Conservapedia was created by Andrew Schafly and was aimed at creating a Conservative, American Christian point of view to fight back against the liberal bias that only existed in Schafly's delusion perception of Wikipedia.
For example, Schafly thought that Einstein's theory of relativity had a liberal bias. Sick of the liberally biased view that the theory of relativity ISN'T part of the pro-abortion agenda, Conservapedia felt the need to straighten the facts out by declaring that Obama is using the theory of relativity to create moral relativism (that will lead to abortion.)
Also when you type the word 'liberal' into the Conservapedia search engine it lists Margaret Sanger, Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Kim Jong-Un, Mao Zedong and John Wayne Gacy under a list of 'notable liberal intellects.'
Apparently when Schafly says that Wikipedia has a liberal bias he's saying Wikipedia has a pro-murder bias. If there's an innocent person that hasn't been murdered yet, Wikipedia writers will get together in their smoke-filled rooms cackling gleefully and plotting how to snuff out another innocent, Christian life from the world. That's what liberals do because liberals are wicked demons with glowing red eyes, forked tongues and waxed black moustaches!
In summary, Conservapedia is Wikipedia for right-wing nutjobs. Here are some of the dumbest comments they made on their page about Michael Moore.
Michael Moore (born April 23, 1954) is a left-wing Communist [1] filmmaker and conspiracy theorist.
The link provided that supposedly proves that Moore is a Communist puts us through to an article which heavily implies Moore is a Communist again and again without showing any real proof.
But in all seriousness, OF COURSE Moore is a dirty Commie! In fact I think EVERYONE who isn't a far-right, Bible-thumping, cross-burning, sister-banging, queer-stomping, gun-toting, foreigner-shooting, flag-waving, alcoholic, football-watching, redneck who believes pro-wrestling is real, constantly spits on the ground of his barbed-wire-strewn trailer-park and bathes in Communist blood to keep clean, is a dirty Commie!
Moore's films and television programs represent some of the most egregious examples of deceitful liberal propaganda in contemporary American political discourse. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has become the most high profile international proponent of the theories of Michael Moore.
What the hell's your point? Ahmadinejad agrees with some theories of Michael Moore's for some reason. Plus it's not even sourced so I don't know it's even true.
Do I need to explain that this statement is completely useless without details? What does Ahmadinejad agree with and why?
Then there's the fact that you put these two sentences together as though they're related in some way. This comment attempts to say that Moore makes liberal propaganda which is why Mahmoud Ahmadinejad loves him. Because Ahmadinejad is a liberal.
Whoever posted this was obviously hoping that some knuckle-dragging moron will read it and think - 'Aha! Everyone knows that the left-wing love brown terrorists! They're against bombing loads of brown people so that must mean they want brown terrorists to kill me. That logically follows right? Herp! Derp! Derp!'
He is a hero in liberal Hollywood and to booksellers who tend to agree with his politics. Moore's films and commentaries are often based on themes of alleged "capitalist" greed. Though a multi-millionaire, Moore frequently appears on television and in photos dressed like blue-collar workers with whom he attempts to identify.
Conservapedia is implying that Moore is just too rich to identify with the struggles of working-class people, but then call his movies which feature the closing down of General Motors and banks scamming people out of their homes ''alleged' capitalist greed?' But it's MOORE who's lacking the empathy to identify with the workers. Conservapedia that can't quite tell if laying off thousands of workers to increase the shareholder profits counts as capitalist greed or not isn't out of touch. No sir. MOORE is one out of touch and struggling to identify.
Moore produced a movie portraying President George W. Bush as part of a massive conspiracy, named Fahrenheit 9/11. The contents of the film were systematically shown to be untrue, maliciously edited, and bordering on treasonous by an independent study.
Damn I wish I could see that 'independent study!' Conservapedia gave a link but it's not sending me through.
For the record though, sometimes conspiracies are true, and they're particularly likely to be true when there's a really blatant conflict of interest involved. When some powerful people are becoming filthy rich because a war is being fought, it's not a far-fetched conspiracy to think 'wait a minute... maybe these people WANT war and are trying to prolong it.'
If an oil company sold Schafly a coffee mug that said 'I love fossil fuels' he'd probably call you a conspiracy theorist for suggesting that maybe the oil company's lying and fossil fuels are bad! Oh my god, what a crazy conspiracy that is!
Christopher Hitchens said of Fahrenheit 9/11 and Moore's work:
'To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental…Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of 'dissenting' bravery'
I really don't see why Hitchens gets any credit on foreign policy issues at all. He emphatically stated in several pieces of writing that we would find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq tauntingly writing 'just you wait and see'. Once they weren't found he stated that WMDs were never a real concern and that he'd always said so, even while his earlier articles were still available on his website.
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/17/christohper_hitchens_and_the_protocol_for_public_figure_deaths/
AND he did all this brazen lying while claiming to be an admirer of George Orwell. Gee... I didn't realize the message of nineteen eighty-four was that you're supposed to make up lies that justify your government's bloodshed.
Then there's his debate with Chomsky from 2001 where the entire article totally missed the point of why war with Iraq was a dumb idea and framed the entire thing as 'liberals are too weak to do what's necessary,' totally missing the important questions of 'is Saddam really linked to 9/11? What government will we replace Saddam with? Will it have public support and be sustainable?' He even goes so far as to claim that Chomsky cares about the perpetrator of 9/11, but not the victims. It's just hysterical, nonsense, hate-mongering drivel.
I don't see any other options other than he's a fraud or an idiot, so I guess that means he's a fraud.
Co creator of South Park, Matt Stone, was very critical of Moore's Bowling for Columbine because of animated segment which was played shortly after Moore's interview with Stone, which featured a similar animation style to South Park. Stone alleged that Moore was trying to make it seem as if he and fellow South Park creator Trey Parker had created the cartoon, which they did not. Matt Stone criticized the short as being "anti- American".
Conservapedia is of course too stupid to realize that Anti-American just another conservatard buzz word that tells me nothing!
All they understand is 'Michael Moore is an Anti-American, Communist, socialist, elitist, conspiracy theorist, liberal, terrorist, vampire from the future, when he should be a pro-America, pro-freedom, pro-Reagan, pro-capitalist, pro-Jesus, pro-gun, anti-terrorist anti-abortion, pro-war American like me! Now let's all yell these random slogans at a tea party rally while we show pictures of Obama wearing a Hitler moustache! Yeah! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!' UR-MERICA!
Moore has some tactics in his filmmaking that I consider immoral, but his politics are mostly right. Conservapedia authors are idiots.
