Conservapedia - An encyclopedia you can trust

nervous.jpg

If the Conservapedia says it, it must be true!

This is seriously going to simplify my life x1000.

Thatcher stood up against the powerful Labour Party unions, thus encouraging the British coal and newspaper industries
Thatcher stood up against the powerful Labour Party unions, thus encouraging the British coal and newspaper industries
Thatcher stood up against the powerful Labour Party unions, thus encouraging the British coal and newspaper industries
Thatcher stood up against the powerful Labour Party unions, thus encouraging the British coal and newspaper industries
Thatcher stood up against the powerful Labour Party unions, thus encouraging the British coal and newspaper industries
Thatcher stood up against the powerful Labour Party unions, thus encouraging the British coal and newspaper industries
Thatcher stood up against the powerful Labour Party unions, thus encouraging the British coal and newspaper industries
Thatcher stood up against the powerful Labour Party unions, thus encouraging the British coal and newspaper industries
Thatcher stood up against the powerful Labour Party unions, thus encouraging the British coal and newspaper industries
Thatcher stood up against the powerful Labour Party unions, thus encouraging the British coal and newspaper industries
Thatcher stood up against the powerful Labour Party unions, thus encouraging the British coal and newspaper industries
Thatcher stood up against the powerful Labour Party unions, thus encouraging the British coal and newspaper industries
Thatcher stood up against the powerful Labour Party unions, thus encouraging the British coal and newspaper industries

lolll

4. A major difference between Liberalism and Conservatism is how much each group is willing to have its pronouncements checked, its actions reviewed and evaluated

The LA Times praised our entries on the tuba.

Did it really prefer Conservapedias 88 word entry to Wikipedias 2,500 word entry?

http://i11.tinypic.com/6bc2yyw.jpg

oh yeah, these guys. Phyllis Schafly's kid runs this.

our previous threads related to Conservapedia:

Things for kingfish to post snarky threads about

The thread for niche clones of popular websites(e.g. Wikipedia, Myspace, etc)

When the Clintons left the White House, they were accused of taking furniture that belonged not to them, but to the White House.[19] Stealing is a violation of the ten commandments, regardless of the circumstances.

I can't think of Phyllis Shlafly without thinking of that Bloom County joke about her "new" organization (LAW - Ladies Against Women)

As Amazon.com said in a review of a book of Harry Hay's writings, he "is the acknowledged father…of the modern gay liberation movement." As a Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA) organizer, he turned out "essays, position papers, critical studies, and manifestos concerning what it means to be gay in the world." [1]

http://www.conservapedia.com/images/8/8a/Lahaye-family-01.jpg

I can't excerpt just one part of this: http://www.conservapedia.com/Socialism

The only reference cited for the entry on "social democracy": ↑ Road to Serfdom, Friedrich A. Hayek, Reader's Digest Condensed Version, April 1945, pg. 36.

I love the "FEMINISM" one.

Wait, is there actually truth to this?: In Britain, Catholics are discriminated [3] against by being barred from holding certain offices associated with the post of Prime Minister.

xpost Ooh, let me check that out.

Liberal conspiracy theorist Michael Moore apparently became so paranoid that he hid a master of his new movie "Sicko" outside of the country. "True that you hid a master of the movie?" Moore: "Yes. We, we took a master copy of the movie out of the country ...."

Nice editing.

...the United States has tended to reject socialism as an ideological position. In other parts of the world, such as Europe, Africa, Asia, and South and Central America, there has generally been more explicit support for socialism as a doctrine, and socialist parties have been among the most successful political forces of the last 100 years.

In other parts of the world, such as THE ENTIRE PLANET EXCEPT CANADA, THE FROZEN WASTELANDS OF ANTARCTICA, AND SOME LITTLE ISLANDS...

"Creationist scientists assert that evolutionists have had over 140 years to find a transitional fossil and nothing approaching a conclusive transitional form has ever been found and that only a handful of highly doubtful examples of transitional fossils exist."

Creationist scientists!

haha that is the article i went to first

I have to say the one above looked like a case of vandalism, rather than freaksih America-centric lack of self-awareness. I'm convinced it is vandalism now that I've found this entry:

There are so many drugs on the streets of Britain, "not even the dealers know them all". Popular drugs on the streets of London include "Triple-sods", "Yellow Bentines" and "Clarky Cat".

David Amess MP, the Conservative Member of Parliament for Basildon, warned against the dangers of an Eastern European drug called Cake, and went as far as to ask a question about it in Parliament. The drug affects an area of the brain called "Shatner's Bassoon" and is frequently referred to as "a made-up drug" (a drug not made from plants but made up from chemicals).

hahahah Shatner's Bassoon!!! omg

"Shatner's Bassoon" !!!!

I love it.

I love this:
To this day politicians avoid growing beards due to how that alienates voters reminded of the hippies, whom many voters would never support.

i haven't bothered finishing it...i liked how they deftly ignored (at the point i stopped reading) molecular evidence for evolution. also: pretty sure the reason fossil evidence is scanty is because, you know the earth has done and been through quite a lot over the last few hundred million years, so actually finding ANY fossils seems like a treat

These people are terrifying:

Homosexuality constitutes a parasitic relationship with society. Homosexuals consume resources while performing none of the necessary obligations of an organism within a species (i.e. - reproduction). Homosexuality's existence is a threat to the continued existnce of the human race, and must be dealt with appropriately.

(obviously I'm not saying homosexuals are terrifying)

"dealt with appropriately?"

*shudder*

yeah, y'know, turned into something useful for society like soap or lampshades

Many of the entries are taken from a homeschooler encyclopedia cdrom.

Homosexuals consume resources while performing none of the necessary obligations of an organism within a species (i.e. - reproduction).

FFS. So childless women are also parasites? THANK YOU CONSERVAPEDIA I FEEL SO MUCH BETTER.

http://kscakes.com/LolCats/Uploads/Saved/i-has-a-basso0n.jpg

Again, these are the people that Chris Hedges writes about.

http://www.rationalwiki.com/wiki/Chupacabra

I actually read a thing in a Chilean local paper's website about a Chupacabra being loose a few weeks ago. It's just used to mean a random beast or disease that is killing local goats though. But still quite quaint usage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia

just checking that you mericans knows that that stuff in http://www.conservapedia.com/Drugs that "Nasty, Brutish & Short" quotes (shatner's bassoon et al) is from Brass Eye http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brass_Eye on drugs

Yeah, that one sounded pretty familiar.

Yeah the cake thing rang a bell.

I was just going to post the Brass Eye info, except I seemed to have left this page open on my browser for about 20 minutes without replying, and so 'tis not even truly an xpost.

there have been 2-year xposts on ILX before

I remember that!

Still boggling at the 5-second excelsior tho.

I haven't gone there, but this all looks like "Onion" style 'satire' or is that stating the bleedin obv?

I am creating a conservapedia account with a new gmail address simply so I can provide a citation to tha Hansard where David Ames asks the question. here btw

Just read the Wiki.. guess not.

Disco was a flamboyant style of gay dance music in the 70s. Disco parties were noted for their outrageous clothes, drug use, and flashing lights.

Disco music was generally made by studio engineers using session musicians, and was pressed onto 12-inch singles, an innovation which allowed for high-fidelity recorded music over a large sound system. The name derives from the French word "Discotheque", a place for playing records.

TOO GAY FOR AMERICA

Lennon subsequently apologized for those remarks.[Citation Needed]

It (Conservapedia) is not funny anymore ;_; It's just depressingly stupid.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Golf

:D

http://www.conservapedia.com/Other_gods

Hip Hop is a style of African American music in which African Americans chant over beats. It originated in the 70's in the South Bronx. Originally DJ's would loop a specific cut from popular funk or disco songs known as break beats. Eventually African American MCs would talk over the beats, mostly regarding the incredible skills of the DJ. This evoloved into the MCs talking about themselves and the amount of power money and sexual prowess they possessed.

This evoloved

DJ EvoLoved, Monday nights, 9-close, $10. Ladies drink free.

glad to see this gem is still there:

According to the origins theory model used by creation scientists, modern kangaroos are the descendants of the two founding members of the modern kangaroo baramin that were taken aboard Noah's Ark prior to the Great Flood. It has not yet been determined by baraminologists whether kangaroos form a holobaramin with the wallaby, tree-kangaroo, wallaroo, pademelon and quokka, or if all these species are in fact apobaraminic or polybaraminic. There is, however, no evidence of a genetic bottleneck in the kangaroo species which would be expected if all kangaroos were descended from two individuals.

After the Flood, these kangaroos bred from the Ark passengers migrated to Australia. There is debate whether this migration happened over land[5] with lower sea levels during the post-flood ice age, or before the supercontinent of Pangea broke apart[6], or if they rafted on mats of vegetation torn up by the receding flood waters.[5] The idea that God simply generated kangaroos into existence there is considered by most creation researchers to be contra-Biblical.

Other views on kangaroo origins include the belief of some Australian Aborigines that kangaroos were sung into existence by their ancestors during the "Dreamtime" [7] and the evolutionary view that kangaroos and the other marsupials evolved from a common marsupial ancestor which lived hundreds of millions of years ago.[8]

I'd take the dreamtime expalnation over creationist bullshit any day.

I just love the lumping together of aboriginal mythology and evolution. would this fall within the realms of a straw man argument, or have they just invented a totally new fallacy?

Here's a sane explanation of a "baramin", the creationist pseudo-scientific jargon in the piece above: http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Baramin

Thank You, this article got me thinking

This article demonstrates the wonderful thing about conservipedia! I never realized that even my reading of the bible was corrupted by the liberal thought I've been force fed (despite having conservative parents). This article, in laying out the biblical passages on the subject clearly, made me realize that slavery isn't NECESSARILY all bad. Of course, I still think slavery of G-d fearing Christians is appalling, if they are determined slaves just because of the color of their skin. But because liberals decietfully used the obvious immorality of that to discount all slavery, even though G-d plainly wills it, I was even tricked into thinking all slavery was bad.

I had read those passages before of course, I just sort of ignored them, because they made me anxious. I didn't know how to reconcile it with the force-fed liberal ideas on slavery, that ignorantly lump all slavery together with Southern slavery. I never realized how much of a pernicious influence liberal ideas could have on even me. I never even knew any liberals growing up! To think, Satan's trickery could be so wily as to actually instill ideas in me that make me anxious when reading G-d's word.

Is there any movements to reinsitute slavery properly? I mean, I know that we have so much to battle right now, abortion, and secularism in general. But it just seems so wrong that a few impure slave-owners could tarnish a biblical institution. Its hopless right now, we are so embattled, but maybe in a few hundred years we can return to a biblical way of life. And if we are biblically consistent--e.g. opposing abortion, demanding Christianity for citizenship, calling for the institution of slavery--then maybe people will see that and have more respect for our movement.

Could the article have more on the virtues of slavery? Surely there has to be some commentary on it somewhere. Being a biblical institution it has to serve a purpose. And for those of you that say "it only applied in ancient times" I say how dare you insult G-d. He's omniscient, which implies what was right then was right now, or else He would have told us to change. InTheEvent 13:53, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

hahahaha

Is he volunteering to be a slave, then?

I was gonna say - somebody enslave that guy posthaste! He'll be cool with it, it's G-d's will!

Famous Left-Wing Terrorist Groups

* PIRA
* Al-Qaeda

"Though the liberal media continues to disparage Bush's handling of the economy, they often neglect to report the many aspects of the economy that Bush has improved. For example, during his term Exxon Mobil has posted the largest profit of any company in a single year, and executive salaries have greatly increased as well."

- A thought here: Either this poster is admirably subversive or he is functionally retarded.

Many people have reported leaving homosexuality and becoming heterosexual through their Christian faith.[27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37]

The thing about this site is that, except for the bits that idjits like Schlafly or that fundie homeschool textbook write added in themselves, the whole thing is Poe's Law writ large. You can't tell the legit batshit ravings from the fake.

Yeah, I think a lot of this is tongue-in-cheek, like that slave thing - "And if we are biblically consistent--e.g. opposing abortion, demanding Christianity for citizenship, calling for the institution of slavery--then maybe people will see that and have more respect for our movement."

yeah, foxes in the henhouse

Meanwhile, the folks over at RationalWiki have been compiling a rolling Best of Conservapedia for your amusement and/or horror/pity.

http://i19.tinypic.com/66nbrqc.jpg

14:00, 9 June 2007 Crocoite (Talk | contribs) blocked "Sm355 (contribs)" with an expiry time of infinite (troll - removing God from articles)

For you, ILX

hahaha

Your user name or IP address has been blocked.

The block was made by Hojimachong. The reason given is '.

You can contact Hojimachong or another administrator to discuss the block. You cannot use the 'email this user' feature unless a valid email address is specified in your account preferences. Your current IP address is xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx, and the block ID is #10476. Please include either or both of these in any queries.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Statistics

http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Wikipedia_scandals.jpg

damn

anyway

check out the key on this here graph:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Wikipedia_scandals.jpg

lol at the sinbad thing being the final nail in the coffin.

what i'm sayin

http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

metapedia: the wikipedia for racists

The possibility to influence the language is vital if you want to shape people’s world view. The Frankfurt School and their ideological heirs are good examples in this regard, and have been very successful in stigmatizing previously natural and sound values and attitudes and making them seem pathological by inventing and popularizing concepts such as “xenophobia” and the like. This clearly illustrates the power of language and words, and it is therefore important that we start re-conquering our languages.

