Should Fox news, and Conservopedia ...

be allowed to keep their slogans ?

If I were an internet newbie, and I found conservapedia, not knowing what it meant, and was misinformed ? Is it permissable ?

And what about Fox News ? Fair and balanced, my ass. Be as conservative as you want, I don't give a fuck, but stop pretending and lying that you are an objective news source.

Seriously.
These two entities should either stop lying or shut the fuck up.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

On a brighter note, Conservatroll anyone ?: http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Conservatroll

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What about liberapedia? Liberals spew even greater nonsense, so if they can be allowed, so can reasonable conservatives.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Point taken, but show me a liberal equivalent to Bill O' Reilly.

However, It should be known that no one uses liberapedia, nor does it gain as much influence as conservapedia.

 

Looks like the conservatives has started trolling Liberapedia as well, there isn't anything on there that makes sense.

 

Find any liberal; they're all nonsensical. No right and wrong, no structure, no nothing, just complete anarchy and chaos. It's stupid. I hate calling ideologies stupid, but it IS stupid. It can't work in a SOCIETY, which by principle, has ORDER.

 

The conservative as a Lord of Illusions (and all your kingdoms fall)

Actually, what is stupid is your assertion of liberalism.

One of the strangest things I've ever witnessed is the curious American love affair with Communism. Americans love Communism, if only to have something to hate. So imagine for a moment a generation raised on a myth. This would be the Boomers, who were born into a myth built on the paranoid rantings of murderous robber barons and corporate bosses who viewed a just society as the bane of their existence. The Boomers came up frightened and twisted into form during the Cold War, pretending that management without labor is somehow feasible°, argued that war is peace, stamped religious slogans on their money as a demonstration of freedom, and sent their own children to Christian churches to be educated while arguing that one ought not be concerned with the welfare of anyone else°.

In the end, one of the things that happened is that the Boomers' children were often educated on sour, paranoid myths. This is, in fact, part of what is wrong with many American liberals. They are still caught up responding to the myths of childhood. The more one learns about Marxism, for instance, the more one realizes that the spectre of Communism we are expected to fear is nothing more than propaganda spewed by people whose prosperity depends on injustice. We need only consider the paucity of George W. Bush's infamous question, "Why do they hate us?" Well, shit, George, we need billions around the world to suffer inordinately in order to support our American luxury. That would be ... oh ... just the slightest of hints.

And the absurdity of it is that the farther right the Democratic Party drifts, the more hysterically they are denounced by conservatives for being liberal.

What seems utterly stupid about it is that part of a liberal society involves experimentation. You know, heliocentrism was once overtly liberal—that is, scandalous and heretical.

And sometimes experiments fail. Sometimes things go wrong. So of course there are some idiotic examples of liberal ideas, and for some reason these all reflect on liberalism, while the inherent cruelty demanded by conservative ways is supposed to be forgiven as the tragic and unfortunate reality that life, the Universe, and everything—that is to say, God—demands.

So fuck this mythical liberalism that is constructed purely of conservative paranoia. It's about time conservatives looked themselves in the mirror and came to terms with the fact that their glorious righteousness requires the suffering of billions.

Liberalism is about justice, and to these paranoid conservatives justice spells the end of everything. No wonder the best conservatives can come up with is to say that liberalism means "No right and wrong, no structure, no nothing, just complete anarchy and chaos".

It is beyond sad. It is the essence of the very evil we are taught—for the sake of conservative luxury—to fear.

Keep on tilting windmills, if you want. The rest of us will be working toward progress.
____________________

Notes:

management without labor — A single artisan can manufacture and sell a product. However, what is the value of a single manager with no product to sell and no laborer to manufacture it?

one ought not be concerned with the welfare of anyone else — It's a strange paradox. Or, as my father once put it, "Do you want to be able to take care of yourself, or do you want to have to take care of a bunch of people that don't deserve it?" And then my parents sent me off to Lutheran confirmation, where we studied the Book of Acts. And while our teachers intentionally overlooked the irony that the Communist motto (from each/to each) can be found in the Book of Acts, it is enough to say that the capitalism advocated by many in my part of the world is at direct odds with the Christian message our parents wanted us to learn. Hmm ... Dad? God? Dad? God? Couldn't see that one coming, could we? Of course, our conservative parents didn't.

 

I think there are a few horrible shows on Fox, but it's overall not a terrible network for news. Everyone hates Fox for a select few loud mouthers, most of which are on the radio.

 

No Tiassa, it's just nonsense. And liberals LOVE communism, with them being far leftist extremists.

No, it's not about justice. It's about nonsense. Liberalism is about destroying the very foundation of society, and rebuilding it with the foundation of nonsense.

 

(chortle!)

(chortle!)

Are you just upset because you're running out of people to rape and kill?

 

Liberalism certainly thinks raping and killing are A-OK. Remember, "it's not wrong just do whatever the hell you want"

 

FOX News shouldn't be allowed to even call itself "news" in my opinion.
I don't think ANY for-profit media companies should be allowed to call themselves "news".
When news is for profit there is an inherent conflict of interest.
All news organizations should be not for profit and executive salaries should be regulated.

 

The paranoid fantasy of a failing empire

It would be funny that the only people I ever hear this from are paranoid conservatives, except that it's rather pathetic.

What liberal actually says that?

