Conservapedia talk:About

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Is that "LIBERAL BIAS" economic or social?

Well, I'm going to assume economic bias, unless I hear otherwise, and change the page accordingly.

Contents

Finally!

Finally a way for me, the oppressed white Christian male to have his voice heard. Next stop taking the vote away from women and minorities! After that let's go kill some gays after all if we listen to Leviticus 20:13 "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death." You're all with me right? Or do you love the gays and hate Jesus?Mrreaper

I can understand the frustrations of Mrreaper; he just got more criticism for responding profoundly to sin than abortionists get for dismembering a healthy preborn child, or NEA public school teachers get for raping the minds of children, or public ALA librarians get for providing a special teen section including erotica, or even pedophiles get for damaging the physical and psychological lives and health of children and teens. Such are the tenets of the NEA and ALA. (Thank heavens not all doctors, teachers, and librarians believe that way! - on Wikipedia it might be only the pseudo-doctors, teachers, and librarians who do not believe that way!!) We are constantly bombarded with the opinion that homosexuality is "normal" and not a matter of choice; and because even homosexuals themselves tend to feel guilty, it seems urgent to some that everyone agree that it is normal. It is very frustrating for a person to deal with feelings of guilt, and even a word or look can cause those concerns to well up. I know it is difficult to get past the anger because there is good reason to be angry; but only our Heavenly Father can handle it; and giving it over to Him, and forgiving "RT Kendall-style" is at the heart of the Gospel. It may help to realize that so many people today involved in every form of perversion have been sexually abused, seduced, and/or lied to since infancy; and too many have been tenderly "protected" from the Gospel of the Bible. MourningWarbler


This is utterly disgusting and shameful. It is not often that I am offended enough to create a login name merely to respond to one misled person, but this is more than merely fallacious, it is detestable. The above contributor has presented us with an ultimatum that we must either want to "kill some gays" or love the gays and hate Jesus. If it wasn't for the already upsetting claims that this is any sort of a encyclopedia rather than a collection of blind (there is a difference between blind and merely biased) opinions that shy away from addressing any slightly controversial topic. We will revisit that subject, but meanwhile back to the pugnacious bit above: find the place where Jesus, whose Italic textnameItalic text you invoke in your ultimatum, advocated any sort of killing. If you claim to believe in this God, and you think that you have nailed down any aspect of his character with your little tirade than you serve a disgusting and unworthy God. Mrreaper, I assume you go to church. I assume that if at church at some point you have taken part in the Eucharist. For one second look at your blindness and stop spreading hateful ignorance. The Gospel of your named Lord is a Gospel of peace-not of hate and murder. The Eucharist, if you have ever taken a part of it, is a spreading of that peace. By invoking the Italic textnameItalic text of Jesus you have implicated yourself in what He is about. And that is peace and love, not war. You quote Old Testament law in your posting. Those laws we must understand existed for a reason, but we do not live in the Old Testament. Your Savior Jesus is supposed to have changed all that, you now live in an age not of law, but of mercy and grace. For God's sake (and I do not take His name in vain here) either do not use the name of Christ, or temper your pathetic war-mongering and spread a Gospel of love and peace.

And why is homosexuality a sin? Because it is a perversion of what your God created as sex. A bit similar to the process of mast ur bation (I split this up because the site deemed to flag this word as unacceptable, perhaps on account of the stubborn practice of running headlong from real issues). Perhaps in our battlecry against the homosexuals we should raise another against the mast ur bators (this is ridiculous). Unfortunately that might implicate more people than we are comfortable with?...Correct? Shame. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tjames (talk)

I took Mrreaper's comments to be those of a non-Christian writing a parody of how he saw Christians, and not worthy of a response. Philip J. Rayment 03:16, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

I a Christian think this website is unnecessary and useless. This website serves only one purpose in my eyes and that is for weak people to hide. Wikipedia and other online encyclopedia's allow Everyone to express their opinions. A Christian God has told us about difficult times and I believe running away from and hiding from critical views is cowardice. Surely any Christian would agree that not standing up for your faith and your beliefs is shamming yourself and your Lord. Caznoob --Caznoob 17:46, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia does not allow "everyone" to express their opinions. Wikipedia is supposedly not about opinions, but despite its NPOV policy, it allows certain POVs to be pushed. I have experienced this first-hand with the creation/evolution/Intelligent Design issue. We are most certainly not "running away and hiding"; we are presenting an alternative. By having this site, we are indeed "standing up for [our] faith and [our] beliefs". Philip J. Rayment 21:35, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

The above opinion by "the white christian male" is all based on hate and fear and not based on facts and science and should be removed. It also is inciting hate and violence and should be removed. I am also a Christian. He foes not speak for all Christians.

