Conservapedia - An encyclopedia you can trust

great zing, or the greatest zing?

"It is as though a person thinks that God must have the same limitations when it comes to creation as a person who is unable to understand, or even attempt to understand, the world in which we live."

That letter from Lenski is the greatest thing I've read this year.

Wow, that pair of letters from Lenski is the ultimate in pwnj. Talk about getting yr ass handed to you!

The movie Forrest Gump was a clumsy attempt to smear conservatives as having learning difficulties.

my favorite line:

P.S. Did you know that your own bowels harbor something like a billion (1,000,000,000) E. coli at this very moment? So remember to wash your hands after going to the toilet, as I hope your mother taught you.

for that added sub-rosa mama's boy zing

cancer talk page is just maddening. the trouble is, he doesn't get pwnt at all, he just keeps going! critical demonstration doesn't do anything to ppl brainwashed to be immune to it. near the end he of course tries to get people to 'admit' that 'at least there's a controversy'

http://mr604.com/pic/albums/hardscrew.jpg

^sum chopd an scrood waaaaang 4 da sujjma's just what andrew schlafly needs. other funny thing is that he kicks folk out if they bring up his brother john, who is open and honest about lovin the wang.

http://www.conservapedia.com/John_Schlafly

lol

not gonna look at this @ work, but lolx2

encyclopediadramatica.com/Andy_Schlafly

http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Conservapedia:You%27re_clueless

xD

Roffle roffle roffle:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Hand

"The human hand is one of God's most amazing creations. No other creature has a limb quite like it, apart from a number of other primates and also kangaroos and squirrels and chameleons and a number of other animals."

Still written by children, by the look of it.

massive lols @ this - not an article, but an offering of a "course" & some dialogue about when it's happening (spoiler: it didn't)

http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:The_Supreme_Court

This liberal attitude towards truth is what leads to claptrap like Particle/wave duality theory and the theory of cosmic microwave background radiation. Drochld 09:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

haha. related, the full lowdown on liberal logic: http://conservapedia.com/Liberal_logic

nice, extensive list of related articles in the 'See also' section too. Omg, "liberal friendship".

The near-murderous beating administered by one homosexual man to another in As Good As It Gets is typical of the depravity of the "gay community".

Socialism is often criticized by many people, including Bill O'Reilly.

The ethical issue over coercive interrogation is no longer important, because the Bush administration banned it. There remains only the political issue of whether they were "right" or not to have done it. This is being used to bring legal and PR pressure, as well as to distract the public from the success of the "surge".

http://conservapedia.com/Liberal_friendship

Liberals often make approval of liberal values a condition of friendship. Someone in a "liberal friendship" can expect loss of the friendship if he dares to express dismay or disapproval of the liberal values. In contrast, there are many instances of conservatives not requiring acceptance of conservative principles as a condition of friendship. For example, Ronald Reagan had many close personal friends who were liberals, and dozens of political ones, like Speaker Tip O'Neil and Senator Ted Kennedy.

Tate was murdered. How is that her fault? Maybe that part should just mention the Manson Family--a depraved group, indeed. Cisnon 22:38, 5 March 2008 (EST)

liberals become so literal when it becomes a basis for censoring things they don't like. Hollywood values are not literally confined to Hollywood, California, and, by the way, things like depression and overdosing on prescription drugs are a symptom of Hollywood values and occur in that group in far higher percentages than the general public. Please, no liberal denial on this site.--Aschlafly 22:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)

How can you justify Tate being a victim of hollywood values? Please point to it? I dont want to get into an edit but you cant just add with the tag "because I say so" AdenJ 21:05, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

It's self-evident from the explanation given. Tate was not a perpetrator of the crime, but became a victim of the culture in which she joined.--Aschlafly 21:30, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

No it is not self evident. What culture did she join? married a film director? Associated with hippies? If that so then she was a victim of hippies values. Her 'culture' lead her to be murdered? many people get murdered and she was targeted because she was famous. That has nothing to do with so called holloywood values. AdenJ 21:57, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

Right removing the Tate stuff again. At the time of the murder Sharon Tate has not been using drugs or alcohol, she was pregnant and the Mason family was actually interested in killing a man who refused to sign his band up. Tate was unlucky but it is clearly at odds with other deaths listed with hers as she was murdered! AdenJ 23:55, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