Another important purpose of Metapedia is to become a web resource for pro-European activists. Metapedia makes it easy for our cadres to expand their knowledge on various important subjects, and also functions as a searchable reference.

White-Black hybrids

White-Black hybrids usually show strange characteristics, the average intelligence of the first generation of hybrids has, in fact, a much higher rate than the one of pure Negroes, although not as high as the White rate. The main characteristic is a tough attitude to expose violent behavior, mixed race hybrids are in fact one of the most violent races on Earth.

this is missing an entry about blipsters

i didn't know that lord byron was a nazi hero???

you'd think that a genetically crippled gay guy would not exactly be their main dude

Hitler continues to be a controversial figure, hated by many. However some have referred to Hitler's legacy in neutral or favourable terms. Former Egyptian President Anwar Sadat wrote favourably of Hitler in 1953. Louis Farrakhan has referred to him as a "very great man". Bal Thackeray, leader of the right-wing Hindu Shiv Sena party in the Indian state of the Maharashtra, declared in 1995 that he was an admirer of Hitler.
In the United States, George Lincoln Rockwell revived Hitler’s movement by forming the American Nazi Party. Later other National Socialist parties began to form around the world.
In the United States however, similar to any "defeated" enemy, he is painted as a strictly evil figure, consumed with murder and hatred for Jews, and nothing else.

Racism is the realization, recognition and knowledge that distinctive human characteristics and abilities are determined by race.[1] The colloquial meaning of racism is quite different from the natural and realist meaning of the term. The idea of superiority of some races is called racialism. Racial prejudice or dislike or hostility towards other races is called volkenhass.

http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/List_of_famous_Negroids

List of famous Negroids
From Metapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(edit) List

* Martin Luther King
* Barack Obama
* Nelson Mandela
* Kofi Annan
* Wallace Fard Muhammad
* Noble Drew Ali
* Hulon Mitchell Jr.
* Elijah Muhammad

* French football team.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia

this list is unbelievable

Wikipedia claims about 1.8 million articles, but what it does not say is that a large number of those articles have zero educational value. For example, Wikipedia has 1075 separate articles about "Moby" and "song".[149] Many hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles -- perhaps over half its website -- are about music, Hollywood, and other topics beneath a regular encyclopedia. This reflects a bias towards popular gossip rather than helpful or enlightening information.

Unlike most encyclopedias and news outlets, Wikipedia does not exert any centralized authority to take steps to reduce bias or provide balance; it has a "neutral point of view" policy but the policy is followed only to the extent that individual editors acting in social groups choose to follow it. For example, CNN would ensure that Crossfire had a representative of the political right and one from the political left. In contrast, Wikipedia policy allows bias to exist and worsen. For example, even though most Americans reject the theory of evolution,[151] Wikipedia editors commenting on the topic are nearly 100% pro-evolution.[152] Self-selection has a tendency to exacerbate bias, as in mobs, where there are no restraints. Gresham's Law reflects the problem in economics of bad money driving out good in the absence of corrective action. As a result, Wikipedia is arguably more biased than CNN and other information sources.

The Wikipedia entry for John Peter Zenger links to an incorrect Wikipedia definition of "Philadelphia lawyer," which Merriam-Webster defines as a lawyer knowledgeable in "even the most minute aspects of the law." Wikipedia claims the term comes from the Zenger trial, but Merriam-Webster puts the first use of that term at over 50 years later. Wikipedia is simply unreliable.

^^ man does this PISS ME OFF. if only there was some way of amending... oh.

The Wikipedia entry for homosexuality is adorned with the a rainbow graphic but fails to mention the following: the many diseases associated with homosexuality, the high promiscuity rates of the male homosexual community, the higher incidences of domestic violence among homosexual couples compared to heterosexual couples, and the substantially higher mental illness and drug usage rates of the homosexuality community. In addition, the Wikipedia article on homosexuality fails to mention that the American Psychiatric Association issued a fact sheet in May of 2000 stating that "..there are no replicated scientific studies supporting a specific biological etiology for homosexuality."[83]

# Wikpedia's entry on liberal former Vice President Al Gore contains no mention of the drug charges against his son.[84] But Wikipedia's entry on conservative Vice President Dick Cheney prominently mentions his adult daughter's sexuality.[85]

conservapedia MUST be a strawman pisstake, it MUST be

Wikipedia falsely smears Conservapedia by claiming that it has "come under significant criticism for factual inaccuracies."[6] In fact, such criticisms are rare or non-existent, and Wikipedia's cite to a New York Times article for support actually criticizes Wikipedia because it "does dwell on the idea that 'others' have 'criticized and mocked the Conservapedia website for factual inaccuracy.'"[7]

# Wikipedia has a substantial anti-intellectual element, as reflected by silly administrator names and nonsensical entries. Check out Wikipedia's entry for "duh": "Duh is an American English slang exclamation that is used to express disdain for someone missing the obviousness of something. For example, if one read a headline saying 'Scientific study proves pain really does hurt' or 'New reports show death is bad for one's health', the response might be 'Well, duh!'"[100] How about a new slogan: Wikipedia: well, duh!

# Wikipedia has once again deleted all content on the North American Union [11]. The old pages are inaccessible, and re-creation is blocked.

# Wikipedia's entry on the Prodigal Son devotes more words to obscure rock band and liberal media references to it (e.g., "'The Prodigal Son' is the Season 2 opener of the TV series Miami Vice, although it has virtually nothing to do with the parable itself.") than to the parable and its spiritual meaning.[54]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Union

xp

# Mathematicians on Wikipedia distort and exaggerate Wiles' proof of Fermat's Last Theorem by (i) concealing how it relied on the controversial Axiom of Choice and by (ii) omitting the widespread initial criticism of it.[40]

Wikipedia has a banner to criticize an American treatment of a topic: "The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject."[103] "A worldwide view" is fictional liberal terminology for globalists.

About 60% of Americans accept the account of the Great Flood in the Bible.[129] But enter "Great Flood" into Wikipedia and it automatically converts that to an entry entitled "Deluge (mythology)." That entry then uses "myth" or "mythology" nearly 70 times in its description.[130] Its entry on "Noah's Ark" is just as biased.[131]

Mathematicians on Wikipedia distort and exaggerate Wiles' proof of Fermat's Last Theorem by (i) concealing how it relied on the controversial Axiom of Choice and by (ii) omitting the widespread initial criticism of it.

^^^ Mathematical conservatism (Intuitionism, etc.) Note that 99.99% of all published mathematics today relies on the Axiom of Choice.

Keep posting this stuff here. Stuff may change.

Wikipedia, its own entries (including talk pages) filled with smears and deceit, features an entry on "deceit (album)" that gushes with a description of it as "austere, brilliant and indescribable" music that is "post-punk".[70] The word "deceit" has no entry on Wikipedia. It was redirected to a different term having a different meaning, and then this redirect was changed 7 times in two days in response to this criticism here.[71] Even now it lacks a clear definition and the numerous examples provided in the entry on deceit here.

Conservapedia is oddly selective too. For instance, there is no entry on Sophie Garry:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lk_pG0R2QCE

when Schlafly tries to argue statistics, the laffs come fast and furious:

http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Mystery:Young_Hollywood_Breast_Cancer_Victims

Conservapedia is not limited to liberal medical journals. We are smart enough, I submit, to observe facts ourselves and let the readers draw conclusions. We do not simply regurgitate readily available information here. We tell the truth, even if it is censored elsewhere.--Aschlafly 23:19, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

(f'instance)

ah, on my first visit I got tonnes of laffs, then it became uncomfortable, but now I'm back to the laffs.

Specifically, modern feminists tend to:

* believe that there are no inherent differences between men and women and that all inequality is the result of men oppressing women[4]
* view traditional marriage as unacceptably patriarchal
* prefer shirking traditional gender activities, like baking [5]
* support affirmative action for women
* detest women who are happy in traditional roles, such as housewife,[6] and especially dislike those who defend such roles
* prefer that women wear pants rather than dresses, presumably because men do[7][8]
* seek women in combat in the military just like men, and coed submarines
* flat-out refuse to take the husband's last name when marrying[9]

telling it how it is.

when Schlafly tries to argue statistics, the laffs come fast and furious:

http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Mystery:Young_Hollywood_Breast_Cancer_Victims

-- J0hn D., Thursday, July 24, 2008 6:27 PM (33 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

this is the best thing ive read all week - dude gets thoroughly schooled by other conservatives

btw thats andy schlafly not phyllis

It ends on a wonderfully strange note:

----

Norwegian actress and porn star

--

If by "hollywood" you also include Norwegian actresses then you must also include all actresses from all of Europe at bare minimum and probably from all over the world. No offence Andy, but this page is ridiculous and I'm surprised you can't see that.

dude gets thoroughly schooled by other conservatives

i dunno, unless yr definition of 'thoroughly schooled' is to ignore every single obvious, transparent, and well-argued criticism of your argument, and to continue to repeat your asinine points and questions in the face of overwhelming opposing evidence.

motivation and thought processes of guys like this are totally beyond me.

seek women in combat in the military just like men, and coed submarines

if only we had sigfiles

i mean thoroughly schooled in that they dissect his argument & refute it on every level - you could include it in textbooks under practical application of the scientific method

yeah that is the beauty of that page - the guys arguing against him are just cold-blooded facts-only-please dudes and it's like a thorough unmasking of his his pretending-to-be-interested-in-statistics stance

Here's where I ended up!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honk_If_You_Love_Fred_Durst

the lenski affair (and associated talk pages) are quality pwnage too. second letter from lenski is a gem.

*poof*

http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Mystery:Young_Hollywood_Breast_Cancer_Victims

Honk If You Love Fred Durst

Viewing or reading pornography day in and day out has an effect. It desensitizes a person, makes him more withdrawn, and makes him view others like objects rather than the people they are. Although some people have argued that "erotica" is okay, in the history of erotic literature it is rare to find any depiction of normal marital relations. Everything is a perversion of one sort or another, as if the authors had combed through the Old Testament prohibitions and chosen to depict each one.

amazing how he just uses 'liberal' to try and smear anyone who disagrees with him on anything... i mean does he really think it makes any sense to call committed conservapedia editors liberals??

i mean, not really amazing from a guy who started conservapedia. or even interesting. just uh... worthy of note?

There's never been racial or gender restrictions on becoming president.--Aschlafly 22:25, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Did that mean that before the American Civil War slaves were free to change career paths, or even run for President? Interesting.Pluto 19:39, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Pluto, if you were taught in public school then this may surprise you, but before the Civil War there were many blacks who were not slaves and, of course, blacks have always met the constitutional qualifications to be president.--Aschlafly 19:42, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Actually, Dred Scott v. Sandford, in part, ruled that slaves and their descendants, regardless of whether descendants were slaves or not, were not and could never be "citizens" of the United States. Therefore, they were ineligible under Article Two, which states that a presidential candidate must be a natural-born citizen. Blacks weren't and could never be citizens according to Dred Scott v. Sandford, and therefore did NOT meet the constitutional qualifications for president. --Jareddr 19:53, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

^True. Also, there were free states that excluded blacks from serving on juries and skilled occupations far below the level of President. Illinois and Indiana had laws banning blacks from their states entirely. Only a few New England states allowed blacks an equal right to vote.

Also, 95% of blacks lived in the South, mostly as slaves.Pluto 20:15, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Jareddr has a unique interpretation of the significance of the Dred Scott decision, which of course had nothing to do with qualifications for president. And of course it said nothing about gender.--Aschlafly 21:37, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Andy, I think you should admit you were wrong here. No big deal I suppose but I don't think it is credible to argue Blacks always had the right to become president. Even if you are technically correct that there was no specific positive disqualification on their being president, this may be because there was no attempt by any black people to become president as the legal outcome of such an attempt was obvious until after the civil war.--DamianJohn 21:57, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Sorry, I don't wish to offend, but Jareddr's "interpretation" of Dred Scott is very, very, very very far from unique. Only an American citizen can become President, and the Dred Scott decision held that no black American was a citizen. Roger Taney's decision said that blacks have "no rights which the white man was bound to respect."Pluto 22:52, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

What happened to your false claim about gender? As to race, Dred Scott did not "hold" what you say. Rather, that was a non-binding portion of the opinion, which was widely criticized and ignored.--Aschlafly 23:25, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

As to gender, women couldn't vote until the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920. Dred Scott was unpopular with Republicans, but was popular with Northern Democrats, Southerners and the border states.Pluto 23:52, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Right about gender, but I thought you originally said women could not become president. That's false.

