The "Truth" About Obama

whygohome

Let this be the last post concerning President Obama. After everyone on this board clicks on this link and reads the "truth" that is found on this website, we will no longer need to quarrel over our views on Obama.
Everything you need to know is here:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Barack_Obama

Thank you, and May the invisible white man in the sky with the long, gray/white beard (no, not Zeus, Greek Mythology is dumb) Bless America!

Palin/Gingrich in 2012!

Gern Blansten

yes please give us Palin/Gingrich in 2012....that would guarantee Obama another 4 years

gimmesometruth27

that is the most libelous piece of shit website i have ever read.

he could probably sue the author(s) for libel and defamation of character, among other things...

keeponrockin

Conservapedia.... I wonder if it's a biased site?

And I dare you guys to run Palin/Gingrich in 2012.

Jokertt14

On my way to Obama's house now to get some WEED .

I'm a Truck

Thanks for wasting 4 minutes of my life!

Newch91

That's by far the most biased thing I've seen or read (besides Fox News). Who wrote that? Glen Beck and Sarah Palin?

aerial

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

that is the most libelous piece of shit website i have ever read.

he could probably sue the author(s) for libel and defamation of character, among other things...

Do you really think he would even try? He wants all this information to stay on the DL...

Byrnzie

whygohome wrote:

May the invisible white man in the sky with the long, gray/white beard (no, not Zeus, Greek Mythology is dumb) Bless America!

Palin/Gingrich in 2012!

God Help America!

Boxes&Books

aerial wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

that is the most libelous piece of shit website i have ever read.

he could probably sue the author(s) for libel and defamation of character, among other things...

Do you really think he would even try? He wants all this information to stay on the DL...

Your kidding, right? Do you actually know how much of this B.S was actually used during the campaign? This crap was played over and over all over the net and conservative radio...... This B.S isn't new.....

People aren't really that dumb are they??
Someone please tell me these people are smarter then this....please!

gimmesometruth27

aerial wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

that is the most libelous piece of shit website i have ever read.

he could probably sue the author(s) for libel and defamation of character, among other things...

Do you really think he would even try? He wants all this information to stay on the DL...

are you being serious or are you being sarcastic??????????

:? :? :? :?

g under p

When I first started to read this the first thing that came to mind was....this would be great to post on Sean Hannity site. So I did and I'll wait and see if anyone pays it any mind. Over there they should just love this. The interest should be the same as it is here.

Peace

KDH12

I didn't even click the link after seeing the name of the site

but it sounds like this is proof that the internet should not be accessible to everyone

aerial

tonifig8 wrote:

aerial wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

that is the most libelous piece of shit website i have ever read.

he could probably sue the author(s) for libel and defamation of character, among other things...

Do you really think he would even try? He wants all this information to stay on the DL...

Your kidding, right? Do you actually know how much of this B.S was actually used during the campaign? This crap was played over and over all over the net and conservative radio...... This B.S isn't new.....

People aren't really that dumb are they??
Someone please tell me these people are smarter then this....please!

can you tell me what part is B.S.?

Hugh Freaking Dillon

good GOD people will believe anything. :roll:

Jeanwah

Conservapedia. I like their tagline: The Trustworthy Encyclopedia.

g under p

A couple entries from the Hannity site on The "Truth" About Obama

Quote:
Originally Posted by caballus
How much truth is in those words on conservapedia about obama?

Pretty damned scary stuff if ya ask me.

---

probably all of it.
I glanced through it and didn't see anything bogus.
If anything, they are far too "kind" to the marxist fool.
__________________

Reading the first few paragraphs of the entry, I didn't see anything to dispute, either. Associations with fringe elements, stagnant unemployment rates, increased poverty level, increased terrorist attacks, and the like.

But watch the liberals take jabs at Conservapedia, as if these things are wrong.
__________________

All I know is that this dirtbag Øbama told a group of hispanics to "punish your enemies." Little doubt I am one of those enemies, so I can only hope that Øbama gets punished before they get me. Worst president ever, impeach this loser.
__________________

Peace

josevolution

whygohome wrote:

Let this be the last post concerning President Obama. After everyone on this board clicks on this link and reads the "truth" that is found on this website, we will no longer need to quarrel over our views on Obama.
Everything you need to know is here:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Barack_Obama

Thank you, and May the invisible white man in the sky with the long, gray/white beard (no, not Zeus, Greek Mythology is dumb) Bless America!

Palin/Gingrich in 2012!

I thank God everyday that i don't have you & people like Aerial living next to me ...You guys are scary :oops: remember it's your views :roll:

keeponrockin

Why are you so sure god is white..? If Jesus lived, he almost certainly would've been middle-eastern looking.