Wow: Tate's murder was just the product of chance, like getting hit by a car! No, AdenJ, Tate's murder was the result of Hollywood values. Maybe the initial intended victim was someone else, but that reinforces how Hollywood values work that they killed her instead. The entry is staying in.--Aschlafly 20:06, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

I give up, its totally ridiculous. Sharon Tate was murdered, It was nothing, repeat, NOTHING to do with values. Unless its the values of Manson. AdenJ 21:23, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

AdenJ, Tate's murder had everything to do with values. And, duh, that does include the Hollywood values of Manson and his followers.--Aschlafly 21:26, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

He died protecting his little brother from two armed assailants. If those are Hollywood Values, sign me up.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 17:38, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

I have to agree with Tom Moore on this one... There has been some mistake, just a misunderstanding.

"The father of a teenage actor who appears in the next Harry Potter film today visited the scene where the 18-year-old was stabbed to death trying to protect his younger brother from a knifeman." Feebasfactor 18:30, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Folks, we need more than a few minutes to discuss something before deleting it like that. Some good new information is provided above, but some of it missed the point. No one is trying to blame the victim here. Hollywood values include carousing amid drunken people, and can often include underage drinking. Trouble breaks out and victims get killed. This doesn't happen as often to people who are, for example, sleeping by midnight. More comments welcome.--Aschlafly 19:04, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

There's so much to say about this site(check the thread of "websites for kingfish to make snarky comments about"), but mostly i have to say it's a great example of every sort of whacked-out rightwing authoritarian follower thing, the kind that John Dean and Dr Bob Altenmeyer write about. It's the wiki equivalent of that PatriotArt.com site I occasionally grab images from.

Everything written about is an attempt to bash and distance the guy from "liberals," which of course aren't really defined. Complete infantile, petulant behaviour, a lack of any self-awareness, self-criticism, or self-reflection. Shit like stats or the scientific method only have validity when dude can use them to bash people he doesn't like, and then they're rejected when the bullshit is pointed out. Like the malaria thing about poor Africans and mosquitoes; most of these guys wouldn't give a fuck about African health policy, but b/c someone had the idea to attack enviros over the banning of DDT, they're suddenly all fer it(and experts in the field, funny how that one works).

There's also mad projection going on here, along with a complete (deliberate) misreading of other folks. It's a lot like that stoopid "Half Hour Comedy Hour" thing on Fox News. Joel Surnow had/has no idea how the Daily Show(or any nightly political satire) actually worked, but figured it was just the same way that other fox news bullshit did. Talking points of a particular slant were handed down from on high to the underlings, who were to work them into joeks without question or derivation.

And the projection turns into a justification; it's this mad self-fulfilling loop. Them libruls are horrible people who'd probably do this to us if they weren't frenchie french french chickenshits so it's okay for us to do it to them.

Similarly, if you buy wholesale into the "there is no objective reality, everything is biased" and couple that into say, news reporting, you get the fox news effect; you ignore actual reality to dump your talking points into your coverage. Or, if you will, you figure that those godless librul wikipedians are just printing slanderous untruths, so you get to put your own spin on things for balance. They did it first!

Liberals often make approval of liberal values a condition of friendship. Reagan had many close personal friends who were liberals, and dozens of political ones, like Speaker Tip O'Neil and Senator Ted Kennedy.

^means Reagan was a liberal, right?

To whoever wrote this message, I would suggest that you edit it to make it significantly shorter. Even the most well-developed arguments, as long as they exceed an easy-to-digest length, will be dismissed on this site as "liberal." --IlTrovatore 22:15, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

I.e., if it's longer than a "talking point", it's going above the readers' heads.

omg @ the Sharon Tate stuff

Perhaps liberals will only be friends with liberals because conservatives like these froot loops are unprincipled hate-filled arseholes?

See main article: Atheism and Uncharitableness

Religious people are more likely to give to charity, and when they give, they give more money: four times as much. And Arthur Brooks told me that giving goes beyond their own religious organization:

working for the official statistics bureau of a major nation

liberals will only be friends with liberals, whereas conservatives are so desp, they b friends with anyone. The bus conductor, the dinner lady from the school they don't go to anymore, the speaking clock......