As to Dred Scott, you're probably right that it was supported by the Democratic Party for that brief period of 1857 through 1865. Good thing the Republican Party was soon running the show, right?--Aschlafly 08:50, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Andy, so according to your version of American History, blacks were citizens recognized by the government from the signing of the Constitution right through the signing of the Fourteenth Amendment? Because I'd love to see some citations that state that blacks were considered citizens during that time. --Jareddr 09:49, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Perhaps this "information" regarding their citizenship could be placed on CP someplace. I'd be interested to see the reactions of other readers finding out blacks were citizens before the Civil War. --Jareddr 09:50, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

I am glad sanity has prevailed and you no longer seem to be asserting that Blacks could always be president of the USA. However if I read you right you seem to be clinging to the idea that women were always eligible for the presidency. I repeat my statement for women, if they couldn't vote, how on earth could they run for public office?--DamianJohn 10:19, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Your logic is flawed. It's amazing the lengths some go to defend a falsehood. There has never been a racial or gender-based limitation for the presidency. Don't accept the truth if you insist, but I'm not going to allow repetition of falsehoods on my talk page. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 10:27, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Is there a citizenship requirement for presidency? Yes. So the question becomes, Aschlafly, were blacks considered full-fledged natural-born citizens before the Civil War? --Jareddr 10:35, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

In Andy's defense on this, "the descendants of slaves" and "black Americans" are not perfectly contiguous populations. A little research will show that there were black colonists who came as free citizens originally (or, in some cases, as indentured servants.) Dred Scott, therefore, does not speak directly to the question of whether an African-American can be President, regardless of whether it was binding or not. --Benp 11:19, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Technically, there is no law that would favor Obama over McCain either. I thought the issue there was some non-legal alleged bias. When large groups of people couldn't vote, that points to a bias. Can a bias that obvious be found against white male Presidential candidates? Also, Dred Scott sought to deny citizenship to all blacks, slave or free.

And yes, it is a good thing the Republicans fought against a law as bad as Dred Scott. Perhaps that should be mentioned in the article, as well as the fact that Democrats supported Dred Scott.Pluto 11:48, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

At the moment, I'm looking specifically at the debate over whether or not it was technically historically possible for a black man to run for President; the larger issue is a debate into which I don't care to enter at this time. As far as the assertion that Dred Scott sought to deny citizenship to all blacks, I'd have to ask for a citation on that; having reviewed the text of the decision, what I found was that it applied specifically and explicitly to slaves and their descendants. Thus, you would be correct in asserting that slaves could not run for President; Andy would be correct in asserting that there was no law prohibiting someone from running for President simply because he was black. --Benp 11:57, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Having read the decision as well, it seems that they were extending it to all blacks, as opposed to just slaves. For instance, "And as long ago as 1822, the Court of Appeals of Kentucky decided that free negroes and mulattoes were not citizens within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States, and the correctness of this decision is recognized, and the same doctrine affirmed, in 1 Meigs's Tenn.Reports, 331.", "in no part of the country except Maine did the African race, in point of fact, participate equally with the whites in the exercise of civil and political rights,"

"The first of these acts is the naturalization law, which was passed at the second session of the first Congress, March 26, 1790, and confines the right of becoming citizens "to aliens being free white persons."

"Neither was it used with any reference to the African race imported into or born in this country; because Congress had no power to naturalize them, and therefore there was no necessity for using particular words to exclude them."

And finally, "Here the line of distinction is drawn in express words. Persons of color, in the judgment of Congress, were not included in the word citizens, and they are described as another and different class of persons, and authorized to be employed, if born in the United States."

All these sections seem to refer to those of color, free or slaves, as separate and not considered citizens in the Dred Scott decision. --Jareddr 15:46, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

By the way, it's better not to use words like "rebut" or "refute" in a way that implies that a liberal is correct and a conservative is wrong, when the matter is in dispute. Maybe Wikipedia would allow that, but not us. Why not say "disagree" or "argue" instead? --Ed Poor Talk 07:03, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

The conservapedia article over at wikipedia was recently promoted to good status or GA. The GA critera include: well written, well sourced, neutral, stable and pictures where appropriate. Does conservapedia have such a system yet that reviews article quality? Would it be worth starting something perhaps? Dotherightthing 01:41, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

It speaks volumes about wikipedia that such a system is neccessary, and why we don't have that here. Our articles have the qualities listed (although from a conservative rather than 'npov' standpoint), and are concise and educational to boot. However, I doubt whether the wp article on Conservapedia matches up to these high standards; more likely it is riven through with Liberal deceit. Bugler 06:49, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

Oh wow that Hollywood breast cancer talk page is amazing. Schafly is repeatly asked the most simple thing: where'd you get your data from? And he completely ignores the question and accuses people of liberal bias.

And he used Belinda Emmett as an example of a Hollywood breast cancer victim. She's Australian. Good grief. I mean I see what he's trying to prove: "the hollywood lifestyle is evil, look it gives women cancer!"

The insanity makes my brain hurt, has he always been like this?

Here's another scary page that I found after looking through the "mystery" link on the hollywood cancer page:

Do sports affect sexual preference?

And looking at the "talk" page from the above link, it's the same guy making the same arguments getting pwned again

The insanity makes my brain hurt, has he always been like this?

Pretty much. His mom was around during the Reagan years. She gets made fun of in the occasional Bloom County cartoon.

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)

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

Your American history course has some...interesting elements. For example, the fact that students' answers--and grades--are viewable by anyone and everyone who cares to look at them. No privacy whatsoever. Then there's the fact that every one of them seems to earn a high A.

At the university where I teach, either of these things--the lack of privacy, and the grade inflation--would be basis for a review of my teaching and potentially for dismissal. I wonder if you might comment on why you've chosen these approaches.--Jknott 08:27, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

We have prayer and honor in our homeschooling community, in contrast to the university culture. A student can leave his wallet on a classroom table and no one will steal the money inside. That's not true in a university these days, unfortunately. --Aschlafly 08:33, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

they're really hanging in there, waiting for the mask-off, on the obama page:

Obama will likely become the first Muslim to be sworn in as President, on January 20, 2009, and could select the Koran for this purpose.

A thought to eliminate parodists

I was thinking that a lot of parodists and vandals seem to be signing up. I wonder if there would be a way when someone signs up to scan the cookies stored on their web-browser and if there are any parodist or liberal websites in their history then it would prevent sign up. What do you think? QWest 19:35, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

Clever suggestion. Something to think about. Thanks.--Aschlafly 20:00, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

But wait, what about number 15 on Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia? There would be no way to see if it were a potential liberal vandal, or a conservative who was reading up on the enemy, so to speak, and it would also be in violation of at least one privacy law. --Konstanty 20:37, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

That's a pretty Orwellian suggestion. Besides, any serious parodist could simply clear their cookies. HelpJazz 20:45, 25 October 2008 (EDT) (Not to mention the points that Konstanty already brought up.
The points that others have made are good one, but the one that I would stress is the invasion of privacy aspect. No, this is not a good idea. Philip J. Rayment 22:05, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

The information wouldn't need to be made public. An automated process could look at the cookies or browser history, it wouldn't need to be stored so that way no person could see it. It's not an invasion of privacy, merely vetting potential members. QWest 13:28, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

The things on my computer are private; even if nobody sees them with their own eyes, they are gaining information about me by reading cookies. So it's still an invasion of privacy even if no human reads the files on my computer. HelpJazz 13:39, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

If you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear. Bugler 14:01, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

Assuming that the people in charge are all above reproach and infallible. Philip J. Rayment 00:12, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Also, criminals forfeit rights by engaging in unlawful behavior. Police will frisk and search the clothing of a burglar, for example, and he has no justified complaints based on privacy.--Aschlafly 14:12, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

Religion is the opium of the people
The hyperlinked source (17) on the aforementioned quote from Karl Marx is broken and I couldn't check to see if the quote was correct, so I did a little bit of research. In Selected Writings of Karl Marx (ISBN: 0-87220-218-6), the quote is translated as this:

Religious suffering is the expression of real suffering and at the same time the protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, as it is the spirit of spiritless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

It seems as if without the square brackets the connotation of the statement becomes drastically different, and implies neutrality rather than outward hostility. --JBEdgeworth 10:14, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for bringing that to our attention, JB -- that's valuable insight. The purpose of this article, however, is to take things out of context, to caricature atheism as much as possible. Providing the quote in its full, nuanced context would not aid toward that end. Ungtss 11:53, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

The context to that Marx quote is just part of the liberal atheistic conspiracy. You can't prove that he actually wrote that, unless you use sources written by lefties or published by lefties, which would obviously be biased. I suggest you read some books by creationist Christian fundamentalists on Marx instead of academic scholars (see professor values) if you want to know the truth.

Yes, actually using a quote by Marx would be inappropriate.--British_cons (talk) 13:53, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

I've endorsed before, and will continue to endorse, moderated account creation. That said, "frisking criminals" is a terrible analogy because that presumes everyone who signs up here is a criminal until proven otherwise! Likewise Bugler's bizarrely liberal "If you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear." I thought we were conservatives? Aziraphale 14:59, 26 October 2008 (EDT)#

In what way is my comment 'bizarrely liberal'? Bugler 15:05, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

The Liberal mentality is that an infringement of individual rights is fine because, after all, it only really affects the guilty. The true Conservative is a staunch defender of individual liberties in the face of a constant barrage of proposed limitations; allowing an infringement because "it doesn't hurt me" is just a safe way of saying "I'm not up to fighting this fight." Aziraphale 15:10, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

Bugler's comment is not "liberal." As the owner of this site, Aschlafly has the obligation and the right to protect his property. He is well within his rights to do whatever he has to to protect this site. We already know liberals will bleat that "its an invasion of privacy." They really like to invoke that one when it come to killing unborn children! Hopefully, some of the more liberal leaning discussants on this page will open their minds and embrace conservative values.--Saxplayer 15:15, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

Azi, by that logic you'd be saying that the supporters of the Patriot Act were all liberals. Because we said there's no problem in allowing the government to look at library borrowing records for recognized patterns of reading by terrorists and anti-Americans, because there's no harm that regular Americans would get caught in the dragnet. We allowed an "infringement" of our individual rights "because it doesn't hurt me" so by your reasoning the Patriot Act was letting the liberals win. I think any conservative would find that a laughable conclusion! -Foxtrot 15:17, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

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

― s1ocki, Saturday, 8 November 2008 16:06 (16 minutes ago)

Yes! I was thinking something like that myself, but I couldn't quite put it into words the way you did.

Stalin pic at head of the atheism article

I think the Joseph Stalin pic at the head of the article is a nice compliment to the Hitler pic at the head of the evolution article. If anyone has a suggestion on a better pic of Stalin which could be used this would certainly be appreciated. conservative 14:34, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

Yes, they are both fantastic, though I think the Hitler pic is better.--British_cons (talk) 14:42, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

British cons, I believe you have fine taste in pictures although your glowing endorsement may be providing undue influence in my estimation of your taste in pictures. :) If you could find a better pic of Stalin I would be most appreciative. In the meantime, I will replace the current picture of Stalin in the evolution article with the newly found Stalin picture which I featured in the atheism article. conservative 14:48, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

It's a crying shame there weren't any homosexual dictators, otherwise we could add one at the top of the article on homosexuality. Can we pass Alexander the Great off as a bloodthirsty gay?

We could always go with a couple of the early American presidents and maybe even some prominent scientists like A. Einstein. Foreversage 18:34, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

The only president who there's any real evidence for homosexuality is James Buchanan, and he wasn't really a bloodthirsty dictator or anything, just incompetent. --JeremyDB 18:51, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

Both the Joseph Stalin pic at the head of the article and the Hitler pic at the head of the evolution article do not fairly represent atheists or evolutionists fairly. Putting Stalin's picture there is like putting Osama bin Laden's picture at the head of a theism article!--JArneal 18:48, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

Jarneal, do you suggest we put at the top of the article a pic and caption reflecting how much less per capita American atheists give to charity even if church giving is not counted? See: Atheism and Uncharitableness conservative 19:57, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

I'm not really part of this discussion, but I would put that picture with the section on atheism and uncharitableness. (Personally, I think that shouldn't be in this article at all; this article should be about atheism as a philosophical viewpoint. The "atheism and uncharitableness" bit I would put in an article on atheists, atheism in America, or American atheists.) -CSGuy 20:00, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

CSGuy, I see no reason not to talk about the causes and effects of atheism. I do plan on covering more about the causes of atheism using some excellent sources. conservative 20:10, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

Spam Filter for no reason

Andy, the below is an addition to http://www.conservapedia.com/New_Testament_understanding_through_the_Jewish_perspective that I am trying to make. Each time I try to put it up, I get a Spam filter sign and the indicated word of offence "sh-t". I didn't write it and I don't see it. Maybe someone else could try. Could you get the below up for me? thanks!Bert Schlossberg 05:51, 6 November 2008 (EST)

As far as I can see, the problem arises from the Girgashites in Example 3.--BRichtigen 06:11, 6 November 2008 (EST)

That would be it. You can get caught by words already in the page or section that you are editing. In this particular case, this would should only be rejected as a complete word or in particular combinations, but that's not the way it was added. Philip J. Rayment 07:42, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Well, much as I try to avoid drawing on skills who use is indirectly and partially responsible for the enactment of the filter, I've enacted a stopgap measure - changed the 'i' to a Greek iota. It looks almost the same, although I think Jesus had something to say about changing not one iota ... --Wikinterpreter

Different Ρerspectives

Εver since the discovery of dinosaur fossils, there has been debate about whether and how dinosaurs fit into the history of life on Εarth. Υoung-Εarth creationists reject the uniformitarian time-scale, and therefore believe that humans and dinosaurs co-existed. Creationists also reject the now-popular idea that some dinosaurs evolved into birds.

