wikipedia - conservapedia ... ATS - ConservATS ?, page 1
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 5 times
Topic started on 24-11-2009 @ 06:23 AM by reasonable
www.wikipedia.com...

Wikipedia is a multilingual, Web-based, free-content encyclopedia project based mostly on anonymous contributions.


www.conservapedia.com...

Conservapedia is a clean and concise resource for those seeking the truth. We do not allow liberal bias to deceive and distort here.


So....

I'm just putting out there that the conservatives on ATS can also do this, and then live in peace. No more intolerable libs to constantly deal with, no more atheists or gays. It could be a good thing for all involved. Over the last few weeks I have seen an exponential increase of tension on ATS driven by differences in religious and political ideology. When conservatives on wikipedia became overwhelmed by this they took it upon themselves to form conservapedia. I am floating this concept in hopes an enterprising conservative on ATS wants to run with it and create a conservATS of sorts. America is split and so is ATS, time for groups to go their separate ways. THERE CAN BE NO PEACE, everyone knows it's way beyond that now. I am suggesting the religious right create a new forum since they are the minority here. I'm sure this will get flamed, but I am also sure that many hope it happens.


reply posted on 24-11-2009 @ 06:31 AM by thisguyrighthere
Reply to post by reasonable


What do atheists and homosexuals have to do with anything?


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com



reply posted on 24-11-2009 @ 06:33 AM by argentus
reply to post by reasonable


I think the only way to any political progress -- U.S. or anywhere else -- is if the parties are forced to sit down, talk to each other, and their pay/benefits withheld until they reach a resolution.

They seem to like toying with our money, let their own be affected as well.

In regard to conservatives & liberals in the population... I think most of us tend to want to cubbyhole people into neat little packages of ideals, and separatism is not useful, as it reinforces those lables. Why not advocate different states being designated as areas for specific political affiliations? I think that's the opposite of what's needed.

Of course, getting people to really communicate and reach a resolution that is the best solution for the majority of a nation -- that's a sweet dream, huh?

Interesting thread



reply posted on 24-11-2009 @ 07:02 AM by pieman
reply to post by reasonable


man, that site is hilarious. i really would love to see a version of ATS built on those lines, it would be like the national enquirer on acid.

i thought i'ld take a look at their version of the latest jolly in iraq, i found this line particularly funny

Saddam is or was a terrorist, a weapon of mass destruction


Saddam Hussain, a nuke from beyond the grave!!!!


reply posted on 24-11-2009 @ 07:40 AM by masqua
Originally posted by reasonable



I'm just putting out there that the conservatives on ATS can also do this, and then live in peace. No more intolerable libs to constantly deal with, no more atheists or gays. It could be a good thing for all involved. Over the last few weeks I have seen an exponential increase of tension on ATS driven by differences in religious and political ideology. When conservatives on wikipedia became overwhelmed by this they took it upon themselves to form conservapedia.


When debate is tossed aside and only one political ideology is allowed, growth is no longer an option. What results is an autocracy where all the power rests in the hands of one.

As ALL the power shifts to one political party, the typical response is elevated intolerance and then laws are inacted to provide the means towards the elimination of all that disagree (or even remotely seem to). Lenin, Pol Pot, Hitler and Mao are excellent examples of autocracies in action.

In religions, the same applies. When one (Islam, the Vatican, Atheism) is given ALL the power, then the purges begin in the attempt to eradicate all the others.

I am floating this concept in hopes an enterprising conservative on ATS wants to run with it and create a conservATS of sorts. America is split and so is ATS, time for groups to go their separate ways.


Two things; first, ATS is not just America, it is multinational in its membership. Second, should groups 'go their seperate ways', it would spell the end of all debate and, imo, be a hugely backward step in regards to all this website stands for.

THERE CAN BE NO PEACE, everyone knows it's way beyond that now. I am suggesting the religious right create a new forum since they are the minority here. I'm sure this will get flamed, but I am also sure that many hope it happens.


What should we call this new forum? How about the C Street Double Plus Good?


reply posted on 24-11-2009 @ 08:27 AM by Seiko
reply to post by MysterE


This idea is insane.

Did you read up in the new conservative bible? It's a hoot.

let me end by saying "klobuchar"!!

[edit on 24-11-2009 by Seiko]

[edit on 24-11-2009 by Seiko]



reply posted on 24-11-2009 @ 10:55 AM by Jazzyguy
reply to post by reasonable


Bah, who cares about the so called "conservatives" anymore. Their power is waning coz the young ones don't seem to want to join any of them. It's just not hip to become such a one. And it ain't pop either.


reply posted on 24-11-2009 @ 11:18 AM by seagull
reply to post by reasonable


So what you're saying is you want ATS to be a bunch of people sitting around saying "Dude, you are so right" to each other all the time, all day long? Wow...that's sure exciting...not.

As for them being the minority, I wouldn't be too sure about that. Many of them don't wear their beliefs on their sleeves. Some do, to be sure, others do not. ATS is as diverse a crowd as there is anywhere on the 'net, why the hell would you want that to change? Hmmm...? Methinks, you ought to think about that.
Pages:     ^^TOP^^