Seriously, it seems like this is one of those things conservatives say in lieu of anything substantial.

To the other, I've heard it so many times that it's not in the least surprising.

 

I always see liberals spewing nonsense like "they can do that if they want to"

Nonsense. Society has structure and order. If you want to be a part of it, you need to abide.

Liberals also want to tear down the foundations of society, destroy tradition and culture, and create some sort of selfish anarchist "society" if you could call it that

They also support the governemnt STEALING your money (taxes) EVEN MORE than it needs to.

 

But with the obsoletion of local news shows, how could we get anything? News used to be an hour, maybe 2 long. Now there's news CHANNELS 24/7. Before the station would carry the negative profit margin of the 2 hour show, but who could carry that lost margin now?

 

It's these huge entertainment conglomerates which call themselves "news" channels that have been rendering these local news shows obsolete.
I for one, don't necessarily think multiple 24/7 "news" channels are a positive thing.

 

If you say so ....

That's specific.

 

I don't believe it's healthy for that many news channels either.

What do you think the causality is? I mean to ask; which came first...fall of local news or the rise of large news networks? Was it originally caused by the expansion capability cable network originally offered? Where relatively few companies purchased all the available frequency bands. And for God's sake, what happened to NATIONAL news? All we get is international news and emotionally driven stories. Are companies afraid of lawsuits?

 

It sounds like it's from Conservopedia.

 

I recognize that you enjoy setting up "liberalism" as a straw man, ascribing to liberals positions that they do not hold and that are ridiculously easy to tear apart (which you then proceed to do), but for some reason i can't stop myself from commenting on your silly arguments:

No one denies this, not liberals, not anyone whom I've ever heard. The question is usually "Can [gays/jews/punk kids/reverse vampires/multinational corporations/etc.] engage in activity X?" The response "they can do it if they want to" is the liberal response under (generally) special circumstances, namely:

(1) the act does not harm or impose costs on anyone else or the environment;
(2) the act does not interfere with some other beloved liberal program or value the speaker admires.

The "libertarian" argument is generally "they can do it if they want to" so long as no costs are imposed on other people (impoising costs on the environment may be find in the view of many libertarians.

The conservatives even give the answer they can do it is they want to in many cases, usually under the conditions:

(1) the act does not harm or impose costs on anyone else; and
(2) the act does not interfere with some other beloved conservative program or value the speaker admires.

The conservative position really varies in the identity of the values in clause (2). For example, if the question were "Can gays marry?" Liberals might say that their marrying doesn't hurt anyone, doesn't hurt the environment and doesn't otherwise trample any ideals they hold dear, so yes, gays may marry. Conservatives may or may not agree about the harm, but many definitely feel that it intereferes or sullies a value they hold dear.

Change the question to "Can oil companies drill for oil off our pristine coast line?" and the positions reverse. Conservatives say "they can if they want to because it doesn't hurt anyone and violates no fundamental conservative principles." For liberals it harms the environment and violates a principle (the principle of "Corporations, BAD!"), so they oppose it.

Both conservatives and liberals agree that it is okay to prevent rape and murder, though, as those obviously violate the "do no harm to others" tenet.

While there are certainly anarchists, not all liberals are. also, I think you do not understand anarchism. Anarchists tend to think that a world without governments will be a world where people volunteer to help one another and everyone lives in peace. You think an anarchic world would be one of selfishness and strife. I happen to believe you are right, but no one has rock solid proof one way or the other...we only can say that "in societies" people are very selfish. Many people, in a line of though many trace to Jean Jacques Rousseau, think that man "in a state of nature" would be more noble than man under the pernicious influence of society. The noble savage would not have a concept of property, so would, for example, be more willing to give and share with others. He would not know war, because war is by its very nature a societal affair (and since he'd be living in near other nobly savage carebears, giving and sharing because they have no "property", he'd have no need to attack them to take things he needed).

Taxes are thievery? What happened to "Society has structure and order. If you want to be a part of it, you need to abide by them"?? Again, you only believe that when you agree with the rules, for the rules you disagree with, like perhaps maintaining a system of welfare for the poor, somehow those are alien to our "structure and order" and aren't things *you* need to abide. You, like a liberal, pick and choose what is part of the "Order" and what can be disregarded as outside of it. This is old clause (2) from the above. the things you think important are sacrosanct, the things you thing unimportant or dislike are anomalies that may be (or in some cases "should" be purged).

Obviously "EVEN MORE than it needs to do" is subjective. Most conservatives even want the governemnt to do more things that it absolutely needs to do to maintain itself. America could, for example, survive without the War in Iraq. If we pulled out today and let the chaos descend there, America would survive, and would save a lot of money (and American lives). There are valid reasons for conservatives to argue against doing that, but if the goal is to minimize government to the bare essentials, our military could be scaled back a lot. Similarly, there used to be privately minted money in the United States. We don't absolutely need the government to do that. There may be good arguments in favor of it, but again, if the goal is to restrict anything that isn't strictly necessary, there's another one.

Liberals, on paper, do have more things they feel that the federal government "needs" to do, but both liberals and conservatives are ultimately making a cost-benefit analysis rather than a pure needs analysis. (I say "on paper" because of the habit of conservatives to increase the size of the government's budget, just as it is with liberals.)

What people think of as things the government "needs" to do is usually based on