On the Iraq War
Here's the problem - we're here to state our bias, not to pretend that we're referring to ethereal, disconnected "facts" that are actually used only to bolster a particular argument. Your argument has been made and it is both the dominant and the incorrect argument. You're using the "reputable sources" and "methods" that have been so perverted over the course of the last fifty years. Shaking the voodoo stick of "truth" doesn't alter the fact that what people call "truth" changes based on the perspective of the person who presents statements about a certain subject. All voices are biased, and they need to state that bias. I am a conservative. This is an article for conservatives. I'm reverting the article. Affirmlife 12:19, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
Based on the view given above now in italics, why is it that if the articles cited are taken from a conservative point of view, and reference Conservative websites and viewpoints, that it is labelled in red at the top as being "biased" when the very slanted Liberal view is also biased and yet never challenged? Only Liberal viewpoints may prevail, even in a conservative encyclopedia? Conservapedia should allow another view on the war and not say it is biased to show a Conservative viewpoint simply because it is a Conservative viewpoint. The references ARE there, and anyone wishing to verify them can click on them. These are controversial issues and Conservapedia should be the voice for the other (non-Liberal) side, not censuring the Conservative viewpoint and reasoning, IMO. - Skies April 2, 2007.
And they just LOOOOOOOOOOOVE Obama
If elected, Obama would become the first person having ties to a known terrorist to gain control over America's atom bombs.
If elected, Obama would likely become the first Muslim President, and could use the Koran to be sworn into office.
Obama claimed to have visited 57 states while campaigning for president of the United States, which of course has only 50 states.[26] He could never explain where the false number of 57 came from, but it has been observed that there are 57 Islamic states and Obama was educated at an Islamic grade school while he lived in an Islamic country
It's somewhat sad really.
but it is not such a blatant lie as the pictures of the mangled babies. I've seen post-abortion product of conception, and it does not look like the pictures on the posters.
I know there are plenty of over-zealous liberals, but I wish everybody who is involved in the fear mongering would just chill out. I wish we could respect one another enough to accept that, even when our opinions and beliefs differ, both perspectives can be valid and well thought out.
people talk about how calling Obama by his middle name isn't offensive because, of course, it is his middle name, and how he is associated with a terrorist (which, to a lot of americans, means suicide bombers) without mentioning that the terrorist organization promotes education for immigrants.
why tell these half truths? why not just decide if we want a president whose top priorities include financial support for our soldiers and reducing the hemorrhaging of government money or the one whose top priorities include a reasonable removal from a country at civil war and responsible government spending. why not decide which administration we would prefer appoint as many as four supreme court justices-- justices we feel would make good law for this country? why vote against the guy who might maybe put the scary person in a position of power?
/ rant