|
ErIog posted:Andy would just say that "liberal rape" is redundant since rape is against conservative values, and so therefore it's an inherently liberal concept. "Liberal deceit" is also redundant by the same logic. 
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2012 02:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 14:00 |
|
|
I just wanted everyone to know that I REALLY wanted to contribute one new article to this thread that we could all laugh at and be scared by etc.... but there are TOO MANY! I have TEN open tabs right now and I can’t pick which one will earn me the most invisible internet goon points because I’m too busy being outright frighten by the fact that there must be people here who come to this website and go 'ah yes, these are the real facts. loving liberals.’ I mean for fucks sake no wonder the political discourse in this country has gone to hell. For example: http://www.conservapedia.com/Social_justice The whole explanation about how Jesus was really in favor of letting the poor and weak: Handle them own drat selves and stop being pussys like he is some sort of Texan stereotype is such a disparity away form their own religious documents that I just have no idea how the Christian right arrived at it. gently caress. Fake Edit: The Obama article alone made me eat Tylenol like they were tic-tacs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2012 18:11
|
|
|
Don't touch the poop man. You win no points that way.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2012 22:22
|
|
|
AcidRonin posted:The whole explanation about how Jesus was really in favor of letting the poor and weak: Handle them own drat selves and stop being pussys like he is some sort of Texan stereotype is such a disparity away form their own religious documents that I just have no idea how the Christian right arrived at it. gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2012 18:52
|
|
|
kissekatt posted:Prosperity gospel is one possibility. The inverse of "if you and God love each other you will be rich" is "if you and God hate each other you will be poor". God must really hate devout sub-saharan African christians.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2012 21:19
|
|
|
kissekatt posted:Prosperity gospel is one possibility. The inverse of "if you and God love each other you will be rich" is "if you and God hate each other you will be poor". And as it has been since the days of Constantine, Christianity in the hands of the powerful is always and ever a means by which they can centralize and justify their continued power and authority.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2012 03:13
|
|
|
kanonvandekempen posted:God must really hate devout sub-saharan African christians. You're making this argument ironically, but there's a decent number of people who actually believe exactly what you just wrote.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2012 04:36
|
|
|
DAD LOST MY IPOD posted:And as it has been since the days of Constantine, Christianity in the hands of the powerful is always and ever a means by which they can centralize and justify their continued power and authority. Those Romans were on to something when they co-opted a decentralized religion of passivisism and turned into a creed for the conquest of the world.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2012 04:59
|
|
|
DAD LOST MY IPOD posted:And as it has been since the days of Constantine, Christianity in the hands of the powerful is always and ever a means by which they can centralize and justify their continued power and authority. Well if they wanted to not be starving then they shouldn't have let their ancestor Ham see his father in his nakedness.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2012 15:10
|
|
|
http://conservapedia.com/RINO_Backers Absolutely wonderful. Read the talk page.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2012 22:55
|
|
|
quote:Most would agree that a rate of only 1 out of 50 is "really rare." That's the published scientific rate for pregnancy from rape, but pro-aborts like Barack Obama and even some RINOs like Mitch McConnell and Karl Rove try to expel conservative Todd Akin for mentioning this scientific fact. I guess Akin's right, given that the estimated rate of pregnancy from unprotected sex at any random time is, uh, about 2.5%.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2012 22:59
|
|
|
Parahexavoctal posted:http://conservapedia.com/RINO_Backers It's stuff like this that brings warmth to my heart. So many conservatives called out I can practically smell the infighting.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2012 23:30
|
|
|
Parahexavoctal posted:http://conservapedia.com/RINO_Backers
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2012 23:44
