Conservapedia - An encyclopedia you can trust

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 It desensitizes a person, makes him more withdrawn, and makes him view others like objects rather than the people they are.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...