UnNews talk:US Democrats give Entire World to Terrorists

Warning: Actually Controversial This topic is actually controversial in some of the more far-flung regions of the world, such as the United Spades of America. When dicussing this topic with Americans, it is advised that you bite the bullet and adjust your philosophy to something more postmodern.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to US Democrats give Entire World to Terrorists.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Uncyclopedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be Civil Assume Bad Faith Don't Be A Dick No Cyberbullying

Left-wing mafia strikes back!

Learn to satire

This isn't making fun of the democrats. This is just someone who hates democrats being a twat. It's not in the least bit ironic or whitty. Please put this article out of it's effing misery.

Also, I think it's unfair to let people post from FOX news. I mean, they're practically a rival satire news service as it is. Delete ASAP. – Preceding unsigned comment added by J M Hoffman (talk • contribs)

Fox News was citied as a source for the story, this is the way UnNews works. It is funny even if you disagree with it politically. So many left-wing biased UnNews articles are written here, that we needed at least one right-wing biased article to allow the other side to have their turn at an article. If you don't like it, go back to Wikipedia where having a left-wing bias is required for article writing or else they get the contributions reverted. Also please sign your posts so we know who you are. You've obviously not read the rules here nor do you seem to know what is funny and are yet another left-wing biased anonymous user on the Internet trying to censor the other side. We don't tolerate censorship here, and we Democratically decide if an article is deleted and we don't take orders from some left-wing overzealous n00b who thinks he/she is the final authority on what is funny. There is only one of you who does not like this article, and many of us that do like this article so you are outvoted. Besides the administrators are reverting your vandalism and that of your "friend" who appears to be your sockpuppet. Nice try (golf clap), but here at Uncyclopedia we know humor a lot better than you do. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 03:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me see we got a left-winger complaining that this news article is not funny, and we got anonymous left-wingers blanking and vandalizing the article because they disagree with it. You think we hit some sort of nerve with left-wingers or is it that left-wingers cannot stand to see other left-wingers get made fun of? If so why is it that the right-wingers don't complain that the news articles that make fun of right-wingers are not funny and right-wingers don't blank and vandalize those sorts of articles? Is being a complete and total moron just a left-wing thing? :) Anyway if you really think you can write a funnier article, go ahead and write a new news article and see how well it goes. Just quit blanking and vandalizing this one, because I and others are starting to get tired of reverting it. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 23:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Just look at the articles for conservative. Most of the political stuff is biased towards the opposite side. This person could be saying that Fox will report anything bad about the Democrats, although it's less likely, and it wouldn't matter. --PARCGOP 00:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The whole article is a joke on what Fox News reports or would report. CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS etc all would report anything bad about the Republicans in comparison. I think it is sad that news services are biased one way or the other, but don't show both sides of the story like they used to do. This whole article is basically fiction, and a what if universe where the Democrats basically surrender to the terrorists and let them take over the rest of the world. In reality this is going to be a long war even if the USA pulls out of Iraq and Afghanistan because the USA will still be a target for terrorists. Might as well laugh and make fun of things now, because in 10 to 30 years from now we won't be laughing and writing humor Wikis won't be as important as survival and then we'd wished we hadn't pulled out of Iraq and Afghanistan early. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 01:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

About the list

Lists are not always funny and tend to get an article deleted. Can we write it into a paragraph? I think it would be funnier that way. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 08:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm still figuring out the signing and stuff sorry about that, and I'm not a democrat. I'm actually a communist. Have I complained about any of the zillion mentions of communism? The use of Russian Reversal in every article? No, because it's funny. I'm quite ready to laugh at myself or my views. As long as I'm laughing.

I don'r remember vandalizing anything, I was just making suggestions. I actually think this article has potential if it was better written. I'm happy to beat on both sides a bit, so here's an example of how I'd play some of this. For one thing, the tone of the article is actually factual. Homosexuals would indeed be killed under a radical islamic regime, etc. So, let's change it to something slightly more farsical:

"Democrats and Terrorists usher in new era of peace"

FOX News, long lauded for its peace nik commie ways, has joyously reported that a new era of understanding has begun. House democrats, along with a few Republicans who were not at all blackmailed, have just signed a treaty with Osama Bin Laden.

