It's Friday! And what does that mean?

It means Conservapedia can suck my balls! Hooray!

Perhaps you recall, or have just read, my last post (it was from the original site). In it, we discovered what Conservapedia thinks Liberalism is all about

So I think it's appropriate to look at what they think about their own political ideology. No doubt it will be as fair and unbiased as the liberal article

Here's how it starts

Conservative values recognize the adversarial nature of politics, and much in life. As a result of their ability to deal with adversity, conservative values are superb in defending against obesity, addiction, adversity, anxiety, fear, depression, narcissism, risky law-breaking activities like dangerous driving, self-destructive behavior, illiteracy, rejection, wastefulness, and serious mental disorders. Conservatives are happier than liberals, and one study gives a reason: conservatives do not insist upon a mindless equality.

Conservative values also spontaneously generate puppies and cure erectile dysfunction! So lets get this straight. I can only assume that there are no fat Republicans, and Rush Limbaugh was never addicted to Oxycontin. How does being conservative protect you from being bipolar or schizophrenic? How does laissez-faire economics keep you from driving dangerously? How does believing that Gays shouldn't marry reduce anxiety? And fear? Really? You mean to tell me there is no fear or terrorists, gays, or immigrants involved in Conservatism? Cause conservatives sure love to pander to fear

Conservative values are also helpful in recognizing and combating deceit. A conservative understands the many incentives by others to engage in deceit, and the political power that can result from such deceit. A conservative is often not surprised by the deception that fools others.

They make it sound like deceit is unique to the left. Deception like, oh, covering up a hotel break-in

Anyways, here are some of the values of the conservative movement

• a never-ending quest for the truth, despite obstacles based on emotion and personal experience, and spreading such truths for the benefit of all

Unless that truth involves little things like global warming or evolution. Science in general really

• a devotion to the principle of justice

As long as it isn't Social Justice. Because all you need to add is -ism, and you've got Socialism

• recognizing the media for its bias, bullying, deception.

Excluding Fox News, of course

• rejecting the deification of government officials

Unless it's Reagan

• giving those in authority due respect, but not to the point of accepting orders or assertions that are contrary to logic or morality

Unless it's Reagan

• not complaining, and instead taking practical action to improve one's situation

Someone should tell that to the Republicans in Congress

• emphasizing humility and open-mindedness instead of arrogant certainty about one's own views

Too easy, not gonna touch it

• understanding that a rising tide lifts all boats, e.g. tax cuts benefit all.

A rising tide doesn't help you if you're fucking drowning



Well, that's it for now

Recap - The Third Post

Oh, Conservapedia. 3/20/09

That's right, it's Friday again. And you know what that means:

Conservapedia Friday!

Today's Conservapedia page is their article on Liberals, in which they fairly and without bias enumerate basic liberal viewpoints and beliefs.

Oh, wait, wrong site. This is where they unabashedly spout propoganda that, while sometimes is not a complete lie in a roundabout way, is pretty dumb.

They begin the article with their definition:

"A liberal is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons. There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing."

Really, biblical standards? I'm pretty sure a standard is something universally accepted, and someone's interpretation of what the Bible teaches is completely dependent on their worldview, not the other way around. I also like how they dismiss the whole of liberal beliefs as narcissim, like their beliefs are the only ones with any merit (which is actually pretty typical)

The article then goes on to list some bullet pointed facts about liberal beliefs. The thing about the list is that while a lot of their points are clearly worded to make you think they're stupid or just plain evil, some really are just simple facts. It's like they expect you to think these things are just dumb. Some of the simple ones include:

• Support for gun control
• Support of labor unions
• Abolition of the death penalty
• Environmentalism

To Conservapedia, these aren't only silly and wrong, they're evil, and probably anti-America. But to non-insane people, these are acceptable beliefs. For some, they're actually pretty important.

And then the article says some other things, that have a bit more than a hint of bias:

• Support of obscenity and pornography as a First Amendment right

I think it's really more about the fact that rights aren't supposed to be taken away when it becomes inconvenient or bothersome to some people. But, ok.