|
|
|
Black Griffon posted:It's stuff like this that brings warmth to my heart. So many conservatives called out I can practically smell the infighting. Also once again proving that Victoria Jackson is completely fucken batshit insane.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2012 23:59
|
|
|
"I know people, because I’m 53." - Victoria Jackson
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2012 00:55
|
|
|
Parahexavoctal posted:http://conservapedia.com/RINO_Backers Oh god this is amazing. quote:Most of the RINO Backers have not been elected. Of those who have, one quit her office midterm (Palin), one did not stand for reelection (Romney), one is a freshman senator who had not been to D.C. before (Johnson), and another declined to run for an open seat for statewide office (Ryan). This list of RINO Backers is hardly representative of the Republican Party itself.--Andy Schlafly 15:15, 25 August 2012 (EDT) The republican Presidential nominee, Vice Presidential nominee and the RNC chairman are RINOs. There are no Republicans.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2012 01:13
|
|
|
TinTower posted:I guess Akin's right, given that the estimated rate of pregnancy from unprotected sex at any random time is, uh, about 2.5%. Exactly. It's another great example of people abusing statistics for their own ends and the majority of the populace being too dumb, ill-educated, in ideological agreement, and otherwise unwilling/incapable of even questioning what they're told, let alone recognizing they're being lied to. I mean, I know I'm preaching to the choir here and that this propensity to lie is already patently obvious (just look at how Republicans made an out of context lie about what Obama actually said the theme of their convention), but it just pisses me off to no end seeing people abuse and lie about empirical facts like this to support ideas/principles that are already offensive on their faces.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2012 07:58
|
|
|
Wait, Tony Sidaway is a Conservapedian now? That's, erm... that's certainly a thing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2012 10:13
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:Wait, Tony Sidaway is a Conservapedian now? That's, erm... that's certainly a thing. Tony Sidaway is doing something wonderful on Conservapedia. He's carefully and politely following all the rules, and not arguing with Andy. He's absolutely positively not vandalizing. And yet... what he posts is very different from most of what's on Conservapedia. Very, very, very different. (Tony Sidaway has something of a reputation on Wikipedia. If you don't know that reputation, you won't be stunned like goddamnedtwisto was.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2012 12:38
|
|
|
Parahexavoctal posted:Tony Sidaway is doing something wonderful on Conservapedia. He's carefully and politely following all the rules, and not arguing with Andy. He's absolutely positively not vandalizing. And yet... what he posts is very different from most of what's on Conservapedia. Very, very, very different. I never would have pegged him for a Conservapedia editor. From what I can remember he was definitely leftist and possibly transgendered.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2012 13:45
|
|
|
Parahexavoctal posted:Tony Sidaway is doing something wonderful on Conservapedia. He's carefully and politely following all the rules, and not arguing with Andy. He's absolutely positively not vandalizing. And yet... what he posts is very different from most of what's on Conservapedia. Very, very, very different. Explain it for those of us who don't keep up with the latest wiki drama?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2012 14:17
|
|
|
Toffile posted:I never would have pegged him for a Conservapedia editor. From what I can remember he was definitely leftist and possibly transgendered. Tony's not transgendered, but he's very trans-friendly. Very, very, very trans-friendly. And very leftist. ( His userpage has some useful links.) Which is why what he's doing on Conservapedia is so fascinating. He's not doing anything that could be perceived as vandalism. He's being a productive editor. And yet... it's not what you'd think a Conservapedia editor would do. Not at all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2012 19:21
|
|
|
Black Griffon posted:"I know people, because I’m 53." The full quote is even better: “The Todd Akin thing was so blown out of proportion — it’s a joke. How many times do people get pregnant from rape? It’s point zero zero one percent. It’s a joke. I read lots of articles. I know people, because I’m 53. I’ve know a lot of people, and I’ve actually never known anyone who got pregnant from being raped.”
