Conservapedia
 

Tired of that left leaning wikipedia? Try conservapedia: the trustworthy encyclopedia!

Main Page - Conservapedia

Fox News Channel: Not a Conservative Bias, but an Anti-Elitist Approach! - Conservapedia

And don't worry brits, it's not just all American stuff.

Lol, I love this site. It's so horribly biased it's funny.

I love the article on Atheism: "The atheist Joseph Stalin was a brutal communist dictator." It's like saying when he wasn't burning bibles and destroying churches he dabbled in politics.

The John McCain article is priceless too: "He was defeated by George W. Bush for the Republican presidential nomination in 2000, and in 2008 kept his distance from the president, despite efforts of Democrats to paint the two as close allies."

http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/buzze...cainbushug.jpg

Damn you liberal photoshoppers!

Okay this site is killing me. Operation Iraqi Freedom is brilliant, as is the article on activist Tipper Gore and intellectual Ann Coulter.

http://www.conservapedia.com/images/6/6b/Al_and_GW.png

Their examples of bias in Wikipedia is hilarious. And in their section on dinosaurs, they actually mention that dinosaurs and humans could have lived in the same time period!

Liberals brains have a random picture of Che in there huh? sweet.

It **** like this that makes me hate republicans. I mean I supposedly have a "smarter than though section?" At least i'm saying my reasoning comes from other people. This "my vision comes from god" bull**** couldn't possibly be more elitist.

Edit: Homosexual Porn Baron Funds Obama Campaign [24]
One of Obama's major financial backers, and a member of his National Finance Committee, is Terrence Bean, who made his fortune by the production and dissemination of homosexual pornography. The moral decrepitude of this candidate is made clear by the company he keeps.

simply amazing.

Religious Upbringing and Culture Affects Rates of Homosexuality - Conservapedia



...my faith in human nature continues to erode.

lolz i think that rule has been broken

Did someone make that site as a joke?

Kangaroo - Conservapedia

This site is the greatest source of comedy on the internet.

When I read this name... conservapedia... I KNOW I will laugh while reading this ! :D

The funny thing is, the Marxism present in liberals' minds is true, whether they want to recognize it or not. If there was a liberapedia it would be just as bad.

yet you failed to include

which was right under your quote.

I highly doubt that. Similarity in belief is not the same thing as presence of the other belief. Liberals aren't Marxists, but Marxism borrows heavily from liberalism and can even be classified as the extreme end there of. Honestly, I think you're going up the wrong end of a slippery slope.

Oh well, it is all altruism. :)

Which is an evil evil evil thing.

It is. It doesn't allow man to consider himself as a rational being. If man does not consider himself as a rational being then he doesn't care about his survival or his life. Man has no care of life itself if this is the case and altruism becomes contradictory.

Quite right because the other extreme, selfishness is a much better virtue to build a country on.

I think you're in love with the slippery slope.

Perhaps, but in both cases the sites would have been established by self righteous and dangerously certain individuals who simply wish to insulate themselves from conflicting opinion. The whole concept of creating an encyclopedia with an obvious bias is moronic.

What? I'm not even sure what you're trying to say. Altruism doesn't preclude a man to value his survival, it's entirely possible to concern yourself with both your own life and others. I certainly try to give to others, sometimes at the expense of my own wishes (altruism), but I am still a rational human being.

You seem to be advocating greed and a self-centered approach to life which you try to justify to yourself by calling altruism evil.

Its certainly a lot smoother than other slopes.

But it's implying that the flood stuff is a possibility.
What are you talking about? Marxism developed as an attack on liberalism, or rather its economic doctrine, capitalism. They are fundamentally opposed. It is true that certain parts of the liberal movement was influenced by socialist ideas and developed into social liberalism, particularly in John Stuart Mill's doctrine. But Marx's ideas about the proletariat's complete control over the means of production, among other things, goes against the basic philosophies of liberalism.

