wikipedia with out the liberal bias

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So where are all the threads about the kook liberal sites out there?

I would take Phyllis Schafaly over Soros and his kook followers any day of the week.

[/ QUOTE ]

You claiming Soros has anything to do with Wikipedia?



[/ QUOTE ]

No I am not.

But I just took a look at the Soros article there. Talk about a powder puff promotional piece. Wikipedia maintains positive bios of liberals and hit piece bios of conservatives as a matter of course.

What do they say about, if you repeat a lie often enough people will believe it? Well, Wikipedia is good at repeating trash about good people.

[slickpoppa]

I'm still not convinced that Broken Glass Can isn't a joke account

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm still not convinced that Broken Glass Can isn't a joke account

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought it was a given?!?!?! Like a Stephen Colbert only not as witty (hey, BGC doesn't have writers, what do you expect?)

[iron81]

Well BGC, that's the great thing about Wiki. If there are bad details about Soros that you are aware of, you can edit it yourself. If there are portions that are inaccurate, you can dispute it or delete them. I'm sure Wiki wouldn't mind you correcting any inaccuracies in Soros's article.

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
Well BGC, that's the great thing about Wiki. If there are bad details about Soros that you are aware of, you can edit it yourself. If there are portions that are inaccurate, you can dispute it or delete them. I'm sure Wiki wouldn't mind you correcting any inaccuracies in Soros's article.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's why wikipedia is worthless. Conservatives don't give a rip about editing that trash and young libs have nothing better to do.

[JackWhite]

[ QUOTE ]
So where are all the threads about the kook liberal sites out there?



[/ QUOTE ]

Very good question. I guess it is so much more fashionable to make fun of conseratives (or those claiming to be conservatives) than liberals. If you look at recent threads here, there are certainly more ridiculing right of center people than left of center. I am sure there are many left wing web sites full of ridiculous theories and claims. If people are consistent, they will attack those, too. We'll see how many do.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well BGC, that's the great thing about Wiki. If there are bad details about Soros that you are aware of, you can edit it yourself. If there are portions that are inaccurate, you can dispute it or delete them. I'm sure Wiki wouldn't mind you correcting any inaccuracies in Soros's article.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's why wikipedia is worthless. Conservatives don't give a rip about editing that trash and young libs have nothing better to do.

[/ QUOTE ]
STUPID GENERALIZATIONS ARE FUN!

[jman220]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
According to the origins model used by creation scientists, modern kangaroos, like all modern animals, originated in the Middle East[1] and are the descendants of the two founding members of the modern kangaroo baramin that were taken aboard Noah's Ark prior to the Great Flood.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry, if you can't tell that's a sarcastic joke then you are none too bright.

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems like it was written by fifth graders:

[ QUOTE ]
Fox News was started in 1996 in response to the other cable news channels which all had obvious liberal biases. Because of this, Rupert Murdoch decided to start a real new channel which would tell the truth. The success of Fox news over every other news channel is because it is fair and balanced. [1] It has many people on it who work to spread truth such as Sean Hannity who is a great American. [2]. Fox News is best because instead of just telling you what to think, they only report the news unbiased and then allow the viewer to decide. [3].

In 2005 the White House selected Tony Snow from Fox News to be the new White House press secretary which was a great honor for Fox because it showed how well it was presenting the real truth instead of the fake liberal version. [4]


[/ QUOTE ]

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
Well BGC, that's the great thing about Wiki. If there are bad details about Soros that you are aware of, you can edit it yourself. If there are portions that are inaccurate, you can dispute it or delete them. I'm sure Wiki wouldn't mind you correcting any inaccuracies in Soros's article.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wikipedia don't work that way. Liberals will reverse any change you make to an article. Case in point, some moderator there has decided that there shouldn't be any mention about the jet plane controversy in the Nancy Pelosi article.

Now do guess whether you will find any mention of it there five minutes after someone adds it to the article. Pelosi's history has been wiped clean. From reading the article there, I would think she is ready for sainthood already. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[troymclur]

it's odd that Bill Clinton has a longer, more thorough bio than Bush.