, every scrap of tangential evidence pertaining, even remotely to WMDs. Clicky If this is the best that the world's right-wingers can come up with, I'd consider Enderandrew throughly debunked.

We are treating E voting like a minor IT procurement project, when we should be treating it as Democracy's Manhattan Project.

I presume the "Nixon" number refers to the 1960 election, stolen in Chicago by a handful of votes?

Right idea, wrong project. The Manhattan Project was a massively funded, mad dash for survival and let's face it, E-voting just is not that important. Ideally it would be more like the mission to the moon, which was also massively funded, but each step of the way was carefully and meticulously planned and tested before being deployed.

As a matter of fact, it's really not a problem worth spending money on solving. There are some things that are done better by hand and counting election ballots is one of them.

Thomas Edison's first invention was an automatic vote recorder for legislatures. It failed to generate any interest.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Thomas_Edison

He obtained his first patent on his first "real" invention, an automatic vote-recording machine. However, as with many inventors first attempts, it was not well received and turned out to be unmarketable. This was not because it did not work; it worked well, it was because the market was not receptive to the invention.

The way I first read about this was more instructive, but I cannot find where the more detailed reference is. Edison was taken aside by one lawmaker in Washington who explained to him that if counting votes in Congress was too fast, they could well wind up voting for legislation that should not pass.

There is no need to rush the process. There is no need to declare elections over a month before votes are cast. There is no need to declare a winner before all voters have voted when votes are being cast. There is no NEED for E-voting. 12-24 hours to handcount paper ballots is sufficient and also enough to have the counting audited/supervised by independent parties.

"GWB created a debt that will not be paid off for decades... "

Decades? America will NEVER pay off it's debt. Your country, as an individual, is no better than the person who just defaulted on their mortgage.

You are eventually going to run out of countries to invade in order to avoid your dollar and education system collapsing so much that your country as a whole might actually start to believe that Jesus walked with the dinosaurs. /oh snap. It seems like you're already well on your way there. http://www.conservapedia.com/Dinosaur

What I think the poster meant was for there to be a site like Wikipedia that was A) A Wiki and B) Had information about all kinds of things,

Have you ever visited http://www.conservapedia.com/ ?

while still being C) Somewhat serious.

Oh well.
2 out of 3 criteria ain't bad.

Now everyone will stay away from Wikipedia and get all their trustworthy facts from Conservapedia

And it will likely be ignored for many of the same reasons. http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_challenge

It is worth reading both the exchanges between Lenski and the conservapediots on the main page and also the discussion page in which you see just how low they'll go to censor those they don't like and attack anyone trying to even mildly support the right of Lenski or others to speak. Reading the talk page was enough to convince me that conservapedia has nothing of interest or insight to offer even reasonable conservatives.

It is worth reading both the exchanges between Lenski and the conservapediots on the main page and also the discussion page in which you see just how low they'll go to censor those they don't like and attack anyone trying to even mildly support the right of Lenski or others to speak. Reading the talk page was enough to convince me that conservapedia has nothing of interest or insight to offer even reasonable conservatives.

He's basically saying "the internet is too free, so we must fix it!" This isn't the only arena where some people have had this sort of reaction. Right-wing lawyer Andrew Schlafly felt that freely-editable wikipedia was far too liberal, so he created his own, "Conservapedia" as an alternative... it seems to admit to being right-wing-biased, but it appears there's nothing wrong with that since this viewpoint is "the truth".

Yeah, they should just stick to conservapedia

I think you're frothing at the mouth again. Better have that looked at.

And as for citing non-partisan resources, way to use DiscoverTheNetworks as a resource, a site run by righty David Horowitz, or if you prefer, David Horowitz. He's precisely the objective individual we should quote in a constitutional crisis such as this!

I thought you were just making that website (and citation) up. So I typed it in to be sure and it sure as crap does exist.

Baraminology

It's like they just made up a whole crazy vocabulary to sound more technical? WTF?

Sam

Their Harry Potter0 entry mentions that some have attempted to get the books banned because they present the occult in a positive light, and are not appropriate for Christian children. Not to worry says Conservatpedia, the Vatican says its A-OK:

In 2003, a Vatican representative said the books, "aren't serving as the banner for an anti-Christian theology.... I don't think there's anyone in this room who grew up without fairies, magic, and angels in their imaginary world."