House speaker Nancy Pelosi insisted that the treaty was necessary to protect the Afghani Cave Terrorist, a now-protected subspecies of Arabs. Pelosi pointed out that under Republican rule and possibly linked to global warming, Afghani Cave Terrorists were in a massive decline.

Reached for comment, Secretary of Environment Gates pointed out that the scarcity of terrorists may not have been due to Bush policies at all, pointing out that in the past years the number of goats and democrats, the prefered bedfellows of the cave terrorist, has declined. Terrorists have also consumed all of their prefered pray in Afghanistan, such as woman and gays and school teachers, so it's naturally looking for new territory to inhabit, such as, say, DC or San Francisco.

President Bush meanwhile had mixed feelings when he spoke on the issue: "Now, I'm not saying it's time to panic. In fact this could be good for us. Terrorists don't want to kill every Westerner, just gays, women, and all of our leaders. I doubt the democrats will stay in power long after they're all blown up along with their constituencies. The only problem is who has to clean up the bodies afterwards..."

We asked a few noted democrats about Bush's approach, and they almost all agreed that it was wrong. Sometime next week they say they'll pass a motion to encourage their party to consider making a statement about what they might want to do instead. Al Gore, a noted inventor, was the only one to offer a solution to the problem of what to do with the pieces of people blown up by the endangered terrorists:

"I've invented this thing called Mr. Potato Head..." He began.

J M Hoffman 08:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry it just does not seem funny that way. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 15:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Article Lacks Goat Rape

Fair enough, I can accept that the actually ironic story I just wrote isn't as funny as award winning writing like "President Bush said that the Congress is full of shit and pro terrorist today as well." or this great little jewel, apparently about beheading clerics if they fail to open concentration camps? "Radical Clerics will open up concentration camps to convert Jewish and Christian people to Islam, or be beheaded if they refuse."

What I can't accept is that in an article about terrorists there isn't one mention of sodomy, either consensual or otherwise, with goats. For shame!

--J M Hoffman 19:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I know very much what your problem is, you are on the wrong humor Wiki. You want to go here Encyclopedia Dramatica and use drama and LUTZES as humor devices. We don't do goat rape and sodomy and shock and gore articles here, but ED does. Uncyclopedia even won't let me post a link to Encyclopedia Dramatica.--Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 01:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I wasnt implying that it should have photos of goat rape, and I could care less if an article has drama, right wing bias, or goat rape. I just appreciate humorous articles and except for a very few spots this is not one of them. As for my statement, I was implying it should have, as I said, that it should have a mention of goat rape. You know, because there are goats over there, and its generally assumed that there aren't a lot of women in those caves, so it's funny and it has a fairly sensible basis to humorously suggests that terrorists in the tribal areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan might boink a goat occasionally.

Also, how much business do you have accusing me of using dramatic and shocking imagery when this whole article is nothing but a paranoid screed about Islamic people killing everyone and just how they'll do it? --J M Hoffman 07:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed the forum posts about cutting down the sexual content and rape references in Uncyclopedia articles? Not Islamic people, just Islamic terrorists, there is a difference that you fail to understand. Islamic terrorists are not real followers of Islam and Islam by name only. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 11:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way I changed some parts of the article that you objected to in order to make it funnier. I am not the original writer of the article, but I've been trying to fix it up and add to it. Uncyclopedia is a community humor Wiki, and from time to time parts like that make it into an article. Your suggestions for changes to the article actually make it worse, ala the goat rape. The goal here is to write funnier articles and avoid a lot of the drama and crude humor. I admit the article is not perfect, and I do make changes to it to make it funnier and I revert the vandalism and blankings to it and so are other users. Such is the process of any Wiki. Your input is appreciated, but I think you need to read up on the rules here a bit. I admit you show some potential, and I hope you continue working on your humor articles and learn the rules around here. Feel free to write your own news article if you want. If you think you can do a better job at it. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 03:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Lame article

I will be putting this on VFDTheLemonOfIchabod 06:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

We beg to differ. A lot of people are voting to keep the article. The vandalism of the article by you and others using sockpuppet accounts has been noticed. I just had to revert one of the vandalism attempts today. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 16:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Well apparently you are the only one that feels that way, several people voted to keep the article that it is no lame but funny. Nice try though. Nobody else on the entire Wiki seemed to agree with you during the voting process. Democracy wins again. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 01:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't edit a single thing o wise one. I'm fine with keeping it if it was voted to be kept, geez. TheLemonOfIchabod 02:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Attack Article