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2012 19:25
|
|
|
Kubrick posted:The full quote is even better: This whole Victoria Jackson thing was to blown out of proportion, its a joke. How many people from SNL go on to be hardcore partisan neocons? It's point zero zero percent. It's a joke. I've raed a lot of articles. I know people, because I don't live in a cave on an island by myself. I've know a lot of people, and I've actually never know anyone who left SNL to become a retarded partisan neocon.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2012 20:42
|
|
|
I can't believe the "rape doesn't lead to pregnancy" thing is a talking point now. Even by women neocons. Can't you guys go back to something less horrific like union shaming or complaining about the big bad tax Obamacare has on hard working Americans? Sheesh.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2012 20:46
|
|
|
You forgot to mention the part where she says the baby has "its own" DNA, which is neither hers, nor the rapist's. I think just the fact that it would be Victoria Jackson's baby would be bad enough, personally. As for rape not resulting in pregnancy, Victoria Jackson needs to tell that to my Viking-laden family tree.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2012 20:49
|
|
|
Bruce Leroy posted:Exactly. It's another great example of people abusing statistics for their own ends and the majority of the populace being too dumb, ill-educated, in ideological agreement, and otherwise unwilling/incapable of even questioning what they're told, let alone recognizing they're being lied to. Every time I read something like this a small alarm goes off in my head. From my experiences of reading freep, internet comments, and real life experience, this is pretty much what conservatives think of liberals (or whatever you identify as here.) Now I know we have stuff like evidence, but I feel the whole "He who fights monsters should make sure he himself does not become one" quote is valid here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2012 20:54
|
|
|
Tartarus Sauce posted:You forgot to mention the part where she says the baby has "its own" DNA, which is neither hers, nor the rapist's. It's true! It's both! Rape is a PBNJ!
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2012 20:54
|
|
|
Creationists present better arguments than the "rape doesn't call pregnancy" advocates. I'm waiting for some, possible southern, state Senator to propose a law called "she was asking for it" where a man cannot be held responsible for getting raped if she dresses, acts or says anything that gives men boners.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2012 21:03
|
|
|
modig posted:This whole Victoria Jackson thing was to blown out of proportion, its a joke. How many people from SNL go on to be hardcore partisan neocons? It's point zero zero percent. It's a joke. I've raed a lot of articles. I know people, because I don't live in a cave on an island by myself. I've know a lot of people, and I've actually never know anyone who left SNL to become a retarded partisan neocon. I started watching SNL as a very young kid (maybe 4 years old) and I always wondered why Victoria Jackson was on the show. At the time I guess I thought it was just over my head, but even that explanation bothered me because I didn't have trouble getting any of the other jokes. She was just awful and it seems fitting that someone so unfunny could be such a crazy shitbag in other respects. Parahexavoctal posted:Tony's not transgendered, but he's very trans-friendly. Very, very, very trans-friendly. And very leftist. ( His userpage has some useful links.) Could you give an example of what he's done on Conservapedia that fits this? unwantedplatypus posted:Every time I read something like this a small alarm goes off in my head. From my experiences of reading freep, internet comments, and real life experience, this is pretty much what conservatives think of liberals (or whatever you identify as here.) Now I know we have stuff like evidence, but I feel the whole "He who fights monsters should make sure he himself does not become one" quote is valid here. So, what you're saying is that there's actual evidence supporting my position and not for the converse (i.e. liberals doing the same thing for which I'm criticizing conservatives and Republicans), but I should still be wary of becoming like the people I'm criticizing? From what basis do you draw such caution? And you're posting this in the Conservapedia thread? Do you really not see my point is that I'm acknowledging this is the same thing as what conservatives say of liberals, but the things they are using as evidence for their positions are boldfaced lies or obvious abuses of statistics? They are claiming liberals and pro-choice people in general are lying about the pregnancy rate for rape and are fact deficient, but they abuse statistics to make this point, hence my criticism. Why do you feel the need to perpetuate a false equivalency here, especially since you even admit the evidence is pretty one-sided? Is it just for the sake of some misdirected and unnecessary moderation or balance? Look, I'm not saying Democrats or liberals never lie or stretch the truth, just that it's of a qualitatively different character from what Republicans and conservatives are doing, as seen in them using an out of context lie about what Obama said as the theme to their national convention where they officially nominated Romney for president, as I previously noted in the comment to which you were responding. This is especially true for the kind of conservatives we're discussing in this thread, i.e. Conservapedians, who are Young Earth Creationism, global warming denialists, birthers, and other fact-deficient, lying shitbags.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2012 22:09