What kind?

"Conservapedia is rapidly becoming one of the largest and most reliable online educational resources of its kind."

What kind is this, exactly? Is it the kind of source that has an inherent bias and slant towards a point of view? Because in my readings of CP articles, there hardly seems to be an attempt to be factually correct and completely bias-free... – Fʀɪɺøʟɛ ( тɐʟк¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs ) 12:58, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia will never become one of the largest and most reliable online educational resources of its kind. Nope. --WhatWouldJesusEdit? 11:50, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
Thank God somebody said that. This site is utterly useless. I mean, totally useless. There is no way I could use this for research on a project, not even one on conservatives.

When are you conservative, home schooled, fundamentalists going to realize that you've been lied to all these years! I've read some of the trash that constitutes "conservapedia". Why are there no references to our ancient ancestors? Why no mention of Homo Habilis, Cro Magnon or any of the other fossil remnants of early humans that scientists have discovered over the years. Could it be that the conservatives don't know how to put a literalists bibilical spin on the overwhelming evidence that WE EVOLVED and that the Earth is indeed ancient? Anyone who would use this forum to gather knowledge is simply using nonsense, lies and distortions to substantiate there own myopic, misguided understanding of the world.

Who's the closed minded one now? MountainDew 21:07, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Ahem. Exuse me but this site is only a few months old. It may not be a large source now but if we receive alot of contributions it will. -Additioner 17:16, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Also, this thing doesn't deserve to be called an encyclopedia. It's full of bias. Wikipedia, on the other hand, is full of what the editors here call "liberal bias", which is just neutrality policy... just goes to show that this "conservapedia" os not worth the suffix "-pedia".--Materialist 13:16, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia claims to be neutral but is riddle with bias. Conservapedia doesn't claim to be neutral, but to be conservative. What's the problem? Philip J. Rayment 22:09, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

WHAT?

Another example of the closed mind of the conservative. Running scared, as it were, from anything that might challenge or make them think out-side of their comfort zone. This is the most biased site I have come across, and the claims it makes are unfounded and untrue. While Wikipedia is a world-wide resource, this I imagine will be mainly used in the United States... I'm suprised that you don't have to go through security and background checks and prove you're a legal US citizen to join this site. Good luck!

I agree. Whereas this site forces you to use American English, Wikipedia allows Commonwealth English in articles. Some of the articles on this site are a disgrace too. Many are one sentence long, and articles that are somewhat controversial, e.g. Homosexuality, are locked. O2mcgovem 19:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Please everyone, don't take this site too seriously. It is intended as an ironic joke. Isn't it? Mralph72 08:31, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
This site is not a joke, but your edits have been. Do you know something worth contributing? 100,000 page views a day is your audience here. Tell us something worthwhile. Thanks.--Aschlafly 08:38, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
Vandalism is not something worth contributing. I've banned him and reverted all his non-talk-page edit. (See here for an example of his vandalism.) Philip J. Rayment 09:17, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Bias

Anything that anyone doesn't believe in can be considered a bias, but shooting down the other point of view as a bias and creating a site with the other biased side without trying to make a non biased site is completely ridiculous. I am a conservative my self, but I believe that creating this site for the reasons that wikipedia is biased for showing a liberal view and making this site have only a conservative view is even more biased. By doing this for all of the wrong reasons, and degrading wikipedia, you have shown how naive some people can be. --Erik 23:07, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Well said, this site gives conservatives a bad name. O2mcgovem 19:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

No it doesn't. I think it is a good effort by conservatives to get their voice out. -Additioner 17:18, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

By creating a site that attempts to offset the "liberal bias" (I use quotes because the real situation is one of more liberal journalists working for organizations which are controlled by more conservative owners, thus the conservative bias is one of coverage while the liberal bias is one of how it is covered.) it simply creates a setting for a one-sided dabate, which tends to solidify and even lead to more of an extremist positions. This fails to even adress the issues and instead bypasses debate and simply creates a politically slanted version of reality. If bias was actually the issue, then the existance of this website would surely be needless, as bias can be confronted and a compromize can be reached between conservative and liberal ideals. Bias, when hardened beyond the reach of compromize and the strival for neutrality actually becomes propaganda. Acording to the dictionary definition "propaganda" is: "The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause." --Theseus 21:58, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

I don't follow your logic. Sure bias can be confronted, but when control is overwhelmingly in the hands of liberals intent on imposing their bias, then the bias will continue. I consider Wikipedia to be an example of that, and Bias in Wikipedia contains ample illustrations.--Aschlafly 22:14, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

This says it all.