...jesus...

.. and Carol Vorderman, from a distance.

Vorderman probably agrees with all of this, and worse.

That friends one... that the gaping logic hole in that article wasn't obvious to the writer... (head explodes)

http://www.abovethelaw.com/images/entries/animated%20siren%20gif%20animated%20siren%20gif%20animated%20siren%20gif%20drudge%20report.GIF
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/04/arts/04arts-CHRISTINAAPP_BRF.html

Conservapedia is REAL? Sorry, what is the purpose?...Just reading Kingfish's post. Ok I geddit.

Faith is a uniquely Christian concept
UHM.

My friend reads Conservapedia whenever she wants to feel something. Better than cutting her wrists I guess.

Other magazines that you could use to feel something are available.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the current president of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the former mayor of Tehran. Since coming to power, on a campaign based on stamping out corruption, in 2005, he has pursued an agenda defined by support of Islamic fundamentalism, strong anti-Americanism, and anti-Zionism. Under Ahmadinejad's rule Iran has put a large amount of effort into producing nuclear technology, possibly for nuclear weapons, although Iran has not yet been successful in this endeavor. His politics are mixed as best, as he retains a strong, conservative view towards homosexuality, infamously stating that there are no homosexuals in Iran. However, he has also eliminated some rights such as freedom of speech and the press.

Punk music, or punk rock, originated in a club called CBGB in New York City in the mid-1970s with Television and The Ramones followed by the still popular The Dead Kennedys.

ok, THAT did it!

Y'all may have already covered this, but why is the illustration for "Feminism" a Braque?

I don't know but that whole article is a joy to behold...

prefer that women wear pants rather than dresses, presumably because men do

I wonder where this wholly admirable sentiment fits into the conservapedia worldview?

* The English novelist and critic Rebecca West said

"I myself have never been able to find out what feminism is; I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat or a prostitute."

Liberals over-rely on mockery, and have done as long ago as their mockery of Jesus Christ. It’s easy to try to mock what one does not understand. The extent to which liberals are so senselessly self-amused is itself amusing to watch. In many cases, the liberals did not even realize that what they were mocking (e.g., Northwest Octopus entry) was a parody of themselves.–Aschlafly 12:15, 6 June 2007 (EDT) [Columnist's emphasis]

This admittedly, is a somewhat controversial statement, and sure enough, it did lead User:HardDisc to question the underlying assumption (which, incidentally, earned him a perma-ban):

[...]The Pharisees and Sadducees were extremely conservative. So were the Romans - nationalists if you ever saw one. Is this — *gasp* — a conservative falsehood, or an example of conservative deceit? –HardDisc 19:49, 9 June 2007 (EDT)

This led to a brief discussion on just who were the good guys in 1st century AD Jewish society, which ended with the following statement by mr. Schlafly:

Very interesting, Fox. Thank you. I might add that there is no evidence of the Pharisees or Sadducees mocking Jesus, which was the premise of the complaint by HardDisc above.–Aschlafly 18:20, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

Whoa. Full stop. As we all know, mr. Schlafly is a man who takes his Bible very seriously. And I mean very seriously. With that in mind, can it really be the case that he does not know of Luke 22:63-65?

63 And the men that held Jesus mocked him, and smote him.
64 And when they had blindfolded him, they struck him on the face, and asked him, saying, Prophesy, who is it that smote thee?
65 And many other things blasphemously spake they against him.

Or Luke 23:11?

11 And Herod with his men of war set him at nought, and mocked him, and arrayed him in a gorgeous robe, and sent him again to Pilate.

Not to mention Luke 23:35?

35 And the people stood beholding. And the rulers also with them derided him, saying, He saved others; let him save himself, if he be Christ, the chosen of God.

Or Mark 15:29-32?

29 And they that passed by railed on him, wagging their heads, and saying, Ah, thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days,
30 Save thyself, and come down from the cross.
31 Likewise also the chief priests mocking said among themselves with the scribes, He saved others; himself he cannot save.
32 Let Christ the King of Israel descend now from the cross, that we may see and believe. And they that were crucified with him reviled him.

Admittedly, not all of these are clearly identified as Pharisees or Sadducees. However, given the prominent position of these groups in Jewish society at the time, some of them almost certainly are, especially rulers and chief priests mentioned in Luke 23:35 and Mark 15:31.