Boxes&Books

keeponrockin wrote:

Why are you so sure god is white..? If Jesus lived, he almost certainly would've been middle-eastern looking.

please don't talk like that.










:twisted:

:?

whygohome

I would just like to mention that my post was pure sarcasm. The Conservapedia entry is real....unfortunately. My comments were meant as jokes, pure sarcasm. Also, my jab at the image of "God" as a white man with a long beard living in the clouds was also sarcasm. I am a proud agnostic/pagan/heathen/whatever.

I love the comments made on the Sean Hannity site. The state of public political and social knowledge in this country is sad. Very, very sad. People know nothing, and they cherish their ignorance and stupidity.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

*phew*

whygohome wrote:

I would just like to mention that my post was pure sarcasm. The Conservapedia entry is real....unfortunately. My comments were meant as jokes, pure sarcasm.

g under p

Paul David wrote:

*phew*

whygohome wrote:

I would just like to mention that my post was pure sarcasm. The Conservapedia entry is real....unfortunately. My comments were meant as jokes, pure sarcasm.

Man you couldn't tell that was the idea. Oh on the Hannity site it's probably over 70 replies by now. They love what's being fed to them by this site.

Peace

g under p

This from Conservapedia on JFK....

Was Kennedy a liberal or a conservative?

Kennedy was basically a conservative, but he had to appeal to a primarily liberal base, so he offered symbols for the liberals while following a conservative course in foreign and domestic policy. After his death Kennedy's legacy was picked up by liberals, and there is a vague notion to the effect that Kennedy was a liberal. He was actually more of a conservative..[8]

To be a liberal in the days when Kennedy was in politics, 1946-63, meant supporting the programs of the New Deal, following in the footsteps of Franklin D. Roosevelt, and upholding the New Deal Coalition. Support for labor unions was important; support for civil rights was a minor issue (and one more associated with the Republican Party). Hostility to the Catholic Church was common among liberals. In foreign policy liberals had turned away from Roosevelt's détente with the Soviets and had adopted the containment policy. Liberals rejected rollback, that is efforts to remove Communists regimes from power. Verbal support for the United Nations was standard rhetoric, although in practice it meant little. The symbolically most important issue of them all for liberals was opposition to Joe McCarthy and his style of aggressive anti-Communism.

On most of these points Kennedy was largely on the conservative side. He refused to call himself a liberal, but he had a base in Massachusetts with many strong liberals in academe and labor unions that had to be appeased, so he never attacked liberalism too loudly. He solved the state problem by a close alliance with the Democratic party organizations in the cities, controlled mostly by Irish politicians. JFK's campaign manager and chief confidante was his brother Bobby, a devout Catholic who was in close touch with the Catholic establishment as well as the local machines. JFK thus maintained very close ties to the Catholic establishment; he carefully followed the required public rituals such as Mass on Sunday and no meat on Friday. It was a major achievement by Kennedy in 1960 to resolve the religious issue and bring Catholics into the mainstream of American life and to the top ranks of national leadership.[9]

Peace

Newch91

g under p wrote:

This from Conservapedia on JFK....

Was Kennedy a liberal or a conservative?

Kennedy was basically a conservative, but he had to appeal to a primarily liberal base, so he offered symbols for the liberals while following a conservative course in foreign and domestic policy. After his death Kennedy's legacy was picked up by liberals, and there is a vague notion to the effect that Kennedy was a liberal. He was actually more of a conservative..[8]

To be a liberal in the days when Kennedy was in politics, 1946-63, meant supporting the programs of the New Deal, following in the footsteps of Franklin D. Roosevelt, and upholding the New Deal Coalition. Support for labor unions was important; support for civil rights was a minor issue (and one more associated with the Republican Party). Hostility to the Catholic Church was common among liberals. In foreign policy liberals had turned away from Roosevelt's détente with the Soviets and had adopted the containment policy. Liberals rejected rollback, that is efforts to remove Communists regimes from power. Verbal support for the United Nations was standard rhetoric, although in practice it meant little. The symbolically most important issue of them all for liberals was opposition to Joe McCarthy and his style of aggressive anti-Communism.

On most of these points Kennedy was largely on the conservative side. He refused to call himself a liberal, but he had a base in Massachusetts with many strong liberals in academe and labor unions that had to be appeased, so he never attacked liberalism too loudly. He solved the state problem by a close alliance with the Democratic party organizations in the cities, controlled mostly by Irish politicians. JFK's campaign manager and chief confidante was his brother Bobby, a devout Catholic who was in close touch with the Catholic establishment as well as the local machines. JFK thus maintained very close ties to the Catholic establishment; he carefully followed the required public rituals such as Mass on Sunday and no meat on Friday. It was a major achievement by Kennedy in 1960 to resolve the religious issue and bring Catholics into the mainstream of American life and to the top ranks of national leadership.[9]

Peace

Wasn't Civil Rights one of his major issues?