Creationary Ρerspective

Young earth creationists believe, from the biblical account, that dinosaurs were created on day 6 of the creation week[5] approximately 6,000 years ago, along with other land animals, and therefore co-existed with humans. Αs such, they reject the theory of evolution and the beliefs of evolutionary scientists about the age of the earth.

Τhey believe that dinosaurs lived in harmony with other animals, (probably including in the Garden of Eden) eating only plants[6]; that pairs of each dinosaur kind were taken onto Noah's Ark during the Great Flood and were preserved from drowning[7]; that many of the fossilized dinosaur bones originated during the mass killing of the Flood[8]; and that possibly some descendants of those dinosaurs taken aboard the Αrk are still around today.[9]

Τhey use archaeological,[10] fossil,[11] and documentary[12] evidence to argue that dinosaurs co-existed with mankind until at least relatively recent times.

Βecause the term only came into use in the 19th century, the Bible does not use the word "dinosaur." Ηowever, they are alleged to be mentioned in numerous places throughout the biblical account. For example, the behemoth in Job and the leviathan in Isaiah are sometimes said to be references to dinosaurs,[13] [14], although others have claimed that Βehemoth and Leviathan are references to a hippopotamus or elephant and a crocodile respectively. Υoung-Εarth creationists point out that the descriptions don't fit these creatures, including that hippopotamuses and elephants don't have a "tail like a cedar".

In his book "The City of God", 5th century theologian St. Augustine supports this theory by asserting that giant bones that people sometimes encounter belonged to creatures present during the Great Flood but not surviving long afterwards.
Εxtinction

Creationists reject the "Great Ιmpact Τheory", pointing out multiple problems with this theory. [15]

Creationists assert that evolutionists are frequently coming out with a "Νew Τheory of Dinosaur Εxtinction" and that their theories are laden with false assumptions. [16] Ιt is worth noting, however, that more and more of these theories are being harmonized with one another.[17]
Dinosaur-like creatures in history and modern sightings

Creationists cite a number of reasons to believe that dinosaurs have existed until relatively recent times, and perhaps still survive.
Charles W. Gilmore, Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology with the United States National Museum, examined an ancient pictograph which he claimed portrays dinosaurs and man coexisting
Charles W. Gilmore, Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology with the United States National Museum, examined an ancient pictograph which he claimed portrays dinosaurs and man coexisting

* Τhere have been a number of claimed sightings of dinosaur-like creatures.
o Α thousand people reported seeing a dinosaur-like monster in two sightings around Sayram Lake in Χinjiang according to the Chinese publication, China Τoday.[Citation Needed]
o Locals in the Congo have reported a creature they name Μokele-mbembe[18], and from its description it appears to be a small plant-eating dinosaur. Τhe reports have been taken seriously enough that a biologist from the University of Chicago has made several expeditions to find the creature. Αnother biologist has reported seeing the creature.[18]
o Dinosaur-like creatures have been seen by several people in two different parts of Papua New Guinea since 1990.[19]
* Τhere are drawings of creatures resembling dinosaurs.
o Αn expedition which included Charles W. Gilmore, Curator of Vertebrate Ρaleontology with the United States Νational Μuseum, examined an ancient pictograph which he claimed portrays dinosaurs and man coexisting.[20][21].
o Τhe Nile Mosaic of Palestrina, a second century piece of art, is said to appear to be a piece of artwork that shows a dinosaur and man coexisting. [22]
o Εngravings in the floor of Carlisle Cathedral appear to be of dinosaurs. Τhey are on the tomb of bishop Richard Βell, who died in 1496.[23]
* Creatures matching dinosaurs and similar creatures have been described by various people groups.
o Τhe description of the "Thunder bird" of American Indians matches the descriptions of pterosaurs.[18]

* Descriptions of dragons are widespread and match descriptions of dinosaurs, suggesting that dragons were real creatures and were actually dinosaurs.
o Τhe World Βook Εncyclopedia states that: "Τhe dragons of legend are strangely like actual creatures that have lived in the past. Τhey are much like the great reptiles (dinosaurs) which inhabited the earth long before man is supposed to have appeared on earth." [24]. Dragons exist in the folklore of many Εuropean and Αsian cultures.[25] World Βook Εncyclopedia says, "Ιn Εurope, dragons are traditionally portrayed as ferocious beasts that represent the evils fought by human beings. Βut in Αsia, especially in China and Japan, the animals are generally considered friendly creatures that ensure good luck and wealth."[25]
o Dragons appear in the flag of Wales, in traditional Chinese New Years' Day celebrations, and in the Chinese calendar. Εvery other creature on the calendar is a real creature.

A portion of the artwork the Nile Mosaic of Palestrina
A portion of the artwork the Nile Mosaic of Palestrina

* Τhat dinosaurs are not known from the fossil record above the Cretaceous strata is not reason to believe that they have not survived until more recent times.
o Living specimens of orders of animals that were believed to have been extinct for millions of years have been found before, such as the Diatomyidae Squirrel [26], the Wollemi Pine [27] and the Coelacanth [28] [29].

* Τhe recent dinosaur tissue find is a strong rebuttal of the claim that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. [30]

Dinosaur fossils and Ηuman Fossils and Geological Strata

Ιt is sometimes asserted that if human bones aren’t found with dinosaur bones, then dinosaurs and man didn’t live together.[47][48] Creation scientists point out that this is a false assumption; if human bones aren’t found buried with dinosaur bones, it simply means they weren't buried together.[47]

Εvolutionists point out that radiometric dating of rocks containing dinosaur bones shows them to have formed between 65 million years ago and 250 million years ago, whereas rocks with human bones in them are dated as being much newer (less than 5 million years old). Υoung Εarth Creationists believe that these methods of dating rocks provide false results, and therefore reject this argument.

Creationists note that the fossil record contains mainly marine organisms and that a small sliver of the fossil record contains vertebrates and thus assert that we shouldn't expect to find many human fossils at all.[47] Μoreover, as the biblical Flood would be a marine catastrophe, it would be expected that marine fossils would dominate the fossil record. Τhis is in fact what we find.[49]

Αpproximately 70% of the Εarth is covered in salt water which would also explain the dominance of marine fossils. Ιn addition, creation scientists assert there may have been a small pre-flood human population and that massive amounts of flood sediment are why we haven’t found human fossils in pre-biblical flood sediments.[49] Αlso, creation scientists point out that we don't find human bones buried with coelacanths yet humans and coelacanths coexist today.[47]

Day 6 Creation Mechanisms?

The article states, "Young Earth Creationists believe...that dinosaurs were created on Day 6 of the creation week". I wonder if the article could explain the theories suggested for the actual mechanism of Dinosaur creation? The evidence seems to suggest that there were a lot of dinsosaurs, of many different types, and in many different places on the planet - I don't think YEC's dispute that, although I could be wrong. Did God 'wave a wand' and the creatures (like us) 'pop into existence', or is there a suggestion that God evolved them very rapidly, within the same day? Did they come into existence fully formed, in multiple locations over the planet, or did they distribute themselves rapidly? What, basically, was the sequence of events on Day 6 of The Creation? I wonder what the theories suggest might have happened? 50something 20:33, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

The Bible doesn't explain much at all about that, and creationists have speculated very little on it.
There is no suggestion at all that there was rapid evolution. The basic information is that God spoke them into existence. But apart from there being different "kinds", how many there were and how widespread they were is not indicated.
The only clue that might be gleaned is from the more-detailed description of the creation of man, yet even there, there is a hint that man was not created in the same way as the animals, fish, and birds.
One thing can be deduced, however, and that is that they were created as fish, birds, and animals, not as eggs and embryos (so which came first, the chicken or the egg? The chicken), and presumably mature ones at that, consistent with Adam and Eve who were created in a mature state.
Philip J. Rayment 02:44, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

That's really interesting Philip. I'm glad you responded. But it makes me wonder? Like, for example, why haven't creationists speculated more about this? And what is the actual mechanism of being spoken into existence'? It seems kind of important to know about that, no? And another thing - if they were created as mature creatures, how would they have learned how to eat, walk, breathe or anything else - since instinct is presumably inherited, and if they had no parents, there would have been no creatures to inherit traits from? 50something 03:38, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Why haven't they speculated more? In the case of the method of creation, perhaps because there is so little to go on. In the case of the distribution, I suspect because the changes wrought by the flood would have wiped out any evidence of their original distribution, so such speculation would be fairly pointless.
Another thing to keep in mind is that creationists, for all intents and purposes, get no government and very little private funding, and there is simply far more important things to research with the meagre resources available. Perhaps one day there will be some research or at least speculation into these matters.
If instinct is indeed inherited, that means that it's in the genes, which God would have built them with, so parents would not be necessary. But a more general answer is simply that God created them already knowing those things, just as clearly must have been the case with Adam and language; from pretty well the moment that Adam was created, God was talking with him. Who taught Adam language? Clearly God created him with that ability.
Philip J. Rayment 11:30, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

I wonder if birds - even dinosaur birds - were created in mid-air, flying? It seems hard to believe they were spoken into existence on the ground, and then took off, never having flown before? It's such a big change of state for them. And now that I think about it, I wonder is there any evidence of baramins that were created in the wrong location? Did God make mistakes? - probably not, but if he was speaking trillions of creatures into existence over an entire planet in a matter of minutes or seconds, it would be unbelievable that there wouldn't be one or two errors? Could this, for example, be any explanation of penguins, i.e. underwater birds?

I find this whole subject fascinating, and Conservapedia is the best resource on these subjects I've found yet. 50something 12:33, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

I've heard this theory before - that penguins actually came into existence underwater by accident, and that's why they are birds that can't fly but swim. I think you're right about instinct PJR - if the animals were spoken into existence while flying, it would mean they would immediately naturally acquire the ability to fly. Anyway, I think some of these theories should go into the article, no? Do we have any links or anything? Feichineejits 18:50, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

I don't find it hard to believe that they took off from the ground, never having flown before, but at the moment I can't think of a really good reason why they couldn't have been created in flight.
God doesn't make mistakes, and God is not bound by time, because He doesn't exist in time; it is something that He created. So it is incorrect to say that He did all this in a matter of minutes or seconds in the sense that that is some sort of constraint for him.
As far as penguins go, I'd suggest that they are simply one example (of many) of creatures that don't fit the idea of an evolutionary tree, but fit the idea of God creating creatures in more of a "table" arrangement than a "tree" arrangement, whereby some creatures have features that are otherwise found in completely separate branches of the evolutionary tree. Evolutionists call this convergence, but convergence has been described as simply a term to explain things that don't fit the evolutionary explanation.
I'm not sure what any of this has to do with this article, and I wouldn't want to put it in any article without some evidence that creationary scientists have been discussing these sorts of thing.
Philip J. Rayment 23:01, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

You said "it is incorrect to say that He did all this in a matter of minutes or seconds in the sense that that is some sort of constraint for him", which is fair enough, I completely agree. But just to be clear - this did all happen in 24 hours on Day 6, yes? That's what the article says, anyway. Feichineejits 23:19, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

The key point is, "in the sense that it is some sort of constraint for him". He did do it all within a few 24-hour days as would be measured on Earth. Birds and fish (or probably more accurately, creatures that fly and creatures that swim in the sea) were created on day 5, with land animals on day 6. Philip J. Rayment 23:39, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

But if birds and fish were created on Day 5, what about the sea-living dinosaurs or flying dinosaurs like Pterodactyls? Were they created on Day 5, not Day 6? I'm confused! 50something 23:53, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Note that I said "creatures that fly and creatures that swim in the sea", rather than "birds and fish". This would indicate that plesiosaurs and the like, and pterodactyls and the like were created on day 5, not six. And although they tend to get lumped in with dinosaurs, they are not strictly classified as dinosaurs. Philip J. Rayment 02:40, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

Point of information. There weren't any marine dinosaurs, nor were pterodactyls dinosaurs. See the TolWeb page for archosauria. You can see that dinosauria and pterosauria share a common ancestor, but neither group contains the other. Trace the ancestors back to diapsida, and you can see that icthyosaurs and sauropterygia (including plesiosaurs) apparently branched off even earlier than the dino/ptero split. Once the dinosaurs got onto dry land, they stayed there, at least until they learned to fly.--All Fish Welcome 05:12, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

All Fish Welcome - the point of CP is to fight for the underfunded and underepresented views of The Creation, which are suppressed by the MSM and scientists. Your suggestions are based on the presumption that 'branching' from common ancestors occurred - and that's what we disagree with here. PJR - do you have any evidence to refute the evolutionist viewpoint above? And does no-one here have any more information on the Creation mechanisms? I'm really interested in seeing if we can really be detailed in this (and other articles) - at present it seems like this article dances around these events, wihtout really explaining, or attempting to explain, what may have happened on these Creation Days. 50something 18:55, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

All Fish Welcome was making the same point that I was making, that sea-dwelling and flying "dinosaurs" are not actually categorised as dinosaurs. He illustrated his point with evolutionary assumptions, but the point itself is valid.
I've already indicated that I don't think we know enough to write anything more about what actually happened on the creation days.
Philip J. Rayment 22:01, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

But if we don't know anything about them, how can we put it in an encyclopedia? Don't you think it's exactly the trap the evolutionists want to find us in - for us to make a claim and not be able back it up? Surely the point was to show not just the what, but the how of our beliefs? That's what I understood anyway. 50something 22:41, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

We are not putting them in an encyclopedia; that's been my point. That is, we are not putting anything about the creation mechanisms in Conservapedia. But that doesn't mean that we can't put anything at all about creation in. Since when do we have to be able to explain every last detail before we can include anything? Philip J. Rayment 01:21, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

Well, of course not, no, you're right! But where CAN I find out about this topic? I had thought that CP would have been the perfect place to learn (and teach others) about these things, having had my interest sparked by all the articles here on CP that talk about it. Do you know anywhere I can learn about the subject? Is there a resource on the internet that describes what is actually being proposed? 50something 04:03, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

I suggest that you try Creation Ministries International[1]. If there has been any research into these things, they would be among the most likely to know about it. Philip J. Rayment 05:21, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

PFR - Well, this is proving tricky. I searched and searched through CMI's site, and while there's plenty of interesting research there, it seems there's nothing at all about 'What Actually Happened'. I mean, there's lots and lots of articles that debunk ToE theories and they're all excellent, but there doesn't seem to be a single article that actually lays out the Creation Events - this happened, then this happened, etc. (Or, 'it is propsed that this happened, then this may have happened' - I suppose we can never know exactly). They do explain that the days were in fact 24 hour days. And there's a good article about how creationism is the most likely mechanism behind proteins, etc, but even that article says that proteins and higher life forms aare enormously complex and take a long, long time to build. But if that's the case, how could trillions of complex creatures have been created in billions of locations all around the planet, within 24 hours? I'm even more confused now! Anyone who has any links, please post them for me, I'm a woman on an educational misison now! God bless, 50something 14:19, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I didn't expect you to find anything on their site. The link was to the page where you can ask them questions; I thought that was your best chance of finding an answer. Proteins only take a long time to build if they are occurring naturally, not if they are created supernaturally. Philip J. Rayment 03:54, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

I wonder if birds - even dinosaur birds - were created in mid-air, flying?