Are you definining liberalism strictly as classical liberalism?

No, but you said that "Marxism borrows heavily from liberalism", which means that Marx in the mid 19th century borrowed from contemporary liberalism, what we now call classical liberalism, which is outright false.

The only thing liberalism and Marxism have in common is that they're both children of the Enlightenment, but socialism or ideas similar to it had existed long before Marx came along.

Marxism has very similar ideas to liberalism, at least theoretically. Especially in regards to culture. They both want to grant the people as many freedoms as possible with as little government interaction as possible. Both classical liberalism and marxism make the assumption that the people know what is best for their own persons. The key difference is that liberalism embraces the class divide where Marx assumed it was the cause of a lot of problems.

of course it's a possiblity. what the fuck do you know about any of that sort of stuff?

Well, the Marxists assume that the proletariat all have common needs and wants. There isn't an individual perspective on the personal needs of the single worker (or farmer). They rather lump them all together and claim to know what each and everyone of them wants. You're right though that both Marxism and liberalism assume than man is at heart good.
How is a possibility? It's not supported by factual evidence. Just because it's written down in some fictional story in an old book doesn't put it on the same level as scientific theories.

Oh I totally agree. I just wanted to make sure that everyone didn't just bash on conservatives as if they are the only absolute evil.

Altruism specifically calls for putting another's interests above your own. If this is the case, then you put another's life before your own. If you put another life before your own, you do not care about your own survival because your own life is not your highest value.

Giving to others isn't necessarily altruism. You can give to others in your own rational self interest. It is just that you must never give more than you will receive. Otherwise you are irrational.

My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.

—Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged 35th anniversary edition

Now I do not follow this philosophy because I am irrational and chose religion (Christianity,) but this philosophy is the most logical philosophy out there.

Rational self-interest.

Do you think only in extremes? The gaping flaw in your argument is the ridiculous extrapolation that you cannot value your life if it isn't your highest priority.

Also, giving to others without expecting a return is only irrational if you adopt a selfish approach to life where personal gain is your greatest ambition.

Sweden is basically socialist and they are doing quite well.

No it isn't. Ayn Rand was crazy. Truly one of the worst philosophers of all time.

How? You are going to actually have to point out some flaws in it so that you make any sense.

Altruism according to wikipedia is:

"Altruism is selfless concern for the welfare of others."

Selfless, meaning one does not value his interests above others.

Socialism is slavery. If one cannot own what he works for then it is slavery. I don't care where it is going. Forcing one to give up property rights for your illogical beliefs is contradictory to the idea that another's interests should go before theirs.

What about those who cannot work? What about those whose jobs and money have been lost due to an economic crisis? What about the old, whose pension can no longer cover the necessities of life? What about the children born into poor families with little hope for higher education? Equal opportunity doesn't exist in today's society.

All rights come from man's right to his own life. Nothing be a right if it violates someone else's right to life. Property rights are rights based on the right to life because a man must own property in order to sustain himself.

Society shouldn't have to care about those people. Charity can still be given to people because it is voluntary. Secondly, there has never been a truly free market in the world. In a truly free market, rational people will make it to the top. Kids inheriting companies from their dad's will probably not happen unless the kid knows the business well.

If reason is the only absolutely you can not reason out other absolutes. For instance, time is not absolute for time is not reason. However if you could reasonably determine that time necessarily exists than you must discard your previous stance.

That addresses nothing about my post. From here explain how valuing someone's interest above your own means you cannot place any value on your own life.

If one have to pay for hospital and can be killed legally, even if he's under 18, how do you call that ? A lot of people in the world would call that dictatorship. I call that USA.

And socialism DOESN'T mean you can't own what you work for. It means that even if you can't buy, food, health..., you can have it.

(USSR was a dictatorship, that's true, but every socialists nations aren't)

yeah, developing a healty self-esteem and living life to the fullest sound like horrible ideas to me too.