"Conservapedia" was founded by high school students. I suppose that explains the ridiculously uninformed political slant. Great job, guys!

Liberal Theologians

If this site is against the liberal ideology, would it then be fair to say that it is against the liberal view of the bible? Liberal view referring to the viewpoints that came out of people like Carl Barth. --Ymmotrojam 10:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Anyone have any thoughts on this? --Ymmotrojam 15:48, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

I do - I work in a counter-cult ministry and am frustrated to see how secular humanism is the true "proponent" of the American Public.

Public schools are trashing conservative worldview at an alarming rate. There are more neo-marxist, neo-darwinian, neo-pagan and feminists than I have ever seen in my life. Their views are "compatiable" with neo-darwinian worldview which is promoted in our courts of law. The whole thing is just sad.

Nancy Pearcey writes a wonderful book on this for recovering the evangelical Christian worldview titled Total Truth. While not everyone who may be conservative certainly isn't evangelical, it's still an excellent read! --JollyCharacter 21:11, 10 April 2007 (MDT)

Worry Not

Like you, for me this site was a source of disbelief, outrage, amusement and finally, hilarity. Sadly, it's already getting SENSIBLE. Because other people are editting it. And it's now getting the same liberal/leftie/international/The Rest of the World 'bias' that the billions of people who haven't been home schooled in the wilds of N. America have. For the record I'm from Scotland, which evangelist Pat Robertson described as 'as dark country full of homosexuals'

The Rev Robertson certainly hasn't been to Scotland....is he confused by the kilts?

Reliability

Quote: "Conservapedia is rapidly becoming one of the largest and most reliable online educational resources of its kind."

This comment has no supporting arguments, or source.

I strongly agree. I find it to be certainly untrue. Liπus the Turbogeek(contact me) 15:56, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Bias?

An example of such, this page is. Liπus the Yoda(contact me) 21:32, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Liberal bias of Wikipedia

It is very misleading to refer to this specious mathematical whimsy as "our study". This is the kind of claim that kills the respect that Conservapedia could have. It is a legitimate poll result combined with an irrelevant reference to obscure Wikipedian categorization (by the way, the count today is 81-76 Liberal-Conservative, so the evidence for this "study" isn't valid anymore). I understand that it is a flagship statement, but it is wrong, and is deleterious to Conservapedia's mission. -- RWest 9:38, 27 July 2007

I agree with Aschlafly's assessment, based on my 5 1/2 years of participation in the Wikipedia project:
  • Our study suggests that Wikipedia is 6 times more liberal than the American public.
Wikipedia is stuffed with Liberal bias. Its NPOV policy sounds good, but has become unenforceable. --Ed Poor 13:36, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
But… 3:1/1:2 doesn't equal 6:1! Liπus the Turbogeek(contact me) 13:52, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
How do you work out if how liberal wikipedia and how liberal the American public is??? And anyway you need to realise there is more alot more to the world than the U.S.A. and as for the use of British English, British English is proper english because english comes from England and for those of you who consider the world to be centred around America and don't know where england is, it's in Britain (where British English is from).

User: Plqgnmv 21 April 2007

Linus, can you write out your math more clearly? --Ed Poor 17:22, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

What the study actualy suggests is that knowalgable internet users are 6 times more liberal than other computr illiterate people —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eljawa (talk)

Edit request: copyright link

As there is a link to Conservapedia:About displayed at the bottom of every page, could someone who is allowed to edit it please add a link to Conservapedia:Copyright to the page so that readers can easily find out their permissions for reuse. Something like:

Conservapedia encourages free reuse of its material. For details see Conservapedia:Copyright.