All that arguing over scanning cookies and it can't even be done.

omg, birds. talking about not being able to tell the different between reality and parody, those two responses to the Marx quote, wtf? I can't believe them as either reality or parody.

lol conservapedia hall of mirrors

like a less funny IRE

This is either the funniest parody site ever or, er, I can't even imagine the alternative.

It's not a parody site, but there are likely Colbertist operatives within.

I wonder how they square Obama's adherence to the tenets of Islam and Sharia law with the several instances of him drinking alcohol.

He arrogantly thinks he's above sharia law.

Look, if conservative Christians can believe in stoning homosexuals yet wear garments of mixed wool and cotton fibers, then clearly Muslims can also pick and choose what rules they follow, right?

The thing about these people(rightwing auhoritarian follower-types) is something like what Chris Hedges has talked about in his book _American Fascists_ and what we've discussed previously; ultimately, most of them are victims. Reality and modernity have resulted in them being either left out or left behind. The various ways they were able to handle(or ignore, if need be) daily life have changed or been destroyed in the last half-century. Either they weren't able to cope, or the families & communities they were born into weren't, and so they fall into or choose this unreality. Fred Clark has talked about this for years in detailing American Evangelical Culture and his weekly hilarious eviseceration of the first _Left Behind_ book.

And so we're left with folks who are pretty undeveloped, have never allowed themselves(or been allowed) times of self-reflection, or emotional maturity. And so you get this bullshit infantile, incoherent, and at times superbly comic example of cognitive dissonance in real-time.

But yeah, a lot of them are still fuckheads, and as John Dean and Dr Bob Altermeyer wrote, part of the fraction of America(sorta like your Bee Enn Pee-types, perhaps?) who would happily march us into a brutal, violent theocracy, if not full-on fascism, and think us all better for it.

They are completely shameless...

Obama recently referred to his "Muslim faith."[30]

The reference number leads to a note which leads to a youtube clip clearly showing the opposite.

Does anyone read this crap apart from us though?

oh plenty do, but mainly for the lolz, i'd suspect

That's kind of what I meant. I don't see anyone actually referencing this stuff.

Critical Thinking in Math

* Is this ever going to happen? It's now been over a year since it was scheduled to start . . . -CSGuy 19:15, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

I've found greater interest in American History right now, so it's taken first priority. It's unfortunate that some who have math skills seem resistant to looking at math critically.--Aschlafly 22:17, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

Watch out, the people with math skills are part of the liberal plot too!

I can't stop reading it!

Reasonable Explanations for Atheism

There are a number of reasonable explanations for atheism:

* Moral depravity:

It's not a parody site, but there are likely Colbertist operatives within.

― ᑥ ᑥ ᑥ (libcrypt), Saturday, November 8, 2008 5:33 PM (4 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

I'm pretty sure at least 25% of these are "Cobertist" operatives

coLbertist

still my all-time favorite conservapedia passage:

According to the origins theory model used by young earth creation scientists, modern kangaroos are the descendants of the two founding members of the modern kangaroo baramin that were taken aboard Noah's Ark prior to the Great Flood. It has not yet been determined by baraminologists whether kangaroos form a holobaramin with the wallaby, tree-kangaroo, wallaroo, pademelon and quokka, or if all these species are in fact apobaraminic or polybaraminic.

After the Flood, these kangaroos bred from the Ark passengers migrated to Australia. There is debate whether this migration happened over land[6] with lower sea levels during the post-flood ice age, or before the supercontinent of Pangea broke apart[7] The idea that God simply generated kangaroos into existence there is considered by most creation researchers to be contra-Biblical.

Other views on kangaroo origins include the belief of some Australian Aborigines that kangaroos were sung into existence by their ancestors during the "Dreamtime" [8] and the evolutionary view that kangaroos and the other marsupials evolved from a common marsupial ancestor which lived hundreds of millions of years ago.[9]

Man, these retards are retarded.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Starlight_problem

Corky Romano

Do we really want to promote movies that will never be classics? And about this kind of subject matter?--TerryHTalk 09:57, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

* Deleted --Ed Poor 15:31, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Category: Articles for deletion -> Cheesy potatoes

Keep

Cheesy potatoes can taste pretty darn good, and it would serve the average Conservapedian to have access to a recipe that is sure to provide a low-cost, high-taste alternative to Easy Mac. --Huey gunna getcha 16:01, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Neutral

* I'm neutral on this. I don't think we really need an article on cheesy potatoes, and if we do have an article I think it should be useful to the reader and give the full ingredients list and cooking directions, without holding back any secrets. Dpbsmith 15:08, 10 March 2007 (EST)

P. S. I see no reason at all why this couldn't go on User:TimothyR, TimothyR's own user page, so I'm going to take the liberty of copying it there now in case the article gets deleted before he has a chance to copy it. Dpbsmith 11:28, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Are we too high-brow to include entries on one of the most delicious of summer side-dishes? A good batch of cheesy potatoes can make an ordinary steak seem gourmet. Deleting this entry would abuse the principles of an encyclopedia: Is something relevant only if it has some sort of large societal impact? The encyclopedia's comprehensiveness is it's main strength: Eliminate cheesy potatoes and you can never be a true reference. Mittromney 16:18, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

I suspect you of being tongue-in-cheek, but if this is your opinion shouldn't it go in the "keep" section? Dpbsmith 14:29, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Delete

* I believe it should be deleted - and not only because I hate cheese potatoes. If we want to make this a professional site we're going to need professional articles and posts and avoid cheesy posts like this. Cheesy potatoes really doesn't fit the bill....Tash 17:08, 10 March 2007 (EST)

* I believe this should be deleted as it really isn't encyclopedic. I suggest deleting this article and making one on potatoes in general. Sulgran 20:53, 10 March 2007 (EST)

* This is silly. MountainDew 00:45, 11 March 2007 (EST)

* Delete Geo. 00:48, 11 March 2007 (EST)

* Would rather suit a cook book than an encyclopedic entry.

haha, lookee what i found:

Political and Social Themes

Several stories in the series have been subtly or overtly political in their themes. For instance, The Green Death (1973) emphasized the dangers of pollution and big business; while the following year's Invasion of the Dinosaurs featured a contrasting menace -- pro-environment extremists. Other stories have taken their themes from current news stories of the time, such as the United Kingdom's entry into the Common Market. Many of these pro-liberal stories came during the period where the show was produced by Barry Letts, whose heavily liberal and environmentalist views shaped a lot of stories in the early 1970s. Apart from this period, the original series generally did not have a particularly heavily political leaning (perhaps reflecting the less liberal culture in the BBC in those times), and in fact The Sun Makers (1977) was a pro-Conservative story that told of the dangers of heavy taxes and overly complex governments.

In a recent episode, the Daleks - Doctor Who's most dangerous enemy, a race of creatures who are physically shriveled and weak but contained within an armored tank-like body - take over Manhattan. They ruthlessly exploit workers engaged in construction and repair on the Empire State Building. This was reported in the British newspaper The Independent as a metaphor for the rampant abuse of capitalism. Conservative writers in The Guardian have used this as supposed evidence of the BBC pumping out "relentless socialist propaganda", although others argue that this assumes an inherently Marxist perspective. The lead writer of Dr. Who, Russell T Davies is known for aggressively promoting the gay agenda in his prior show Queer as Folk and continuing to promote it in Doctor Who (despite the fact that the show is supposed to be geared towards a young audience), with many openly gay or bisexual characters, including the lead of the spin-off Torchwood, Captain Jack Harkness. Davies' attitude has been contrasted with that of John Nathan-Turner, the final producer of the original series who, while being publicly known as a homosexual, never allowed this to overtly influence the stories written while he produced the show.

again, Poe's Law at work:

Dalek
A Dalek is a member of race of cyborgs which hail from the planet Skaro. They are featured in the internationally-popular BBC TV show Doctor Who. Externally they are pepperpot-shaped metallic machines, with a single eye-stalk, a gun, and a utility arm, but internally they are controlled by an amorphous Kaled mutant. The Dalek race is fiercely resistant to malign outside influence, and the purity of their race is of the utmost concern to them. The liberal BBC paint these characteristics in a most negative manner since the Daleks are essentially a conservative race. Indeed when Terry Nation first came up with the concept he modelled them after a right of centre political entity. In the new series of Doctor Who the Daleks are shown to be religious, instructing the Doctor and his companions not to blaspheme. However, they seem to follow some sort of heathen emperor worship cult rather than a genuine religion.
Categories: Fictional characters | Science fiction

"some sort of heathen emperor worship cult"

The liberal BBC paint these characteristics in a most negative manner since the Daleks are essentially a conservative race. Indeed when Terry Nation first came up with the concept he modelled them after a right of centre political entity.

that's the thing; there's too much statistical noise, if you will, to tell if this is real or not. I mean, ferchrissakes, you have Nyder wearing Iron Crosses and a black uniform. 'Right of centre'?!

http://www.kaldorcity.com/graphics/screengrabs/genesis1.jpg

A tangential and probably not at all original thought (I've never studied any of this but I'm assuming I'm saying something really obvious to many) but it's interesting how conservatives construct their conservatism along continuous, unchanging lines, when the beliefs themselves, whatever they may be, and wherever or whenever they occur, are no more than recent inventions. At the dawn of the industrial revolution, conservatism implied a kind of environmentalism insofar as the new machinery, the growth of the city, and the arrival of mass production, was often seen as a threat to the land itself, or at least to traditional agricultural life. Somehow, recently, all that has flipped: now conservatism is allied to, rather than opposed to, the mass mobilisation of workers and technology. That's probably what conservatism is at heart, of course, ie, the maintenance of a myth that what is happening now is what has always happened.

* Descriptions of dragons are widespread and match descriptions of dinosaurs, suggesting that dragons were real creatures and were actually dinosaurs.

* Descriptions of dragons are widespread and match descriptions of dinosaurs, suggesting that dragons were real creatures and were actually dinosaurs.

* Descriptions of dragons are widespread and match descriptions of dinosaurs, suggesting that dragons were real creatures and were actually dinosaurs.

The page on F.D.Roosevelt is some str8 up nasty weasely shit.

That's probably what conservatism is at heart, of course, ie, the maintenance of a myth that what is happening now is what has always happened.

thx for this

Apart from this period, the original series generally did not have a particularly heavily political leaning (perhaps reflecting the less liberal culture in the BBC in those times)

Damn those conservative titties and Benny Hill gags.

Ha yeah I thought I was being really obvious, allow me my baby steps.

http://www.conservapedia.com/IQ

http://www.fixmbr.de/wp-content/uploads/us_election_iq.jpg

A sympathy vote is a vote given in an election to a candidate because of that candidate's apparent disabilities. It is believed[Citation Needed] that up to 3% of the votes given to Barack Obama during the 2008 presidential election was sympathy votes, enough to have determined the outcome in favour of Sen. Obama.

somebody please please put that election iq jpg on teh IQ page

don't think you can link to external images.

also it's a hoax ;_;
http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/stateiq.asp

Their obsession with homosexuality is most comical. http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality weighs in at an impressive 23,000 words, almost exactly double the wikipedia entry. And many of the sections link off to longer separate pages - just in the health bracket alone you can find pages on
* Homosexuality and AIDS
* Homosexuality and MRSA
* Homosexuality and Syphilis
* Homosexuality and Gonorrhea
* Homosexuality and Lymphogranuloma Venereum
* Homosexuality and Parasites
* Homosexuality and Proctitus
* Homosexuality and Hepatitis
* Homosexuality and Shigellosis
* Homosexuality and Anal Cancer
* Homosexuality and Illegal Drug Use
* Homosexuality and Mental Health
* Gay Bowel Syndrome
* Homosexual bathhouses and disease
* Homosexual circuit parties and disease
* Lesbianism and Obesity

still my all-time favorite conservapedia passage:

According to the origins theory model used by young earth creation scientists, modern kangaroos are the descendants of the two founding members of the modern kangaroo baramin that were taken aboard Noah's Ark prior to the Great Flood. It has not yet been determined by baraminologists whether kangaroos form a holobaramin with the wallaby, tree-kangaroo, wallaroo, pademelon and quokka, or if all these species are in fact apobaraminic or polybaraminic.

