Conservapedia's liberal-bias-free article on Barack Obama

As you may already know, the lofty goal of Conservapedia is to “To convey knowledge free of liberal bias.” (

Now, we can finally get clear accurate data about Barack Obama, without the liberal-tinted glasses forced on us by all other media sources.

Bask in the truthiness:

Wow, that was remarkably balanced… for Conservapedia, that is. Most of the accusations were softened by opposing claims, rather than simply stated as fact. I’m impressed! :smiley:

Well, the first picture there shows him on a stage with 3 other people during the playing of the National Anthem. The other three show proper respect by placing their hands over their hearts, while Obama is holding his dick.

I need read no further…

Shrug, it’s just like all the other pages on Conservapedia: great steaming piles of shit. It’s as accurate as Uncyclopedia, but not as entertaining.

It reminds me very much of that right-wing email going around lately about Barack Obama’s “lies.”

Where’s the picture of Obama eating a baby? I’m disappointed.

What I’ve always liked about the video of that is that Obama is the only one whose singing you can hear.

I particularly like this bit:

I didn’t realise that not going to work and sitting on my arse all day on Sunday means I’ve become a Christian.

This part made me lol out loud:

Right…because the US Senate has to obey AA rules. The other guy actually got more votes, but there were too many white guys, so Obama had to be Senator. :rolleyes:

I’m can tell by your responses that you are all using LIBERAL THINKING and probably subscribe to HOLLYWOOD VALUES. If you would just open your minds and apply logic you can see the truth.
(Good grief, I’ve read way too much of Andy Schlafly’s writing…)

The only way I avoid actual anger whenever I see a Conservapedia page is by telling myself that probably half the users are in fact just screwing around.

Because there’s no way that people could truly be that willfully ignorant and bigoted, right? I mean, even the whole concept of starting your own wiki-based encyclopedia because the biggest one - which you can edit! - is too biased in one way has to be a joke.


Oh god I hate humanity so much sometimes…

Interesting, there are ten responses so far and no one has bothered to point out a clear inaccuracy. I guess that means there aren’t any. Lots of name calling and childish insults, but no factual errors so far.

Thanks for the reference; I hadn’t heard of the website before.

I think you’re guessing wrong.

I love how presumptions, such as a sentence that begins “Presumably…”, are then cited. I’m pretty sure you don’t have to cite your own presumptions, but then again I don’t have much knowledge of Chicago style.

Yup, because we haven’t pointed out any inaccuracies in this MPSIMS thread (well except for that maverick bouv), then there aren’t any.

You’re very welcome for the reference. I’m always happy to get people with the same type of logical thought processes together.

That’s the sort of thing a LIBERAL would say. You probably don’t support prayer in schools either.

(seriously guys, Conservapedia’s main page talk is hysterical!)

Well, if you insist.

Conservapedia Lie: "Obama falsely claimed that he was a constitutional law professor, when in actuality he merely held the title of “Senior Lecturer.”

Truth, as told by The University of Chicago: “From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. . .”

And that’s just the 2nd sentence! I have no intention of bothering with the rest of it.

Sure, it’s easy to criticize. But do you give them any credit for the first line? “Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. (b. Honolulu, August 4, 1961) is the 2008 nominee of the Democratic Party for president” - that’s an entire sentence that’s factually accurate.

Don’t just whine: get on there and edit: I would, but they banned me for writing something accurate.

Nope, he is the presumptive nominee as of now. Even the first line is inaccurate.