This article is not funny and is a thinly veiled attack piece on the Democratic party. MaxMangel 02:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC) (someone who isn't American and doesn't give two cents about your political parties)

So what is it with all of these new users being registered just to make comments on this talk page? The majority of the users of this site have voted that the article is funny enough to be kept. It seems that multiple users are being created just to make comments that this article is not funny to try and fool us into thinking they are different people. Nice try, but we have had that happen to us before. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 03:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Your excuses are predictable. First point, my IP address would identify me as being Australian if you really want to find out where I come from. Second point, this isn't the only thing I've edited in uncyclopedia - which takes all of four seconds to figure out - and I've been much more active on Wikipedia, for those who care. Not that you were interested in actually researching the facts of the situation, obviously. Your assumptions of a grand conspiracy are in your head, which I expected from you given your previous comments above. Is it so surprising that an article featured so prominently on the front page would have various people commenting about it? But please, do continue explaining how this is all some grand left wing conspiracy...I'm sure we'll all get a laugh. MaxMangel 15:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I am finding it very hard to believe that all of these new users are different people when they post with the same writing style. Anyone can hide accounts behind proxy servers. Like all of the others you whine that this article is unfair and an attack on Democrats, yet turn a blind eye to all of the articles that are unfair and attacks on Republicans. Welcome to Uncyclopedia, we are not the same as Wikipedia here. That means that Democrats get bashed as well as Republicans, and unlike Wikipedia it isn't all bashing Republicans here. If you bothered to look, you'll see that Republicans get bashed more often than Democrats. So save your whining and crying for someone who cares. Either get over it and start writing your own articles, or go back to Wikipedia where they don't allow Democrats to be bashed and they do allow Republicans to get bashed. A majority of Uncyclopedians voted that this article is to be saved and allowed to continue, because we are a Democracy here, not a dictatorship where New User Tyrants try to impose their will on what articles should be deleted. You have lost what little credibility you have and the more new users that get created to comment on this article in your same writing style will only go to prove what I said earlier. Nice try, but I am wise to the type of games being played on a Wiki. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 02:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh surprise surprise, Orion Blastar talks about a whole lot of unrelated junk to the discussion at hand as if that somehow proves a point. <Start Sarcasm> That's right Orion - no one could possibly disagree with you so all these people who are doing exactly that must all somehow be the same person. That's not at all paranoid. <End Sarcasm>

No Orion, I don't turn a blind eye to articles that attack Republicans. You don't know me, you don't know what I do or the articles I've seen and simply put, it wouldn't matter even if I did. Two wrongs don't make a right [1] - the fact that you think other articles are unfair to Republicans doesn't mean you're allowed to make a biased attack article against Democrats. It is interesting how you lord over the system that voted to keep your article, but then the system is apparently completely unfair when it allows articles that make fun of Republicans - I guess the system is only fair when it supports everything you say. You stated I should 'write my own article' essentially conceding that:

My article is biased but:

1. I don't care

2. I should be allowed to do it because others do it.

3. And,And (Starts crying) Wikipedia is unfair on people who make attack articles so I'm hiding in uncyclopedia now where I hope it will be easier.

Now I feel like I'm trying to take away a baby's last piece of candy. Maybe you should keep your pathetic unfunny article, if it will stop you crying. MaxMangel 03:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Nope 65.173.105.71 wrote this article not me. I just fixed it up and made it less offensive and funnier and many others did as well. I didn't lord over the VFD most people here actually found the article funny. You just cannot accept that. Yes I do know you and your type, you cannot get the article deleted so you attack me instead, falsely thinking that I am the article's original writer. How pathetic. You are just like User:Anonymous Slashy when he couldn't get an article deleted either. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 14:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way Wikipedia is full of Bullshit so don't brag about being so hot over at Wikipedia. We have our own article here on Wikipedia and a lot of us disagree with what Wikipedia did and there are many frauds on Wikipedia as well, and the founder of Wikipedia has no problem with frauds contributing to Wikipedia. There are also Biases in Wikipedia and there are a lot of things wrong with Wikipedia and citing Wikipedia here does not make you an expert on what is funny or not. I contribute to Wikipedia myself, but I spend more time here. You should know that Wikis have a policy of "fix it yourself" if you find a problem with it and you shouldn't have to bully others to do the work for you. So either get off your high horse and start writing your own articles, try to fix up this article, or quit screaming "unfair" like a two year-old. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 16:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Just because I think an article is complete junk doesn't mean I'll try to get it deleted - I haven't tried for this one and don't intend to. Once an article makes the front page, that is a battle doomed to failure. I disagree with the decision to put it there, and have easily exposed the inherit bias in its editers. You yourself conceeded the original was even worse, conceded you favour making biased attack articles, and have repeatedly encouraged me to do the same, as if uncyclopedia is some kind of ideals battleground - which it obviously is for you(hence bad edits).