After the Flood, these kangaroos bred from the Ark passengers migrated to Australia. There is debate whether this migration happened over land[6] with lower sea levels during the post-flood ice age, or before the supercontinent of Pangea broke apart[7] The idea that God simply generated kangaroos into existence there is considered by most creation researchers to be contra-Biblical.

Other views on kangaroo origins include the belief of some Australian Aborigines that kangaroos were sung into existence by their ancestors during the "Dreamtime" [8] and the evolutionary view that kangaroos and the other marsupials evolved from a common marsupial ancestor which lived hundreds of millions of years ago.[9]

― With a little bit of gold and a Peja (bernard snowy), Saturday, 8 November 2008 22:32 (2 days ago) Bookmark

More like lolobaramin amirite?

also it's a hoax ;_;
http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/stateiq.asp

Why I'll be... Apologies, I had no idea. :-(

* Lesbianism and Obesity

^^lol

Obsessed? I don't know, they don't have a portal yet.

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Sexual_intercourse&diff=prev&oldid=277307

indeed

or, indeed!

Category:Human Sexuality
From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

There is currently no text in this page, you can search for this page title in other pages or edit this page.

Conservative Party MP and Shadow Minister Damian Green embarrassed Britain's Socialist government by revealing its lies and blunders over immigration policy once too often - so they had him arrested and held incommunicado for nine hours. So much for the respect of liberals and leftists for freedom and democracy. Americans can look forward to this kind of thing as the Obama caliphate takes hold. [1]

hahahahaha obama caliphate

Yeahm Damian Green who, like all British conservatives (at least pretends to) believe in 'socialized medicine'.

Bob Seger (b. 1945) is a popular American rock musician. One of his biggest hits is the song "Night Moves." This article is a stub. You can help Conservapedia by expanding it.

Britain's Socialist government

Americans can look forward to this kind of thing as the Obama caliphate takes hold. [1]

i love that this is footnoted.

changing by the hour!

http://www.conservapedia.com/Damian_Green

Damian Green is a British politician and Conservative Party member of the House of Commons. He is the party's spokesman on immigration policy, and has repeatedly embarrassed the ruling socialist Labour Party, pointing out many incidences of incompetence and bungling, and exposing lies told by Home Office ministers responsible for immigration policy. In November 2008 he was arrested by a large squad of anti-terrorist police and held incommunicado for nine hours, while his home and office were searched. The case has raised grave disquiet about the misuse of police powers by the socialists in power in order to stifle dissent.[1]
HELP US IN THE UK - WE ARE IN SERIOUS POLITICAL TROUBLE. DAMIAN GREEN WAS ARRESTED BY OUR OUT-OF-CONTROL RULING LABOUR PARTY. PLEASE RAISE AWARENESS IN AMERICA - OUR ALLIES FOR SO LONG:
Incredibly, in the last five or ten years, we have seen - or rather not seen - an enormous change in the democratic freedoms afforded to British citizens. To name but a handful; we are being forced to adopt unwanted and malignant identity cards (despite owning passports already), we can be placed under 42 day arrest for mere suspicions, our government cannot keep a track nor hold of our personal data and we have been pushed into two controversial wars apparently under our ruling party's need to be associated with right-wing America.
Now we are being asked to accept that a political opposition leader can be arrested apparently at the behest of the ruling party, without a statement any more substantial than a cursory "i didn't know" from our illustrious, scheming and power-crazy prime minister. Does this scenario remind you of anything? Let's consult that good old standby, namely Recent History. Namely Zimbabwe. China. Russia. Iraq. Syria. Rwanda. DR Congo....need I go on?
We are on a precipice - and the chasm beneath us is as dark as it can possibly get. Our nation - for so long a shining paradigm of democracy and fairness that the world could aspire to - is hanging by a thread. And the worst of it? That our government can create this police state to either rapturous applause whipped up by the right-wing idiots of the tabloid press, or the sheer political apathy that has infected most of our population and which has allowed this vile Labour government to spread uncontrolled, far beyond the realms of the free 'Western' world. We must regain control of our nation as a people, before the dark dreams of our 'leaders' stop us from doing so altogether.

The Trustworthy Encyclopedia

Random serendipitous searching comes up with fun:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Violent_video_games

Violent video games
Violent video games are video games that teach and encourage the players -- typically children -- to engage in horrific virtual violence. Teenagers playing these games are desensitized to violent and criminal acts[1][2]. In a particular study specifically children who were diagnosed with neurotic behavior and predisposition to aggression reacted to violent stimuli brought by video games, though not all of them showed aggressive behavior as a consequence[3].
Examples of violent video games include:
Grand Theft Auto (series) -- The series, which now spans ten games, is considered a "sandbox" game where a player can roam around a virtual city at will. The player is able to obtain many different types of weapons, murder anyone they encounter including other criminals and prostitutes, innocent bystanders, and even police officers. One of the games also included a modification that allowed a player to engage in graphic sexual acts in the game however this was not made for the public and was found long after the original release.
Doom and Quake are first person shooter games wherein a player roams around various levels killing various demonic creatures. The games have been described as murder simulators and were blamed as inspiration for the Columbine Massacre as well as other school shootings.
Postal 2: Apocalypse Weekend (M-rated) -- The ads for this first-person shooter boast that new weapons will enable you "to hack your enemies to meaty bits!" It involves a game character who commits violent acts against unarmed civilians. Other features in the Postal series include: urinating on people to make them vomit in disgust, using cats as shotgun silencers, and playing fetch with dogs using human heads.
The Punisher (M-rated) -- Game player is able to jam knives into victims' sternums and pull up to increase the damage, cut off heads, ram a character's open mouth onto a curb, run a character over with a forklift, rip a character's arms off with an industrial hook, and set a character on fire in an electric chair.
Resident Evil (series) (M-rated) -- Includes chainsaw decapitations and impalements, and zombies and other monsters ripping off other characters' throats and biting off their heads. A promotional chainsaw shaped controller was released with Resident Evil 4.
Manhunt (M-rated) -- Game player's character is James Earl Cash, a convicted serial killer facing execution. The execution is ordered to be faked so that a character named "The Director" can use Cash as a star in a series of snuff films. As the Cash character kills other characters, by suffocating them with a plastic bag, slicing them up with a chainsaw, shooting them point blank with a nail gun, stabbing them in the eyeballs with a glass shard, or beheading them with a cleaver, The Director makes sexually vulgar comments. The game has two difficulty settings: fetish and hardcore.
God of War (M-rated) -- Game features disembowelment, mouth-stabbing, eye-gouging, severed limbs, and human sacrifice.
Silent Hill 1-4 -- large portions of these games involve roaming around decaying buildings and beating hideously malformed humanoid monsters to death with blunt instruments.
Condemned -- Requires the player to bludgeon NPC's to death.
The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit declared this to be free speech and struck down a Minnesota law that prohibited minors from purchasing or renting video games bearing a "Mature" or "Adult Only" rating.[4]
See also

Video games
References

↑ http://www.townhall.com/columnists/PhyllisSchlafly/2008/04/07/violent_video_games_held_to_be_free_speech?page=2
↑ http://www.apa.org/science/psa/sb-anderson.html
↑ http://www.qj.net/Study-Violent-games-don-t-alter-normal-kids/pg/49/aid/88522
↑ Entm't Software Ass'n v. Swanson, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 5634 (8th Cir. Mar. 17, 2008).

I'm disappointed that the God of War entry doesn't list the whoring, including the button-mashing/sexualizing sequences

large portions of these games involve roaming around decaying buildings

o no!

The game publishers should use those descriptions in their advertising, sure to shift a few more copies.

large portions of these games involve roaming around decaying buildings and beating hideously malformed humanoid monsters to death with blunt instruments.

Wait, is that, like, "wrong?" I mean, surely befriending the monsters, or treating them as a sort of policing issue, would be a liberal thing to do.

Are they in favor of Hideously Malformed Humanoid Monster rehabilitation services, or are they just afraid of being mistaken for one of them?

I'm disappointed that the God of War entry doesn't list the whoring, including the button-mashing/sexualizing sequences

andy schlafly never found those parts

Hahaha that British uh "addendum" in the Damian Green thing! A+ conservapedia trolling.

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Sarah_Palin&diff=prev&oldid=523414

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=People's_Republic_of_China&diff=prev&oldid=471393

Guy who did the Damien Greene edits has got some choice back catalogue cuts.

Offensive remarks by Sandra Bernhard

Hi. The liberal comedian Sandra Bernhard made remarks which were deeply offensive to Sarah Palin and to Christians in a recent comedy performance. Breadan43 15:50, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

andy schlafly never found those parts

excellent, a double-edged zing, points for you

"A crowd much smaller than the millions predicted by the liberal media show up in D.C. for Obama's swearing in as President.[8] His first official order is expected to be to authorize taxpayer funding for abortion in foreign countries. "

LOL

I second that LOL.

I don't know, this is pretty much LOL all the way:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Obama?&&

I know we lost a week...
But we can't stay in some alternate universe where G.W.Bush is still president forever, especially if this article is going to link to the front page. We need to update this article to show that Obama is now president. I would do so, but its locked. As it has been. For quite some time. --DReynolds 23:57, 27 January 2009 (EST)

trustworthy

Have we mentioned Andy Schlafly's recent effort to rewrite(not retranslate) the Bible to fit in line with the rightwing ego-defense that the rest of the site?

link plz

what has to happen to a person to have this kind of break with reality?

wat

If that's not just fronting, it deserves a new thread.

'allegedly born in Honolulu', sets the tone straight away.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Essay:Adulteress_Story

hang on aren't you banned

When he takes office, President Obama will be the first person having ties to a known former terrorist to gain control over America's nuclear weapons.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Bible_Retranslation_Project

http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Bible_Retranslation_Project

And the Rationalwiki converage: http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Conservapedia:Bible_Retranslation_Project

Project outline

The project apparently does not involve much actual translating (e.g., from the original Hebrew texts or later Latin or Greek texts), but rather changing words and concepts that Schlafly feels threatens his personal concept of Christian Conservatism. It is more of an alteration project; rather than addressing the ancient texts, the words of the original authors and the context in which they were written, Schlafly and his close supporters are aiming to modify the language in existing English translations of biblical text. This is probably because, while claiming to have expertise in ancient Greek,(1) he seems to have a shaky grasp of it and isn't even sure that's what Jesus was speaking.(2)
(edit) Reasons behind the project

The stated rationale behind the project is that English is changing (or "devolving" according to Schlafly(3)) so rapidly that the words in previous Biblical translations are no longer accurate. Schlafly goes on to say that "If a word inevitably alters its meaning after an approximate number of uses, then the time period for the change in meaning will shorten due to improved technology". The project also focuses on the fact that several new words have entered the English lexicon since the original translations of the Bible and that these could be useful in adding new bias giving the translation more relevant meaning (naturally, these words include homeschool and conservative). Presumably this means that by the time the project is completed, it will already be out of date and a new translation will be required to compensate for further devolution.

The roots of the idea seem to lie in Schlafly's Conservapedia entry for Disputed Biblical Translations, started earlier in December 2008. In this he lamented that recent translations such as the New International Version have fewer direct mentions of Hell, the Devil and the divinity of Jesus Christ than are in the King James Version. Of course in Schlafly's mind this is all about liberal creep and misappropriation, rather than anything to do with advances in classical scholarship over the past four centuries...

I parsed that incorrectly. (xp)

Suggested Improvement
replace "behemoth" with "dinosaur"

From the Obama entry:

"He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action."

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservative&diff=prev&oldid=611260

daily mail: not conservative

Do all their entries read like book reports written by 4th graders with wingnut parent?

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Gardasil&diff=next&oldid=609636

rape: less likely than being struck & killed by lightning

i'm basically giving up on talking to conservatives about anything ever again based on the reactions to some i know about obama's arab tv interview, mostly thanks to comments along the lines of "these people can't be reasoned with, he's one of them, see he admits it" etc

Essay:Differences Between Homeschoolers and Public Schoolers
From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

There are some fundamental differences of significance between homeschoolers and public schoolers:

1. Homeschoolers are consistently more proficient in mathematics, science, writing, and language.[1]
2. Homeschoolers do not stop learning upon receipt of a diploma; most public schoolers do not try to learn outside of school
3. Homeschoolers vote at three times the rate of public schoolers, when they become of voting age
4. Homeschoolers engage in less deceit than public schoolers, and are less easily amused by it
5. Homeschoolers form fewer cliques and gangs than public schoolers
6. Homeschoolers are less amused by profanity, and rarely have the compulsive profanity common to public schoolers
7. Homeschoolers are more able to be self-employed or self-disciplined without requiring constant supervision.
8. Homeschoolers are more likely to embrace faith and have a close relationship with God.
9. Homeschoolers pray more often than students in public school, where prayer is censored.
10. Homeschoolers perform better on average on all standardized test that are not infested with liberal bias (and even some that are)
11. Homeschoolers attain higher literacy rates and reading competence, due to an absence of anti-intellectual peer pressure.[2]
12. Homeschoolers have much lower teen pregnancy rates, and abortion is almost unknown among homeschoolers.