|
|
|
Parahexavoctal posted:Tony's not transgendered, but he's very trans-friendly. Very, very, very trans-friendly. And very leftist. ( His userpage has some useful links.) I couldn't remember if he was or not. It's been such a long time since the name popped in my mind, but I do remember him roleplaying as a woman online for a while. Bruce Leroy posted:Could you give an example of what he's done on Conservapedia that fits this? I think the evidence of him doing nothing is pretty easily discovered and examined.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2012 22:27
|
|
|
I was looking at the RINO page and I loved this one: Former President Theodore Roosevelt, because he regulated the economy and used social justice. drat RINO Teddy Roosevelt 
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2012 23:21
|
|
|
Toffile posted:I couldn't remember if he was or not. It's been such a long time since the name popped in my mind, but I do remember him roleplaying as a woman online for a while. I think it would probably be closer to call him an internet cross-dresses than actually transgendered - he doesn't believe himself to be a woman nor wishes to be a woman, he just enjoys roleplaying as one. Even then it's slightly more complex than that - Sherilyn Sidaway is more like a sockpuppet than anything else. A less charitable person would say that he treats his gender identity like he does every other aspect of his personality - he picks whatever is most likely to annoy/discomfit the person he's arguing with (note that he has never had an online conversation that cannot be described as an argument). I actually quite like Tony but he has the unerring ability to make you feel, if you're on the same side of a position as him, that you've picked the wrong side.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2012 23:55
|
|
|
Toffile posted:I couldn't remember if he was or not. It's been such a long time since the name popped in my mind, but I do remember him roleplaying as a woman online for a while He used to be called Jenny on Wikipedia because of the Doctor Who character of the same name.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2012 00:01
|
|
|
Bruce Leroy posted:
Your right, the conservapedia thread is no place for a serious derail like this. Ill just drop the issue.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2012 00:09
|
|
|
Rand alPaul posted:I was looking at the RINO page and I loved this one: I always have a quiet chuckle to myself whenever Republican politicians, pundits, etc. try to invoke Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt to steal some of their credit and cache, because the current GOP couldn't be further from what those two men were about if that were the sole goal in life.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2012 02:51
|
|
|
Bruce Leroy posted:I always have a quiet chuckle to myself whenever Republican politicians, pundits, etc. try to invoke Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt to steal some of their credit and cache, because the current GOP couldn't be further from what those two men were about if that were the sole goal in life. Racial issues aside, Lincoln launched a war to preserve the supremacy of the federal government over the states. I mean, that's biggovernment.txt right there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2012 03:18
|
|
|
DAD LOST MY IPOD posted:Racial issues aside, Lincoln launched a war to preserve the supremacy of the federal government over the states. I mean, that's biggovernment.txt right there. And Teddy was a proponent of socialized healthcare in 1908.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2012 03:38
|
|
|
Bruce Leroy posted:I always have a quiet chuckle to myself whenever Republican politicians, pundits, etc. try to invoke Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt to steal some of their credit and cache, because the current GOP couldn't be further from what those two men were about if that were the sole goal in life. The Republicans will ignore the left-right shift whenever possible. How often have republicans said that the Democrats were the party of Jim Crow and segregation? They hate black people until it's convenient to point out how liberals are the real racists.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2012 04:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 14:00 |
|
|
C.C.C.P. posted:And Teddy was a proponent of socialized healthcare in 1908. This is so sad. Maybe we'll get socialized healthcare in 2108.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2012 05:09
|
|