That has a rather Romish aura to it, which should come as no surprise since Conservapedia was created by Andrew Schlafly, son of notable Catholic Theocon Phyllis Schlafly.

This is well and fine, but since Conservapedia states at the beginning of its home page that it is:

A conservative encyclopedia you can trust. The truth shall set you free.

and has used it connections to be promoted as a 'conservative' answer to Wikipedia in many publications, it's not going to sit well with the Evangelical Right to be told that contrary to what they've been taught, The Pope is not the horned beast of Revelations, but instead is the final word on what is or is not Christian.

Aside from their Satanic Ecumenicalist Agenda, Conservatpedia's content is so error laden, slanted, and generally so full of crap, many first time visitors think it is well crafted satire, and for good reasons.

Their Harry Potter0 entry mentions that some have attempted to get the books banned because they present the occult in a positive light, and are not appropriate for Christian children. Not to worry says Conservatpedia, the Vatican says its A-OK:

In 2003, a Vatican representative said the books, "aren't serving as the banner for an anti-Christian theology.... I don't think there's anyone in this room who grew up without fairies, magic, and angels in their imaginary world."

That has a rather Romish aura to it, which should come as no surprise since Conservapedia was created by Andrew Schlafly, son of notable Catholic Theocon Phyllis Schlafly.

This is well and fine, but since Conservapedia states at the beginning of its home page that it is:

A conservative encyclopedia you can trust. The truth shall set you free.

and has used it connections to be promoted as a 'conservative' answer to Wikipedia in many publications, it's not going to sit well with the Evangelical Right to be told that contrary to what they've been taught, The Pope is not the horned beast of Revelations, but instead is the final word on what is or is not Christian.

Aside from their Satanic Ecumenicalist Agenda, Conservatpedia's content is so error laden, slanted, and generally so full of crap, many first time visitors think it is well crafted satire, and for good reasons.

Their Harry Potter0 entry mentions that some have attempted to get the books banned because they present the occult in a positive light, and are not appropriate for Christian children. Not to worry says Conservatpedia, the Vatican says its A-OK:

In 2003, a Vatican representative said the books, "aren't serving as the banner for an anti-Christian theology.... I don't think there's anyone in this room who grew up without fairies, magic, and angels in their imaginary world."

That has a rather Romish aura to it, which should come as no surprise since Conservapedia was created by Andrew Schlafly, son of notable Catholic Theocon Phyllis Schlafly.

This is well and fine, but since Conservapedia states at the beginning of its home page that it is:

A conservative encyclopedia you can trust. The truth shall set you free.

and has used it connections to be promoted as a 'conservative' answer to Wikipedia in many publications, it's not going to sit well with the Evangelical Right to be told that contrary to what they've been taught, The Pope is not the horned beast of Revelations, but instead is the final word on what is or is not Christian.

Aside from their Satanic Ecumenicalist Agenda, Conservatpedia's content is so error laden, slanted, and generally so full of crap, many first time visitors think it is well crafted satire, and for good reasons.

In reaction to the Wikipedia page pointing out EB's errors, Conservapedia has
put up a link in their "Breaking News" section to their page listing examples
of Wikipedia's strongly liberal bias (you did know that, didn't you? Wikipedia
is SIX TIMES MORE LIBERAL THAN AMERICA! (as reported by Wikipedia on their
page about Conservapedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia )).

As of 11PM PST, July 23rd, Conservapedia has a link to the bias page at the top of
their "Breaking News" section on their home page. But here's the direct link:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Bias_in_Wikipedia

A few choice examples:
A devastating critique of Wikipedia by Fox News describes the impact of Wikipedia smears on popular golfer Fuzzy Zoeller.
Wikipedia is sympathetic to Fidel Castro in its entry about Cuba.
Wikipedia's entry for the Renaissance denies any credit to Christianity, its primary inspiration.
Plus 63 more! Enjoy.

And it really is so apropos on this day of forgiving acts against the country. Is 200 so far from 205. And let us not forget that it is better to lie, knowing full well that the letter was phony, but also knowing that your fanbois will defend you to the end. And one can also take solace that one can just become incompetent during the presidency, and not recall any matter of importanct, and people will just forgive you for anything, even dooming a generation to drug addiction.

So kids, take it from your national leaders, when you lie, lie big. If Bill had said he had never taken drugs after a certain date, a lie that your current president made, he would have been off the hook. But he decided to only make little lies, which is why he got into trouble.