This raises a dilemma. Is it possible that biblical literalist like mr. Schlafly is unaware of key parts of the Gospels? Or is it possible that he would deliberately misrepresent Sacred Scripture in order to promote his own political agenda? Either seems unfathomable. This is a mystery to me.

However, all this still doesn’t really answer the question: Just who were the liberals who mocked Christ? Well, this whole Pharisees & Sadducees business has gotten me thoroughly confused, so let’s leave them out for the moment. Then the only people left would seem to be the Romans. Does that mean that the Romans were liberals?

Stop the press, I say.

It’s discriminatory and borne of prejudicial attitudes. Blind persons are probably more responsible with firearms than those who can see. There’s no evidence to the contrary, and this person holds a gun permit in two other states. What’s next - denying gun permits based on the color of one’s skin?–Aschlafly 22:57, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

If only these moms had breastfed their babies, like Sarah Palin does.

BBC News: Thousands ill due to tainted Chinese baby formula. [9] 12,892 infants are being treated in hospitals throughout China, and four babies have died after ingesting melamine, an industrial chemical. The melamine was added to the formula powder to make it appear higher in protein. Melamine can case severe renal problems and kidney stones. The World Health Organization recommends that babies be "exclusively breastfed for the first six months of life to achieve optimal growth, development and health", and that breastfeeding continue "for up to two years of age or beyond." [10]

ok

guyz

r u ready

Absence of Dancing

Dancing is a popular form of celebration and partying by all ethnicities. But why is Barack Obama rarely seen dancing, or even allowing and attending dancing. Perhaps I've missed it (please let me know if I have). I know, there was one highly staged politically correct dance with Ellen DeGeneris as Obama was catering to her audience. But where's the rest? One explanation is that the Islamic sharia disfavors dancing.[12] --Aschlafly 11:08, 6 November 2008 (EST)

When's the last time you went dancing, Andy? HDCase 11:23, 6 November 2008 (EST)

um, lol?
Dancing in Puerto Rico
Dancing to Snoop Dogg

so there it is... at least three different places where he's seen dancing. Here's my question: lets see you find videos of Mccain dancing! xP your Islamic assumption thingy holds no water since you can say the same for McCain! Ema 11:26, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Ah! Ema, don't be fooled by this deceit, he might secretly be a whirling dervish! They're members of Sufi Islam, by the way. --Wikinterpreter

I took a look at the Puerto Rico video. It proves my point. I've never seen anyone dance-without-dancing like that. Have you? It will be fascinating to see how long it takes people to wake up to who Obama really is. Judging by the determined objections above, it may be quite a while for some of his supporters.--Aschlafly 12:06, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Your argument is that he is a bad dancer so he must be a Muslim? Seriously Andrew, take a deep breath and relax, proving him to be a Muslim is not going to get him impeached, he has the presidency and that is that. In four years it might matter, but that means you have poor years to find less circumstantial evidence. --Brendanw 12:27, 6 November 2008 (EST)

No, Brendanw, it is obviously not my argument that he is a "bad dancer." I think you understand my argument perfectly well and won't admit it. Suit yourself.--Aschlafly 12:31, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Brendan's right about one thing at least. All the evidence listed is either circumstantial or draws illogical conclusions. The one about him when he says he joins a church after a suggestion does not in any way imply him as a muslim, though it might imply him as a disingenuous Christian. The two are mutually exclusive. EternalCritic 12:38, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Well please explain it to me differently, initially you said he didn't dance, and now that we have three videos of it you say that he "dances with out dancing" what does that mean if not bad dancer? --Brendanw 12:45, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Andy's saying that, in those three videos, Obama isn't really dancing, in the sense of crossing a line of Muslim (im)morality. It's like being against swearing, but recognizing that words like "heck" and "geez" don't really cross that line. That said, however, I did run across a video where Obama dances by anyone's definition.--RossC 14:25, 6 November 2008 (EST)

RossC, this video is obviously faked. BHarlan 14:32, 6 November 2008 (EST)

I wonder if he will dance at his inaugural ball, if it gets to that point. (see: Berg) BHarlan 13:47, 6 November 2008 (EST)