Conservapedia - An encyclopedia you can trust

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)

SNICKERSNORTWATERSHOOTSOUTNOSEBWAGHAHHAHAHA

http://www.conservapedia.com/Shaken_Baby_Syndrome

what the fuck

I did run across a video where Obama dances by anyone's definition.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Shaken_Baby_Syndrome

That is one of the craziest things I have ever read.

These people are such cretins. Everytime you think they've plumbed the depths, they manage to go one worse. Fuck these people. (sorry for pointing out the blatantly obvious)

Let's be clear here, Mr. Schlafly; you are currently defending people who pick up an infant and shake the child so violently that it causes damage to the spinal cord and causes the brain to carom off the inside of the skull rupturing blood vessels and destroying tissue. I repeat, this is not simply a fiction concocted by an overeager prosecutor in order to punish some poor unsuspecting guardian. SSchultz 12:19, 19 January 2008 (EST)

So in other words the papers written in JPANDS are going to be favored over the CDC, NIH, JAMA, NEJM, and other medical groups which all claim that SBS is a form of child abuse and the leading cause of traumatic death in infants? What is the standard of evidence you're wanting met in order to present SBS for what it is (that being the brutalization of helpless infants)? SSchultz 22:03, 31 January 2008 (EST)

Of course. Everybody knows that JPANDS and other credible, neutral sources like American Thinker and Newsbusters are far more credible and reliable than liberal medical journals. After all, all conservative ideologies are fact, while liberal ones are fiction. JKaplanek 13:16, 26 February 2008 (EST)

The second bit is too Poe's Law to call.

2nd bit is obv a joke - i generally assume every batshit post on conservapedia is except ones signed aschlafly

http://www.conservapedia.com/User:SSchultz

ok lol

http://www.conservapedia.com/images/thumb/2/2d/Duck.jpg/60px-Duck.jpg

I wonder if he will dance at his inaugural ball, if it gets to that point.

The fuck is that supposed to mean?

First election without incumbents since 1928

If eligible to do so, the President of the United States often runs for reelection. If the President does not run, the Vice President of the United States will often run to replace the President after he leaves office. 2008 will mark the first time since the 1928 election in which there is neither an incumbent President nor an incumbent Vice President running for his party's presidential nomination and thus not running in the Presidential election.

lol i misread that never mind

Let's be careful not to confuse the Nation of Islam with the traditional Muslim faith - they are two quite different things. --Hsmom 10:10, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

What differences do you find so compelling?--Aschlafly

In the years 2000 through 2004, before becoming a United States Senator and being in the public spotlight, Obama gave 1% of his earnings to charity even though he made $250,000 per year. Since becoming a national figure, that amount has jumped to 6%.[67]. Although Obama is a Muslim, his small donations are consistent with atheism and were perhaps influenced by his nonbelieving mother. According to a study by the Barna Group, atheists give less per capita in donations than religious Americans [68].

really, please tell me that this site is a sick joke. It cannot be real, can it? I worry about what our world has come to when I can't tell reality from satire. People really do believe this crap, so I am left to wonder if it's meant to be real or not <sigh>.

"If elected, Obama would likely become the first Muslim President". The evidence pointing to Obama being a Muslim can be included, but Barack Obama has said he is a Christian, and is a member of the United Church of Christ. So is saying he is likely to become a Muslim president meant to imply that Obama is secretly a Muslim? Perhaps a better phrased version of this sentence would be "If elected, Obama would become the first president with a strong leaning toward Islam". This is concurrent list that follows it, and is much less hypothetical like a good resource should be. --anonymous123 21:52, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Obama's claims to be a Christian are meaningless for three reasons; first, his distinctly non-Christian stance on issues such as abortion and the homosexual agenda; second, the radical, Marxist theology preached by his church; and third, the Muslim concept of taqiyya outlined in the article. All the of the evidence points away from his being a Christian. SMichaels 16:06, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

Alberto Gonzales. The first Hispanic U.S. Attorney General, was consistently mocked on liberal websites as 'Alberto "Speedy" Gonzales' [4] during his tenure. Speedy Gonzales is a reference to a disparaging stereotypical cartoon character of Hispanics that Hollywood attempted to popularize in the 1950s and 60s. Upon his retirement, NBC News anchor Matt Lauer called Gonzales "a piñata" for the Democrats.

first, his distinctly non-Christian stance on issues such as abortion and the homosexual agenda

it's true that Muslims are all about abortion and the gays

it's awesome how they try and make him out to be a muslim atheist radical liberation theology christian.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Did_Jesus_ever_claim_to_be_God%3F