• The denial of inherent gender differences

I don't think that liberals think that men and women are the same. In fact, they're quite different. It's pretty obvious too. Especially when you're naked. But the point is that it's generally wrong for the law to make distinctions, especially in the form of double-standards, based on matters of gender. It's the exact same thing as having the law applied differently to people of different races. Not many people support that anymore

• A "living Constitution" that is reinterpreted as liberals prefer, rather than how it was intended

First of all, we absolutely do not know all the intentions of the dozens of people who could be considered the founders of this country and the writers of the Constitution. Besides, even if we did, it would be impossible to apply 18th century positions to 21 century positions. Besides, the Constituion is almost entirely procedural and structural guidelines for a reason: Constitutions that contain a lot of laws fail. If laws become outdated and made obsolete or recognized to be denying basic rights, they need to be changed. If they're in the Constitution, it's pretty damn hard to change them. And that's when people get together for a little revolution, and who wants that? (Revolutionaries want that.)

The article goes on to say this confusing little point:

• Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama).

First of all, Richard Dawkins was professor. Even if he didn't actually hold the title (and he did), that's what people who teach at colleges are generally called. As for Barack Obama, I've never once heard him referred to as a professor, even though he did teach at the University of Chicago, classified as a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996 and as a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004

• Teaching acceptance of promiscuity through sexual "education" rather than teaching abstinence from sex

Notice the subtle quotes they put on education, as if everyone considers the concept laughable. In reality, it's pretty rational to teach teens how to keep sex safe, when they're going to be doing it regardless. There are plenty examples of high profile cases of abstinence-only education failing, but I'm not going to get petty.

I'm talking about Bristol Palin.

Well, and that ends this week's Conservapedia Fridays

Have a good weekend, and watch out for idiots

Recap - The Second Post

Bill O'Reilly: Colossal Idiot, All Around Ass 3/18/09

Today, I'm gonna talk about one of the most cringe-worthy people on TV:

Bill O'Reilly.

Now, I'm sure you all know his style. He doesn't feel the need to use logic or valid arguements, he's just loud.

Think about it. When no one else can even get a word in, how can you be wrong?

Specifically, I'm looking at the Talking Points Memo from 03/02/09 entitled:

We Know How Barack Obama Will Govern

"With the announcement Friday that President Obama will leave about 50,000 troops in Iraq after the bulk of U.S. forces withdraw in 2010, it is becoming clear that on foreign policy the president will govern from the center."

Well, that's generally how the two party system works. It ensures a moderate government because both parties rely on middle-ground voters to win. But anyways..

He goes on:

"But it is also now certain that he is a far-left guy on domestic policy. The new budget is simply stunning. Mr. Obama wants to spend more money than at any time since World War II"

Well, shit. So he's spending money at New Deal/WWII amounts of money? It's not like it was those two things that brought us out of the Great Depression and brought America into the forefront of world economics...

Oh, wait. It was those things. In economic terms, World War II was absolutely nothing more than a massive spending expidenture. A stimulus, if you will.

Easy mistake though. Who would think that putting all that money into industry, jobs, and the economy in general would do so much to help the economy? Obviously not Bill O'Reilly.

"Predictably, quasi-socialists like New York Times columnist Paul Krugman are delirious with joy. Here comes the nanny state, starring President Obama and Fran Drescher."

Ha, I get it. She's a nanny. Good one.

Seriously though, people can't stop throwing around the word Socialism. If they'd pull their heads out of there asses long enough, they'd see that Socialism is quite different that what Obama believes in, and that Socialism in America basically died in the 20s, thanks, in part, to some pretty impressive stifling of political freedoms. But that's not what I'm really here to talk about.

Skipping ahead, he goes on to say this gem:

"The decline and fall of America is at hand."

Run to the hills! In 10 years, America will have gone the way of the Soviet Union! Mobs of roving street gangs will ride around on motorcycles, fighting amongst themselves for resources, constantly on the watch for Mel Gibson! (That's what Mad Max was about, right? I've never actually seen it...)

