well, my truck is done, apparently. but i don't have all the money up front, so i have to wait until friday when my check comes, and in the meantime offer the dude something as collateral. but at least i have wheels again. and now, no money for gas. *puts barrel in mouth*

another circumstance that makes me want to do bad things with guns is conservapedia.com. now, anyone who sees that name should have a pretty good idea of what it is. and if you don't, a few appropriately aimed clicks around the site should pretty much fill you in. i don't know whether to be amused or disheartened, but either way, i'll share some highlights.

first up is the "conservapedia commandments," which are their equivalent to the "editorial policies" found on wikipedia.

CONSERVAPEDIA COMMANDMENTS
1. Everything you post must be true and verifiable. Do not copy from Wikipedia[1] or elsewhere unless it was your original work.[2]
2. Always cite[3] and give credit to your sources,[4] even if in the public domain.[5]
3. Any content you create or change (including edits, new pages, images and links) must be family-friendly, clean, concise, and without gossip or foul language.
4. When referencing dates based on the approximate birth of Jesus, give appropriate credit for the basis of the date (B.C. or A.D.). "BCE" and "CE" are unacceptable substitutes because they deny the historical basis. See CE.
5. Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry. Opinions can be posted on Talk:pages or on debate or discussion pages. Advertisements are prohibited.
6. The operation of unauthorized wiki-bots is prohibited.[6]
7. Unproductive activity, such as 90% talk page edits and only 10% quality edits to Conservapedia articles, may result in blocking of the account.[7] See the Guidelines for more detail.
Edits which violate these rules will be deleted. Users who violate the rules repeatedly will be blocked. Administrators have discretion to act on matters not specifically mentioned here, such as vandalism and sockpuppets.

i find number 3 interesting, in that most of their articles consist primarily of the latest gossip, mixed with some history here and there. for 4, i'll admit i thought it was stupid to change it from BC to BCE, but at the same time the old notation was constantly under debate, and at least now there's a universal standard we can all stick to. what's so wrong with that? it does seem kind of messed up to base our entire timeline on a dude whose records of existence are hazy on the details, to say the least. and i would love to see them sick an admin on a sockpuppet.
------------------------
next, we have their article on the current president of the united states. (we'll take this one paragraph at a time)

"Barack Hussein Obama II aka Barry Soetoro[1] (allegedly[2][3][4][5][6] born in Honolulu Aug. 4, 1961) is the 44th President of the United States, and previously served as a first-term Democratic Senator from Illinois (2005-2008). Obama and his running mate Senator Joseph Biden won the presidential election[7] after 23 months of campaigning that spent over $700 million,[8] much of it raised from undisclosed or fraudulent donors.[9] Obama spent far more per vote than McCain did: Obama spent $7.39 per vote, while McCain spent only $5.78 per vote.[10]"

talk about another dude with some hazy life details, i can understand the skepticism to a certain extent. but more than that, they are just brutally bashing the living hell out of this guy, no pun intended. and all because he's *gasp* a democrat. i feel bad for him really, if half the stuff they say about his past is true. a rough life, and now given the helm of a country aimed straight at the gutter, with little to no help, not much experience, and a bunch of people constantly accusing him of being a muslim, kenyan, indonesian terrorist. the only thing i'd probably accuse him of would be getting in over his head. beyond that, does it really matter? soetoro was his stepfather - so, nonbiological (not that it would matter anyway). and barry's just a boring name. and, given the constitutional stipulation for the separation of church and state, along with the freedom of religion, he is perfectly allowed to be muslim if he wants to. his being muslim (not that he is, necessarily, but just for the sake of argument) should not affect his governmental policies and decisionmaking in any way, just as it was so HORRIBLY AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION for president bush to allow his christianity to influence his procedures while in office. not that bush was a bad guy. he was nice, wanted to be liked by people, made me laugh and feel good about myself. i have no problem with that. but, once again, perhaps he was just in a little too far over his head.

"As President Obama has pushed for establishing a Palestinian state over the objection of Israel's Prime Minister,[11] inclusion of Turkey in the European Union[12] and holding Guantanamo detainees indefinitely without trial.[13]"

this is not even a complete sentence. if you're trying to make an encyclopedia, that is unacceptable.

"Obama's budget and stimulus bill advanced his socialist idea of 'spreading the wealth.'[14] [15] His health care plan would force employers to purchase health care or pay a fine and will force many into a poorly run single payer system.[16] To announce his trip to Berlin in July 2008, Obama used posters which show a marked similarity to posters of Lenin and Che Guevara.[17][18] During Obama's youth in Hawaii, he developed a strong, almost Father/Son relationship with Frank Marshall Davis, a high level Communist Party functionary[19] while Obama has stated that his favorite professors in school were themselves Marxists. "

well, add socialist, marxist, and communist to the list, i suppose. and if he was born in kenya, as they would seem to believe, then why and how does he get to hawaii to promptly find himself a mentor to aid in developing his innate communist tendencies?

i could keep going, but i think that's more than enough. i do like some of the subheadings in the article though:
-Obamunism
-Barack Obama's Uncharitableness/Liberal Elitism, and Social Darwinism
-Early Life - Birth certificate controversy
-Obama is likely the first Muslim President
^^^ okay, hang on right there. i have to read some of this.

"The argument that Obama is a Muslim includes:
* Obama declared in prepared remarks, 'The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans. Many other Americans have Muslims in their families or have lived in a Muslim-majority country - I know, because I am one of them.'[109]"

oh yeah, this is good. the first sentence of the quote is just a simple statement. end sentence, move on to the next one. subject of the sentence is "many other americans". so, saying "i am one of them" is in no way incriminating - although, neither is being muslim. also note the bolded words that they carefully selected, while once again ignoring the standard grammatical rules of the english language.

i'll stop ranting now, but it is pretty interesting stuff. i highly advise checking it out for yourself.

2 comments | leave a comment