From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Shouldn't the personal comments be removed, or at least rephrased? The word "I" does not really belong in an encyclopedia article. By the way, conservatives use mockery, too. And wouldn't a good case example be the Emporer's New Clothes (where mockery would have exposed his vanity)? Human 14:25, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Good point, mockery isn't always evil. Swift satirized the established church with his egg-shaped island, and his Modest Proposal is, well, a sort of "poster child" of mockery (see Satire). --Ed Poor 14:29, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

How can you honestly have this statement in here "Liberals always do this, so as to distract people from seeing the real facts." Liberals ALWAYS do this? I think this is taking things a step past conservative bias. --Colest 12:23, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

That is a pretty broad and bold statement to make. I'm sure there's a conservative or two out there that has mocked someone before too, should we include that as well? Jrssr5 14:38, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Bush's gaffes would not be a big deal if he were a good president--443276 14:48, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

If you want to hear a conservative mocking a liberal, just tune into the Rush Limbaugh show.--443276 14:49, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Bang! and the stain on the articles reliability has gone? Anyone want to find some hilariously mocking conservative and liberal propaganda posters that I can give as sources? --WikinterpreterLiaise with the cabal?


Is this supposed to be a real article, or is it a self-parody? I'm just asking, as I have had articles 10x better than this one huffed.--SeanTheSheep 15:06, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Mockery and confusion?

About the whole bit about Bushisms, especially the sentence "There is no reason to collect and show these for one politician while never showing the same kind of error made by another politician, unless you are trying to make the false point that your candidate is infallible and your opponent is incompetent.":

I think there is a much more innocent reasoning for these books popping up (compared to the quest to create confusion and boosting one's own candidate): Money.

Books with silly quotes sell like... err... something that sells very quickly. :P Especially if the quotes sound hilarious and if they come from a famous guy. And I'd argue that "President of the United States of America" grants fame by default. It makes perfect sense to sell these books. That's the stuff average John Does like to read for a chuckle. Easy money.

Compare that to the estimated success of selling books with quotes by... *makes random search* Dave Freudenthal (Governor of Wyoming). I think quite a few people will go "...who's that?" (at least when you look at the international market), so "Hilarious quotes by Dave Freudenthal" will most likely sell less copies than "Hilarious quotes by George W. Bush". That's the reason why you see so many "Bushisms" books and almost no quote books about other politicians (to be fair, it should be mentioned that GWB had quite a few slips of the tongue).

Of course, these books won't give long and boring explanations about all the circumstances, and of course most people know that they're just simple slips of the tongue. But they will say "So what? It's still hilarious." and buy it anyway. I can hardly blame the authors for publishing such a book - they just know their target audience and they want to make money.

It's exactly the same for biographies. Somebody steps into the major spotlight and half a week later, the book shops are flooded with books about him or her. --JLindon 15:18, 14 May 2007 (EDT)