[Ganchrow]

... so I've switched to www.conservapedia.com

It has informative conservative information like resolving the mystery of how kangaroos got to Australia from Noah's Ark:

Originally Posted by Conservapedia Kangaroo Article

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.

Good stuff.

[Ganchrow]

Wikipedia article on Conservapedia

[Senator7]

Conservatives actually have a valid argument claiming bias against most major media outlets, but efforts like this just make conservatives look silly...

[zootiehead]

Conservapedia: The opposite of knowledge

[rolemand]

Good post Ganch.

[Willie Bee]

I'm the only member of my church and my political party, so I trust nobody. I use www.williebeedia.com, a private web that is located on on my shoulders, and get the truth there.

[The HG]

Originally Posted by Senator7

Conservatives actually have a valid argument claiming bias against most major media outlets, but efforts like this just make conservatives look silly...

Actually, I don't think this is one bit true at all. I know you worked in politics Senator, so did I. I worked on the Republican side, although I guess I'm mostly a "liberal", whatever that means.

The media is "biased" towards the left of course, but that tells you more about the right than it does about the media. The way the political machines work, if you try to report only the facts, and try to tell the goings-on as objectively as possible, you are naturally going to come out seeming "biased" towards the left, because the right does way way more sneaky, dishonest, and hypocritical sh*t than the left.

For example, let's say you're walking down the street, and you see 2 people in an argument. One guy punches the other, and then the cops come. The cops come to you and ask who threw the first punch, and you tell them what you saw. Now, if you tell them the truth, what you say will be very helpful to the guy who got punched, and it will hurt the guy who threw the punch. So does it then follow that you are "biased" in favor of the guy who threw the punch, and your report of what happened should be ignored because it clearly helps one side out and hurts the other? Would it be more "fair and unbiased" of you to say "well, it's possible that one guy threw the first punch, but it's also possible that .... " and you give some other made-up "side" to the story?

This is exactly what goes on in the political media, only on a much more complex level, so bold deceptions and hypocrisies are more difficult to suss out. The general public has a tiny attention span, and doesn't care to sit there and process complex deceptions and double speak.

The notion that the media is biased in favor of the left simply because its reporting tends to favor the left, PRE-ASSUMES, based on ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, that the two parties are "equal" in their machinations, that it is impossible for the right-wing to be any "worse" than the left. This is a dangerous, dangerous popularly held misconception that the right-wing very consciously uses to their advantage.

If you ask most people who consider themselves to be smart and politically aware, they will say some variation of "both parties are essentially the same" or "both parties are equally bad" or "both parties do the same dirty tricks". People really believe this, and they think they are somehow being smart or enlightened when they say it. But in fact, it's not at all necessarily true, and the belief of it is very dangerous, because it encourages unethical behavior. It encourages it because if you commit it, you get all of the benefit, but only half of the blame and punishment. It is assumed that the other party somewhere did the exact same things, they just haven't gotten caught yet. If it is assumed that both parties are equally unethical, and one party gets caught doing something unethical, the other party will automatically be assumed to be guilty of the same thing. And the right-wing works this to their advantage much much more than the left does, in general, of course. In specific instances, anything can happen.

Efforts like "conservapedia" make conservatives look silly because the absurdity of it is clear as day, not because it's the first time they've done it.

For example, Ann Coulter recently (now I know she is a sensationalist, just looking to make a career for herself, but still) decided that the Republicans are wrong on the immigration issue. Because, of course, their desire for granting amnesty and encouraging immigration dilutes the value of American citizenship, and economically depresses wage-earners for the benefit of the investor class, and particularly wage-earners on the low end of the scale. This of course is the age-old charge against the right-wing, which is that they serve the interests of the business class at the expense of the working class, while selling themselves as promoting the interests of the working class, the "common man" and all that BS. This example of it is so stark, that even Ann Coulter can't defend it without hurting her credibility. So she said recently that "the Republican party is the party that represents the common man against the business elites, but this is the first time in my memory that they have not been that way". I'm paraphrasing of course. If that's true, that is very very strange indeed. Why on earth would they pick THIS issue to completely change course and for the first time go against the "common man"?? There must have been some kind of huge huge payoff, somehow, somewhere.

The truth of course, is that they didn't decide to change course on this issue for some unknown reason at all. It's the same course they've always been on, but most of the other times they can make things cloudy and hidden with all their usual tactics, which work every time - fear, social wedge issues, etc etc etc, I won't get into them all, but the "left-wing media bias" myth is of course a staple tactic and has been for decades.

And likewise, with "conservapedia", this is not just some wacky thing conservatives put up there for some unknown reason, completely out of character from what they normally do. It's exactly what they do. It makes them look like exactly what they are. If it makes them look bad, it's because they are bad.

Ok, that's my political rant for the month. You gotta like the over in the Rockies/Astros game tonight, but I'll write about that in the baseball section.

[Willie Bee]

Originally Posted by Ganchrow HG

For example, let's say you're walking down the street, and you see 2 people in an argument. One guy punches the other, and then the cops come. The cops come to you and ask who threw the first punch, and you tell them what you saw.

What you saw was just one guy throw a punch, so if you tell them what you saw, you really have not answered the question which was who threw the first punch. The correct answer is that you do not know who threw the first punch, just who threw a punch. But that does not mean your statement is biased in either way. Not sure I understand your analogy here.

If you ask most people who consider themselves to be smart and politically aware, they will say some variation of "both parties are essentially the same" or "both parties are equally bad" or "both parties do the same dirty tricks". People really believe this, and they think they are somehow being smart or enlightened when they say it. But in fact, it's not at all necessarily true...

While suggesting that both the GOP and the Democrats engage in the same underhanded, backroom, special interest-driven tactics may not make you "smart or enlightened," it also shouldn't be implied, as you are, that believing that to be the way it is means you aren't smart or enlightened with regards to politics and other current/past social behaviors.

Adding pork to bills, lobbying on the Senate floor in the interests of some group or corporation that has lined your coffers and sneaking legislation into port security bills that outlaws on-line gambling, just to pull some thoughts willy-nilly out of the air, is neither solely a Democrat nor Republican modus operandi. Would that be another variation of the way to say 'both teams suck?' And if so, do you not believe that statement to be true?