Continuing,

""Talking Points" cannot imagine any Republican senator supporting the massive budget, so it will have trouble getting passed."

Sorry, the Democrats have a majority. Besides, three Republicans did vote for it (it passed 60-38, with a couple either not voting or not present because the seat in still being contested in the courts). I'm no mathematician, but with 56 Senators, the Democrats could pass it alone.

"That change means the rich will support the poor. Americans who do not succeed will have their bills paid by people like me..."

Incorrect. Americans who do not have the opportunity to succeed will be assisted, so they have a chance to become self-sustaining, productive members of society. It's called Equality of Opportunity. Conservatives tout their belief in it, but it's just their way of saying "If you're not rich, you're fucked."

The remainder of the article is bascially just him calling the Left a big meanie, then it goes on to his other segments.

Well, that's all for today. Look up some O'Reilly videos if you've never seen him. Don't watch too many though. It's painfully frustrating.

Check back at the end of this week for Conservapedia Fridays, and watch out for idiots.

Recap - The First Post

Conservapedia, you are retarded. 3/13/09

For my first article, I will be addressing what I find to be one of the most hilariously retarded things I've ever seen on the internet:

Conservapedia

For those of you who don't know, Conservapedia is an encyclopedia that was founded to create a site to rival Wikipedia, which the founder and contributors perceive to have a distinctly liberal and anti-christian bias

You might be asking yourself, wait, doesn't Wikipedia take great strides to maintain its neutrality and lack of bias?

Well, yes, yes it does. Wikipedia uses verifiable, sourced facts in its articles, and when those are lacking, there's a big fucking warning that basically says, "Hey, watch out. This might be bullshit."

Apparently, they thought that the truth has too much of a liberal bias, and they decided they had to make an encyclopedia where little things like facts and neutrality wouldn't get in the way of the narrow, far-right crazy world view.

This is led by a man named Andrew Schlafly, who, as an ultra-conservative fundamentalist home school teacher, was set off by a student using the CE (common era) notation for a date, rather than AD (Anno Domini).

Seriously. It was the student's choice of date-markers that convinced him Wikipedia was on a crusade against not only Conservatism, but Christianity as a whole. And it was this, that led to such gems as:

• Barack Obama: He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action.

Also, if you'll look at the Barack Obama article, even before the index, they have a list of reasons why he's totally a Muslim (which I guess they think is bad). Here are some shining examples of painstaking research and thought:

• He has said that "Islam can be compatible with the modern world."
• Obama uses the Muslim Pakistani pronunciation for "Pakistan" rather than the common American one.
• Obama's middle name (Hussein) references Husayn, who was the grandson of Muhammad, which most Christians would not retain.

I know, right? I'm convinced too. He's a Muslim. Which means he hates America. Clearly, they all do. They hate you because you're free. It's that simple.

Anyways, in their guidelines, they list seven suggestions on ensuring an article is "reliable". I use quotes, because I don't think they have any articles that are anything but ball-bustingly stupid. And that's very stupid. Here's their seventh suggestion:

• Neutrality may not be an antidote to bias.

Uh, false.

Neutrality is the fucking opposite of bias. And if something is the direct opposite to something else, ensuring one is the same as ensuring the other is eliminated.

So, it can be explicitly stated:

Neutrality is the antidote to bias

Anyways, I think that concludes my first article. And since Conservapedia is basically a treasure trove of stupidity, this marks the first Conservapedia Friday. Which as you can probably infer, means I will be mocking the site every Friday.

Stay tuned for my next update, and watch out for idiots

There's something stirring

That's right, Just Left of Stupid is returning

And I know, it's been a hell of a long time. But hey, better late than never right?

So, for now, I'm going to post the old articles from the original incarnation as I work on new materials

I welcome suggestions for articles you would like to see torn apart, but I can't promise I'll do the one you want. Cause after all, this is my site. All mine. I am the King. And the King takes orders from no one. But again, I do take suggestions

The email address is the same: justleftofstupid@gmail.com