According to the origins theory model used by creation scientists, modern kangaroos are the descendants of the two founding members of the modern kangaroo baramin that were taken aboard Noah's Ark prior to the Great Flood. It has not yet been determined by baraminologists whether kangaroos form a holobaramin with the wallaby, tree-kangaroo, wallaroo, pademelon and quokka, or if all these species are in fact apobaraminic or polybaraminic. There is, however, no evidence of a genetic bottleneck in the kangaroo species which would be expected if all kangaroos were descended from two individuals.

After the Flood, these kangaroos bred from the Ark passengers migrated to Australia. There is debate whether this migration happened over land[5] with lower sea levels during the post-flood ice age, or before the supercontinent of Pangea broke apart[6], or if they rafted on mats of vegetation torn up by the receding flood waters.[5] The idea that God simply generated kangaroos into existence there is considered by most creation researchers to be contra-Biblical.

Homosexuality is sexual activity between members of the same sex.
Sexual relations between two men is condemned in both Old and New Testaments. It is forbidden directly four times in the Bible.

In addition to the "Introduction to Evolution" entry, there is also the "Simple English" version of Wikipedia:

Does this school district block CreationWiki?, Conservapedia?

Discuss in less than 500 words.

Conservapedia is self-parody, but it is produced and maintained by "Conservatives" as a repository of official "Conservative" dogma. Because they think Wikipedia is "liberal", as they clearly state in their About page. Typically Conservative, they're using the Wikipedia software for free, but don't even mutter a minimal thanks to Wikipedia - they just bash it.

Anonymous Conservative Coward is a typical Conservative: trying to have it both ways, all ways, whenever it's convenient. There is no "truth" for today's "Conservatives" (What are they "conserving"? They're wasters, reckless consumers and rampant destroyers.) So whenever they dart out from behind their favorite weasel words to make a clear statement, they're usually a joke, at least because they contradict whatever other statement they made before that was once convenient then.

"Reality has a well-known liberal bias." - Stephen Colbert

"...Dinosaurs were created on day 6 of the creation week approximately 6,000 years ago, along with other land animals, and therefore co-existed with humans."

"...Dinosaurs lived in harmony with other animals, (probably including in the Garden of Eden) eating only plants;" and "pairs of each dinosaur kind were taken onto Noah's Ark during the Great Flood and were preserved from drowning."

"Dinosaur bones originated during the mass killing of the Flood;" and "some descendants of those dinosaurs taken aboard the Ark still roam the earth today."

And you can look that up!

From Conservapedia:

The Theory of evolution is a materialist explanation of the history of life on earth. Despite being the scientific standard, in the United States, there are a significant number of lay people who do not accept evolution. According to a CBS poll, only 13% of American adults believe humans evolved without divine guidance.

A CBS survey said there's no evolution! If 87% of people say there's no evolution then this article is a sham sir!

Back on-topic, what interests me is:

But the researchers conceded that much more research would be required to explain the delayed rise of present-day mammals.

If it wasn't the dinosaurs stopping the evolution of mammals (i.e. dinosaurs dominating the habitat), then what did? Could it be that the available habitats were just better suited to dinosaurs vs. mammals? That's the first thing that springs to mind (although am no paleontologist). As ever with this sort of thing, the finding raises more questions than it answers!

The problem has often been self appointed experts with an agenda.

Republican experts on Democrat misbehaviors, Democrat experts on Republican Misbehavior. You could wind up with a conservative encyclopedia for all this is worth. For an example of this, check out Conservapedia. If this was taken as an encyclopedia of the viewpoints of conservatives as written by conservatives, this would be fine. To take it as an objective viewpoint of the world is not practical. Somebody should stop the madness before we're bombarded with Liberalpedia, Commupedia, Liberteripedia, Anarchipedia and Socialpedia.

Sadly some articles are written only by these self appointed experts. You can see this in the constant use of the phrase "critics say" or something similar. If you are reporting the viewpoint, even if controversial, you can present the viewpoint accurately without sniping. But with hordes of self appointed experts, this usually doesn't happen

Excellent points. Of course, this places the burden for the cost and tedium of administrating such a kid-friendly program squarely and solely on the potential "benefactors".

Nevertheless, they're testing out the possibilities: see Conservapedia

A week ago they didn't even have an article for Sex. Now it just redirects to "Gender".