Byrnzie

aerial wrote:

can you tell me what part is B.S.?

That part between the first word and the last word.

KDH12

Newch91 wrote:

g under p wrote:

This from Conservapedia on JFK....

Was Kennedy a liberal or a conservative?

Kennedy was basically a conservative, but he had to appeal to a primarily liberal base, so he offered symbols for the liberals while following a conservative course in foreign and domestic policy. After his death Kennedy's legacy was picked up by liberals, and there is a vague notion to the effect that Kennedy was a liberal. He was actually more of a conservative..[8]

To be a liberal in the days when Kennedy was in politics, 1946-63, meant supporting the programs of the New Deal, following in the footsteps of Franklin D. Roosevelt, and upholding the New Deal Coalition. Support for labor unions was important; support for civil rights was a minor issue (and one more associated with the Republican Party). Hostility to the Catholic Church was common among liberals. In foreign policy liberals had turned away from Roosevelt's détente with the Soviets and had adopted the containment policy. Liberals rejected rollback, that is efforts to remove Communists regimes from power. Verbal support for the United Nations was standard rhetoric, although in practice it meant little. The symbolically most important issue of them all for liberals was opposition to Joe McCarthy and his style of aggressive anti-Communism.

On most of these points Kennedy was largely on the conservative side. He refused to call himself a liberal, but he had a base in Massachusetts with many strong liberals in academe and labor unions that had to be appeased, so he never attacked liberalism too loudly. He solved the state problem by a close alliance with the Democratic party organizations in the cities, controlled mostly by Irish politicians. JFK's campaign manager and chief confidante was his brother Bobby, a devout Catholic who was in close touch with the Catholic establishment as well as the local machines. JFK thus maintained very close ties to the Catholic establishment; he carefully followed the required public rituals such as Mass on Sunday and no meat on Friday. It was a major achievement by Kennedy in 1960 to resolve the religious issue and bring Catholics into the mainstream of American life and to the top ranks of national leadership.[9]

Peace

Wasn't Civil Rights one of his major issues?

I guess all the Kennedy's were conservatives

Pepe Silvia

keeponrockin wrote:

Why are you so sure god is white..? If Jesus lived, he almost certainly would've been middle-eastern looking.

but if god is everything then god can't be a certain color or even sex, riiiiiiiiight??

Pepe Silvia

Byrnzie wrote:

aerial wrote:

can you tell me what part is B.S.?

That part between the first word and the last word.

Pepe Silvia

aerial wrote:

can you tell me what part is B.S.?

i found this contradiction in the very first of its sources i checked:

from the conservapedia article:
"While 'turning the page' on the War on Terror the rate of terrorist attacks in the United States has gone from zero under President George W. Bush's[16] to at least four per year[17], [18], [19], [20]

from one of the sources for the claim

"The Mexican and British consulates and the Times Square military recruiting station have been rattled by pre-dawn explosions in recent years, all occurring between 3:30 and 4:30 a.m. No one has been arrested in those blasts."

not to mention that article is about a small homemade bomb that did nothing but shatter a starbucks window placed there by 2 teenagers :roll:

so why is this a case of terrorism under obama but as the article states this has been happening for a few years but during those years it wasn't terrorism???? how does that work!?


it also says
"Well into his second year 500,000 Americans per week continued to lose their jobs. The U.S Unemployment Rate stagnated in the 10% range [12]"

while failing to mention as of sept the unemployment rate was 9.6% but when he took office it was at 7.6%


ALSO from one of the sources conservapedia cherry picks from to prove how bad poverty and unemployment are because of obama:

""The good news is there's less bad news than we thought," says Sheldon Danziger of the Population Studies Center at the University of Michigan.

He says the federal stimulus law appears to have boosted income more than expected by, for example, providing extended unemployment benefits and a $250 bonus for Social Security reciipients. Census Bureau division chief David Johnson says unemployment benefits kept 3.3 million people out of poverty in 2009."

it also says
"Median household income was $49,777 in 2009, down 0.7% from a year earlier, a change that was not statistically different from 2008, the agency said."

0.7% isn't a whole lot of blame to pin on a guy, especially when the economy was in the shitter when he took over

so, i guess now that they blocked the extension for unemployment it will now go up and they will blame obama for it despite it being because of their vote

unsung

keeponrockin wrote:

Conservapedia.... I wonder if it's a biased site?

And I dare you guys to run Palin/Gingrich in 2012.

It's just as biased as wikipedia.