Do they ever cite any sources when making these claims?

[1]

[2]

1. ↑ Dr. Brian Ray, A Nationwide Study of Home Education: Family Characteristics, Legal Matters, and Student Achievement, National Home Education Research Institute, Seattle, WA, 1990, p. 53-54.
2. ↑ Dr. Brian Ray, A Nationwide Study of Home Education: Family Characteristics, Legal Matters, and Student Achievement, National Home Education Research Institute, Seattle, WA, 1990, p. 53-54.

1990

OMG these people are fuckin' deluded.

12. Homeschoolers have much lower teen pregnancy rates, and abortion is almost unknown among homeschoolers.

aint the only thing unknown by homeschoolers amirite

http://www.nheri.org/

The National Home Education Research Institute's mission is to:

* Produce high-quality research (e.g., statistics, facts, findings) on home-based education (homeschooling).
* Serve as a clearinghouse of research for the public, researchers, homeschoolers, the media, and policy makers.
* Educate the public concerning the findings of all research on home education.

my gf wants to homeschool eventual kids and it terrifies me

5. Homeschoolers form fewer cliques and gangs than public schoolers

man the gangs h/s'ers DO get around to forming must be seriously rugged

hoos that's a 'troubling indicator' i believe

It would flummox me to spend ALL DAY EVERY DAY with kids and even if they were mine, that would probably apply. School is not just an education and social skills, it's at least eight hours where children cannot make a mess/break shit in the home and you pay for it in taxes already so just go, OK?

http://www.conservapedia.com/images/5/59/Atheism.png

otm

hahahaha this is awesome, the only home-schooled kid I ever knew really well was raised a totally lefty hippie who didn't celebrate christmas *and* was a complete horndog and got with plenty of teh girlz

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Gardasil&diff=next&oldid=609636

rape: less likely than being struck & killed by lightning

Whereas the chance of being killed by a terrorist is, like, 1 in 3, right, Schlafly?

4. Homeschoolers engage in less deceit than public schoolers, and are less easily amused by it

There's a whole lot of something behind this sentence.

Genesis 19:4-8
But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

MAKES PERFECT SENSE.

Reading the Conservapedia entry on Wikipedia is one thing.

Reading the Wikipedia entry on Conservapedia is wau lulz

wau lulz @

On June 9, 2008, New Scientist published an article describing Richard Lenski's 20-year E. coli experiment, which observed that bacteria evolve the ability to metabolize citrate – a rare and complex mutation. Schlafly contacted Lenski to request the data. Lenski explained that the relevant data was in the paper and that Schlafly fundamentally misunderstood it. Schlafly wrote again and requested the raw data. Lenski replied again that the relevant data was already in the paper, that the "raw data" were living bacterial samples, which he would willingly share with qualified researchers at properly equipped biology labs, and that he felt insulted by letters and comments on Conservapedia, which he saw as brusque and offensive, including claims of outright deceit. The exchange, recorded on a Conservapedia page called "Lenski dialog", was widely reported on news-aggregating sites and weblogs. Carl Zimmer wrote that it was readily apparent that "Schlafly had not bothered to read [Lenski's paper] closely", and PZ Myers criticized Schlafly for demanding data despite not having a plan to use it nor the expertise to analyze it.

the full dialog is still online: Conservapedia - An encyclopedia you can trust

(oops, that's a link to a post in this very thread that contains a link to the Lenski Dialog page)

I see that Schlafly is a homeschool tutor himself. Now, that is frightening.

I like to think of him as the science experiment gone wrong.

bbbbbut he's a B.S.E!

"Wikipedia does not poll the views of its editors and administrators. They make no effort to retain balance. It ends up having all the neutrality of a lynch mob."

stay classy Conservapedia founder Andrew Schlafly

bbbbbut he's a B.S.E!

Sadly, I initially read this as 'butt sex experiment.' I fear I am not ashamed.

"bovine spongiform encepalopathy" also applies

xxxxxxxp people who still claim atheism is a belief are so fucking deluded/disingenuous

Well it kind of is in the "I believe in nothing" sense, I guess.

More 'I don't believe in anything' than 'I believe in nothing' though.

"No, Donny, these are nihilists; there's nothing to be afraid of."

An atheist believes that there is no god.
An agnostic claims not to have beliefs.

that's not true. non-belief is not a belief. agnostics generally believe that some things are unknowable, which is a belief.

a-theism as in no theism

weak vs strong atheism, innit.

lets have this argument again, good call

OUR BEAUTIFUL CONSERVAPEDIA THREAD LOOK WHAT YOUVE DONE

lets have this argument again, good call

max IOU 1 lol

THEY STARTED IT

5. Homeschoolers form fewer cliques and gangs than public schoolers

just hang out with your mother all day instead.

For college, Obama initially attended Occidental College in Los Angeles, California, before transferring to Columbia University in New York, New York and graduating without honors with a Bachelor of Arts degree, majoring in political science.

This is my favorite part.

Although evolutionists deny that men and dinosaurs coexisted, they are unable to provide proof of such a hypothesis. It is probable that the 'behemoth' was what we now call a dinosaur.

calling that a hypothesis is truly hilarious.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/files/2007/jesus_dinosaur.jpg

"flesh of christ"

hahah.

BUT HE PROBABLY DID!

it really reads like "omnipotent yellow flesh of christ"

^ dibs for Blossoming Noise album title

you see when they say He rode into the city on a donkey they mean he rode in on a velociraptor

Reading the Conservapedia entry on Wikipedia is one thing.

Reading the Wikipedia entry on Conservapedia is wau lulz

― Ashee Bolanalli (Mackro Mackro), Wednesday, January 28, 2009 3:30 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

how 2 parse

Another bit of kerfuffle going on the last few days, apparently... (link is to blog with overview of what happened)

http://www.conservapedia.com/Assassin%27s_Creed

...and enforce radical Islam and other liberal ideals on the people who play it.

Despite their differences the main character and his allies could have just knocked the innocent man down or stun him and continue their mission. This shows liberal bias and inclination to unnecessary violence. lulz for the ages

xpost

Don't you know that radical Islam is famous for it's toleration of homosexuality, women's rights, freedom of expression and other ideals liberals hope for.

Sigmund Freud (1856–1939) was the founder of psychoanalysis, an atheist and pseudoscientist. Despite the scientific rejection of most if not all of his theory, Freud remains powerfully influential among amoral and atheist scientists.

"Freud did more than perhaps any other man to insidiously conflate atheism with science, religion with mysticism, more than LaPlace, Darwin, or even Marx... While groundbreaking, his theories set back psychoanalysis for more than half a century.[1]

[1]Gregory Zilboorg, Freud and Religion: a Restatement of an Old Controversy, 118. Statement written in the 1950s; Freud's psychoanalysis continues to be applied to the detriment of patients.

:D:D:D

To say that the adulteress story is an interpolation is one thing, but this guy insists that it's a "liberal hoax"!

Ed, you've put the best face on a hoax. But it's still a hoax, and a liberal one at that.--Aschlafly

liberal hoaxes are the worst kind of hoax imo

Does Mr. Schlafly enjoy the esteem of his fellow Christian-conservatives?

These people are so illiterate that they don't know their own conservative traditions. They don't do any favors for true conservatism. It makes one want to become a REAL conservative just to teach these junk food morons what conservatism really is.

On the one hand, you imply - in bullying fashion - that your politics are superior. How can they be superior when you are incapable of reading a college-level political science book?

I enjoy reading literate conservatives, even if I don't agree with them.

For example, we have two statements about Freud - one is literate and fair, one is not. I assume they come from the same place.

Sigmund Freud (1856–1939) was the founder of psychoanalysis, an atheist and pseudoscientist. Despite the scientific rejection of most if not all of his theory, Freud remains powerfully influential among amoral and atheist scientists.

If you want to convince people you are correct, calling adherents or admirers of Freud "amoral" and "atheist" is not the way to do it.

"Freud did more than perhaps any other man to insidiously conflate atheism with science, religion with mysticism, more than LaPlace, Darwin, or even Marx... While groundbreaking, his theories set back psychoanalysis for more than half a century.

While I may or may not agree with this, it is at least thought-provoking.

A "ghetto blaster" is slang for a large and powerful stereo radio-DVD player.

dvds!? :|

http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/transformers/images/thumb/f/fe/G1_Blaster_toy.jpg/250px-G1_Blaster_toy.jpg

If you want to convince people you are correct, calling adherents or admirers of Freud "amoral" and "atheist" is not the way to do it.

Aren't a lot of Conservapedia's users Andrew Schafly's students? I don't think winning over people who aren't already conservative is really the purpose of the site.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_insights

that didn't work but i really wanna see it!

haha, i think it's because their site is currently down

what is it??

http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:UXGFO5TMaN4J:www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_insights

poll?

http://conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_insights

see also

http://conservapedia.com/Conservative_insights

"Freud did more than perhaps any other man to insidiously conflate atheism with science, religion with mysticism, more than LaPlace, Darwin, or even Marx... While groundbreaking, his theories set back psychoanalysis for more than half a century.

While I may or may not agree with this, it is at least thought-provoking.

― u s steel, Thursday, January 29, 2009 4:34 PM (4 days ago) Bookmark

Um, you can't really "set back" a field that you founded.

http://liberapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Ethnic_Cleansing

maybe noit deserving of its own thread, but some lols here: Dickipedia - A Wiki of Dicks

not

http://www.conservapedia.com/Fan_heater

haha!

i don't get it

OK.

It's a 'conservative' wikipedia. They create their own alternate reality, where their own opinions and attitudes are reinforced without fear of contradiction. But, to have this nirvana of comfort, they have to have references and definitions of all those other things that do not have political affiliations, otherewise another wiki is needed that might mean reality intrudes.

Conservapediaman sternly handing down his relatively neutral definition of a fan hater and grunting "yeah I'll give you that one"

that was supposed to say fan heater, please nobody make a shit joke about that

a "fan hater" -- like eric cantona!

If you boo your own players, you are a fan hater (fan heater!)

^^ kind of reminds me of that time Clough chinned a disgruntled Forest fan and Private Eye said it was a case of the shit hitting the fan

Thought that was going to be about armed football hooligans.

i didn't know that lord byron was a nazi hero???

― Tracer Hand, Monday, 28 January 2008 22:33 (1 year ago) Bookmark

Ha! I was just reading the metapedia article on Byron and thinking this is very strangely written and not insanely right wing at all and then I noticed they had just cut it from the Encyclopedia Britannica.

He's still on their main page as well, curiously.

This is just the beginning folks! I am confedent that we will witness a landslide victory for Republicans in 2010! B.H. Obama approval rates are dropping much faster than President Bush in his first year, and the trend has only just began. The fact is that a large majority of Americans are Conservatives and that will show in 2010, hopefully with Governer Palin at the helm!! Full steam ahead to a better America! Patriot1505 21:25, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

I'd guess Palin will head up or become chief spokesmen for a high profile, non-profit advocacy group for children with disabilities, like the Special Olympics for example. This will make her virtually bullet-proof from liberal attacks and hate speech. And hoperfully this will help call attention to the mean spirited hypocrisy of so-called comedians, satirists, and other liberal hate mongers. Rob Smith 19:42, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

good luck usa, christ

good luck christ, usa

can't believe they are still trumping the lenski case on their front page - it was the most classic example of comprehensive pwnage in the history of right wing nutjobbery!

Lenski's paper was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a professional society of scientists with a strong bias towards atheism and evolutionism.

Heehee, them wacky scientists with their rational thought and stuff.

The social media tracking website Surchur reveals that fifteen out of twenty of the newest YouTube videos mention Conservapedia in a positive light. [13] Conservapedia is considering expanding its YouTube presence in the near future. Please subscribe to the YouTube channel Conservapediavideos today!

wut

we've only just begaaaaaaaaaan

can't believe they are still trumping the lenski case on their front page - it was the most classic example of comprehensive pwnage in the history of right wing nutjobbery!

― last night i dreamt somebody shoved me (ledge), Tuesday, July 7, 2009 11:00 AM (4 days ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

wussup with this?

[/i]

ooooookay

A comprehension gap is the length of time between a correct assessment and incorrect knowledge or blatantly wrong belief(s).
For example, a person believes there is nothing wrong when it comes to abortion. Later in life, the person starts to feel partial birth abortion is wrong. Over the years, this person will become involved with religion. He is told abortion is wrong and he starts to believe it. Then he has a full conversion when he feels abortion is the evil murder of innocent children in the womb. The duration between 'nothing wrong when it comes to abortion' and the correct assessment 'abortion is evil murder', is called the comprehension gap.

oh, wow, that one's amazing.

evil murder!!!!