I do not try to edit this article, because it as unsalvagable.

It is not pathetic, in of itself, to oppose people's decisions - all you are doing is scrambling to shift the focus on me after your own bias was exposed. FYI, my 'type' is the type that likes articles at uncyclopedia to be what they're meant to be - funny. I've deleted attack statements against 'your side' while I've been here.

Conservapedia quotes? Hahaha, am I up for an exorcism now? Were you trying to find biased quotes, or do you do that natuarally? But look, if all you want to do is spout conservative 'truthiness' stuff, maybe you should stick to conservapedia. You'll be happy there.

If you want to ramble on about conspiracy theories with wikipedia, be my guest, but I don't really care and frankly, what does it have to do with anything here? I don't want to know about your life problems. MaxMangel 15:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

If you are done attacking me, why don't you just write your own articles? Unyclopedia is funny and some views and opinions you may not agree with, to you they are bad edits but to the majority here who bothered to vote on VFD they are not bad edits. Get over it. Show me you can write an article without it being an attack article, I sincerely doubt it as all you have done is attack me in this talk page. Yes this article was worse before I fixed it up, and I did not write it originally, many others fixed it up as well. If you got a problem with me, don't take it out on the article or others. I've actually made attempts to make this article funnier, while you just whine and moan about it being unfair. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you fool anyone painting me the bully. Just glance around this page to see the spiteful remarks you splashed everywhere. A lesson for you? However, I see the olive branch of peace in your words. I shall journey off to bury the hatchet. Live long and prosper. MaxMangel 12:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right, I have mental illnesses and I let my anger get the better of me sometimes. I am glad we decided to end this peacefully. I hope our conversations didn't spoil what you think of Uncyclopedia. I am sorry if you were offended by the article. David Letterman, Jay Leno, SNL, etc attack politicians with jokes all of the time on both sides. Like them I try to do it in humor. It is called mockery. I guess things got a bit out of hand here. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 15:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

From Pee Review

Need this one pissed on. – Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.173.105.71 (talk • contribs)

I like the idea of listing terrorists as an endangered species. I think that's a better concept than female drivers. I'd review it but my review would reflect that preference which may not be entirely fair. (Gir. 01:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC))

Humour:	7	Endangered Terrorists is a good one...but trying to protect the rights of a proud non-christian people out to practice their faith is funnier and more offensive....I think that would be the humorous reverse-discrimination charge that causes center-left to far left people's heads to asplode. I know it does for me.
Concept:	7	Intentionally offensive, but a great spin on it. terrorists as endangered...or you could put it under protecting the sanctity of life, liberty and their religious freedom to celebrate God (Their not christians, that why left center to far left center would be interested...so wanting to stop discrimination that they reverse discriminate).
Prose and formatting:	3	Could be much more profeesional. Use quotes. Make Sgt.Emrery out to be a professor of political science at Ave Maria or Baylor University... NotreDame is a right center to far right school as well....or better yet.... Brigham Young University.
Images:	6.5	I don't understand picture, but I like fire and toilets.
Miscellaneous:	8	A bit shaky, but it was partisan, mean and to the point (for roughliy...**looks at last election results** 46% of the population...(51% in 2004))
Final Score:	31.5	B-. Not quite expert journalism, but a good start.
Reviewer:	Happy Weasel 01:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Well anonymous user 65.173.105.71, I suppose it was a good attempt at a first UnNews article. You could have been more subtle in your attacks so that they didn't appear to be so mean. You seem to have upset either one user using sockpuppets or a couple of new users that this article was too right-winged or too Fox News based. I had to fix some of your work to make it less offensive and I think that saved it from being VFDed. Next time try to avoid using swear words. If you don't mind I might fix the article up a bit more to follow the suggestions of the pee review. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 22:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)