"the duration between 'this is my opinion' and 'I am a fire-breathing zealot who can't see past his own nose,' is called the comprehension gap."

Thankfully I come to my senses quickly when it comes to having the right opinion on stuff, so my comprehension gap is pretty small.

http://www.conservapedia.com/File%3ASmelliesdoublecrochet.jpg

YOU ARE HEREBY WARNED!

"Abortion is the induced termination of a pregnancy. Abortion is a billion-dollar industry in the United States and Western Europe except for Ireland, Malta and Poland, where it is generally illegal. God warns in His word that a nation that sheds innocent blood will not prosper. (Deuteronomy 19:11-13)"

omg, so THIS is the cause of the financial crisis!

"About 80% of women who see an ultrasound of their unborn child decide not to abort. Millions of women who had an abortion later suffer psychologically or physically from it, and support groups exist to help. Many victims of abortion find healing by speaking out against, and discouraging, similar harm to other mothers and their children."

And the compulsory Reagan quote (classic!):
“I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born. -- Ronald Reagan"

So true.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Abortion

http://www.conservapedia.com/File:Smelliesdoublecrochet.jpg

Conservapedia was, I understand, created to be an academic resource that avoided some of the pitfalls of Wikipedia, such as anonymous editing (which I am glad this encyclopaedia avoids). However to be an effective academic resource, and certainly if it wishes to achieve a status of being able to be cited in academic work, then academic conventions need to be adopted, such as rules of citation, use of CE over AD, and copyright. None of these things are the preserve of liberalism, or some kind of liberal agenda. They are simply however the minimum standards that any publication needs in order to gain academic credibility. I don't make these rules, I am merely stating what I have seen to be the case in academic publications, which is what an encyclopaedia is meant to be. --Krysg 08:46, 29 November 2008 (EST)

Krysg, your contributions have been meager here; your name hides behind anonymity; and your suggestion that "CE" instead of "AD" is necessary "in order to gain academic credibility" is absurd. Unless you raise the quality and quantity of your contributions and statements, this will be my last reply to you. Pursue your quest to spread "CE" (which denies the historical basis of the calendar) far and wide somewhere else, not here. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 10:48, 2 December 2008 (EST)

Why is CE necessary? CE IS the preserve of liberalism, as who else would change a 2000 year old system (and moreover, one which works and everyone is used to) to appease 1% of the population who haven't yet realised that AD and BC is supposed to offend them? AD and BC offend no-one, and the craven liberals who seek to appease all minorities at the expense of majorities are imagining things. AGAIN. CE has no academic credibility; before CP, I had never heard of it and hope never to hear of it again. I find the idea of CE offensive, but who will defend my rights? Not liberals. NeilEG 12:53, 2 December 2008 (EST)

CE and BCE were introduced to ease discussions in academia with those of other faiths where forcing the purely Christian dating would be offensive. Markr 11:00, 2 December 2008 (EST)

Markr, you're not fooling anyone here. "AD" is historically correct and if anyone is offended by it (which is doubtful), then they are unsuitable for learning history. CE and BCE are transparent attempts to censor Christian history.--Aschlafly 11:19, 2 December 2008 (EST)

http://www.conservapedia.com/images/f/fb/2_61_ultrasound.jpg
When an Ohio woman looked at an ultrasound she expected to see a developing baby. Instead, she saw what she believes to be an image of Jesus Christ

me, I see one of those little skull-faces from Seasons in the Abyss (upper left, sideways)

definitely some goatse.cx action top left (with very looong thin white arms)

wussup with this?

I dunno, wussup? if you haven't come across it before, just read the entry, extra lulz on the talk pages.

top right i mean. when will i learn.

Cripes, that's my local Fox station. They're terrible.

BTW:

http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/3161/ultrasound.gif

hold the phone...

http://i30.tinypic.com/2crnh4m.gif

Conservapedia remembers Tony Snow on this, the anniversary of his death in 2008. We offer our prayers to his family for this great American patriot. Without his voice our political discourse has been diminished. Snow served as White House press secretary, was a political commentator and broadcaster.

In an article entitled "Does President-Elect Obama Bring Hope for Animals?" PETA quotes Obama as saying,

"I think how we treat our animals reflects how we treat each other. And it's very important that we have a president who is mindful of the cruelty that is perpetrated on animals." [2]

Interesting. Wikipedia reports in its Animal Rights article,

"On November 24, 1933, the ...animal protection law, was introduced, with Adolf Hitler announcing an end to animal cruelty: ..."In the new Reich, no more animal cruelty will be allowed." [3]

Himmler likewise is famous for preaching kindness to animals p.2

Perhpas this area needs more study. Rob Smith 12:17, 23 July 2009 (EDT)

Great find! This is absolutely chilling. May God help us.Patriot1505 13:48, 23 July 2009 (EDT)

umm that is clearly a baby holding one of those two-ended light sabers from the prequels

or else a newspaper

New Orleans Times-Picayuterine

Ted Kennedy said, in voting against saving the life of Terri Schiavo, "I'm not sure what Mr. DeLay meant when he said, 'The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior.'"[18] We trust Ted Kennedy understands now.

The late Edward Kennedy did indeed have a profound affect on millions of Americans:

* millions who were aborted, and their mothers hurt, due to Kennedy's pro-abortion policies
* millions who cannot read, due to Kennedy's excluding real choice from No Child Left Behind
* millions who lack health insurance, due to Kennedy's gutting MSAs by limiting insurance deduction levels
* millions who depend on government programs to survive, due to Kennedy's tax-and-spend socialism

May the Lord be merciful with his soul.

* millions who depend on government programs to survive, due to Kennedy's tax-and-spend socialism

I guess the editor doesn't want them to survive?

Don't worry, Obamacare's Socialist Death Panels will finish them off!

The Bible: the Conservapedia reboot

Jesus fucking Christ

I'm sorry that's a liberal interpolation and must be removed.

I assume the commandment about not coveting their neighbour's oxen will get promoted to number one?

love these guys

First Example - Liberal Falsehood

The earliest, most authentic manuscripts lack this verse set forth at Luke 23:34:[7]

Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."

Is this a liberal corruption of the original? This does not appear in any other Gospel, and the simple fact is that some of the persecutors of Jesus did know what they were doing. This quotation is a favorite of liberals but should not appear in a conservative Bible.

A conservative Bible uses the richness provided in part by conservative language to fully convey the concepts. The original Greek and Hebrew may help sometimes, or they may be inadequate. "Logos" in the beginning of John illustrates this point, as the term is merely the best the Greek has to offer. "Truth" as fully understood and used today, as developed and popularized by the conservative movement (it's rarely used by the Left), is a better term to convey the concept.--Andy Schlafly 16:56, 18 August 2009 (EDT)

do these people know that they're leninists or what

Here are possible approaches to creating a conservative Bible translation:

* identify pro-liberal terms used in existing Bible translations, such as "government", and suggest more accurate substitutes

I don't agree that "if some concept was not adequately expressed in Hebrew or Greek it cannot be adequately expressed in a translation into another language." Parables, for example, transcend inadequacies in language and it is fully possible to take a parable written in a simplistic language and express it more fully in a richer language.
A conservative Bible uses the richness provided in part by conservative language to fully convey the concepts. The original Greek and Hebrew may help sometimes, or they may be inadequate. "Logos" in the beginning of John illustrates this point, as the term is merely the best the Greek has to offer. "Truth" as fully understood and used today, as developed and popularized by the conservative movement (it's rarely used by the Left), is a better term to convey the concept.--Andy Schlafly 16:56, 18 August 2009 (EDT)

oops.

From the Obama entry:

Barack Hussein Obama II aka Barry Soetoro[1] (allegedly[2][3][4][5][6] born in Honolulu Aug. 4, 1961)

wow that last one is super dumb; "logos" is an extremely important Greek term, and it most definitely doesn't mean truth in anything like the contemporary sense.
xxxxp

The Ramones - Blitzkrieg Bop (allegedly [1][2][3][4])

This is interesting. Pretty soon there will be conservative deconstructive readings, conservative hermenuetics, etc.

i wish they let you write on the talk page so i could ask when will this New Fascist Bible be available to the public

I guess this is an overly sincere response but it always depresses me when people subordinate their religion to their own complacency, ideological or otherwise

can't wait for the inevitable splitters groups to form, the arguments ought to be classic

this sort of collaborative effort seems pretty commie

do these people know that they're leninists or what

goole this is maybe my favorite politically related ilx post ever and I fucking salute you for real

this is so awesome

ha! thx j0hn

Accept the Logic of Hell!

Andy Schlafly 16:56

I briefly got super-psyched about the idea that these guys were actually inventing new books for the Bible named after themselves before realizing that was a timestamp.

I would be down with reading the Gospel According to HI DERE

ha hahhaa

In the beginning, there was the word, and the word was with Moz, and the word was Moz

I really hope that was not an attempt to write my Gospel, as it means nothing to me or to my life.

Jesus hung from the cross (in abasement)

This is much more likely to be part of my Gospel:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxHCXoM2SGg

Also this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chYba6bt4aA

lol "(Radio Edit)"

i wish they let you write on the talk page so i could ask when will this New Fascist Bible be available to the public

I know. I want to ask them if it will be available in time for the holidays.

Looking at the current draft of the Gospel of Mark (at http://conservapedia.com/Gospel_of_Mark_(Translated) ), basically it seems like what would happen if the RSV was attempted by some dudes on the internet working off the KJV instead of a consortium of scholars working from Hebrew and Greek texts. Shocking, I know.

I was looking to get all het up about them bastardizing it, but really the only thing that rubs me really wrong thus far is that they do not seem to get the point of the difference between Jesus and the Pharisees, at all. The translation of Mark 7:2 as "They observed several disciples eating bread without first washing their hands, and used that to criticize Jesus" with a note asking "is defiled necessary here?" makes it seem like their whole conception of the Pharisees is of a group of people who wash their hands before eating, because it is a tradition and traditions were important to them. But Jesus was different! (Presumably not different in a liberal way; if anything, Jesus was opposed to the liberal fear-mongering of Pharisees subjugating an individual's right to not wash their hands.)

I am kind of amped for the translation of "outdo one another in giving honor" and "live in harmony with one another" stuff from Romans, though.

King James Version
And commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only; no scrip, no bread, no money in their purse:

Proposed Conservative Translation
He instructed them to take only a walking stick, and to bring nothing else: no bag, no bread, and no money in their belts.

Cause, you see, men don't carry purses.

I am kind of amped for the translation of "outdo one another in giving honor" and "live in harmony with one another" stuff from Romans, though.

i'm 100% sure they will translate this to mean those liberuls needs to get in line and stop dishonouring conservatives by disagreeing with them.

Benefits include:
* liberals will oppose this effort, but they will have to read the Bible to criticize this, and that will open their minds

for the record I fully support this effort of Phyllis Schlafly's son to "improve" the Bible.

Can't wait to see what happens to Matthew 6:6.

King James Version

No man can enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he will first bind the strong man; and then he will spoil his house.

Proposed Conservative Translation

"No one can break into a well-armed man's house to destroy his property, unless he first tie the man down. Only then can he damage his home."

Do any of these translation dudes actually speak Greek or Hebrew? Cause super lolz if they're rewriting the Bible from an already exciting translation.

It might not have been THAT exciting, you see.

Haha. Meant to write existing, but exciting works too.

http://conservapedia.com/Bible_Retranslation_Project#Examples

Conservapedia -
"Thou shalt not kill" Exodus

Real meaning - to murder or take up arms without sufficient justification

Animal Farm -
No animal shall kill any other animal

No animal shall kill any other animal without cause

New Term - homeschool
First Developed - 1980s
Potential Uses in a Bible Retranslation - relevant to Jesus teaching the younger Apostles

"Footnotes are a cowardly choice."

But Ann Coulter loves them!

New Term: media
First Developed: 1841
Potential Uses in a Bible Retranslation: relevant to prohibition against false idols

this website is a fantastic website

"From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another." John 1:16 (NIV)

"grace" has become a female name and a sports term to refer primarily to smoothness in style

Oh no! We cant have a Smoov Lord.

this website is a fantastic website

― waldo geraldo faldo (Curt1s Stephens), Tuesday, October 6, 2009 2:35 AM (13 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

lol @ "grace has become a sports term"

Essay:Greatest Myths of American History

Here is a growing list of the greatest myths or falsehoods taught about American history:
that a "triangular trade" existed in the 17th and 18th centuries with the New World[1]
that the Founding Fathers were deists
that Thomas Jefferson was the originator of the key concepts in the Declaration of Independence
that James Madison was the "father of the Constitution"
that the Constitution established a wall of separation between church and state
that government regulation brought American prosperity
that President FDR brought the United States out of the Great Depression
that President LBJ's Great Society alleviated poverty
that President Ronald Reagan's foreign policy was not key to ending the Cold War.

It takes a certain amount of math knowhow to appreciate the awesome kookiness of this:

http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Elementary_proof

but I promise you guys there is really nothing better on the whole site.

The Schlafly:

"Complex analysis does rely on an assumption that there is a unique, algebraically manipulable square root of negative one. It's a unique pair, obviously, and it's a sign of desperation that some above looked for a way to deny this."