Thanks. --Scott 21:40, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia is not really an encyclopedia, any more than Fox is a real news station. Your articles are few, your analysis is weak, your rightwing bias is transparent. You call yourselves conservatives, but you are really reactionaries. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oldoligarch (talk)

I see that Conservapedia contributors, rather than researching a topic and correcting it when it is inaccurate, just delete the incorrect statement without replacing it with a correct one. This is pathetic at best. Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oldoligarch (talk)

Well, I'm pleased.

On the Daily Show With Jon Stewart the other night, they talked about Conservapedia. I'm pleased that the crowd booed when they read the Conservapedia description of 'Homosexuality'. Conservapedia, wake up. You claim the rest of the internet is biased? Take a look at your pages and then look up the word 'biased' in the dictionary. SierraTangoCharlie

The word bias also means your own attitude against this website, which you don't seem to realize. Karajou 21:39, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

Moderapedia?

When are we moderates going to get a wiki?

Oh wait. It's called Wikipedia...

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by PandaBear (talk)

Who gives the facts? God?

You can NOT be serious when you say Wikipedia has a liberal bias. Where did you get that your study, and I quote, "suggests that Wikipedia is 6 times more liberal than the American public"? Did you take 10 Americans off the street and multiply them by the number of abortions, divided by Liberal Biases? How did you get "6 times more liberal"? That sounds like the most made up, wish-washed, falsified claim I have EVER heard. Start using facts, ladies and gentlemen. Start using facts.

--DogChapman 02:04, 4 July 2007 (EDT)DogChapman

Prove that it doesn't, and you've got a case. Karajou 02:12, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
No, that's not how debate works. The burden of proof is upon the claimant. But, of course, reality has a liberal bias so why prove anything? --Afi 17:49, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Criticism

OK. so you have criticism for all the democrats and the democratic party but none for the republicans. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gwforlife (talk)

FBI investigation

Could we please have an update on this? People are curious as to the status of the investigation. Are you allowed to talk about it at this time?--Philaretes 12:51, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

And which people are curious about it at this time? Karajou 13:05, 30 July 2007 (EDT)
Investigations are not launched on a newspaper front page. They are, by their nature, clandestine, unless a point is reached when an indictment will be served. I hope this was edifying. Learn together 13:03, 30 July 2007 (EDT)
No harm in asking a simple question. In response to Karajou, these people here [1],and here [2], and here [3], and here [4]would like to know. BTW, Learn together, how do you know there will be an indictment? The FBI may well determine this is not worth their time or trouble. Andy made it public that he reported username stevecarson to the FBI, so what is the harm in asking? --Philaretes 15:12, 30 July 2007 (EDT)
You are concerned about trolls (or a troll) asking questions? Interesting. Hopefully you will take this opportunity to quickly learn FBI protocol. If they had started an investigation, they would hardly copy Andy with what they are doing. They will choose to act based upon their timetables and workload. Andy has informed them of a law being broken. That is the proper procedure to follow. In the event that law is broken again, they would be more likely to expedite the case. Andy has already set that foundation. We won't know, nor do we necessarily care, what is being done at this moment. We'll leave that to you. Learn together 18:03, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

As has been previously established, the clandestine nature of investigation means we simply don't know. DanH 15:14, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

DanH, that is true, assuming that the FBI is conducting an investigation. However, why did Conservapedia ban the editors who asked the questions about the investigation? I understand the one who titled his "embarrasing question" as he was a troll, but the others I think, were not.--Philaretes 15:19, 30 July 2007 (EDT)
Does anyone know how long "internet harrassment" investigations usually take?Conservative 18:41, 24 October 2007 (EDT)
OMG Conservative's asking about the FBI *BAN HIM* sorry :)

Date

Could someone dewiki the date? This is the last holdout in 2006 JazzMan 23:39, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Thanks Ymm.. eh, Mr. Y! JazzMan 00:03, 31 August 2007 (EDT)


PRE-POSTING DRAFT Mechanism ?

While looking at the Global Warming article and its controversial nature (frozen), I got an idea. COULD YOU CONSIDER THIS AS AN IMPROVEMENT OF CONSERVAPEDIA -- AND A VAST IMPROVEMENT OVER WIKIPEDIA?

Maybe you could have a DRAFT version of the article, not visible to the public, which would allow editors to work on an article, and then ask for APPROVAL before changes are posted to the final article.

I say this because there could be DOZENS of changes that might be added. It would be hard to merely suggest such changes, with so many of them, instead of SHOWING the recommended changes.

In fact, as a vast improvement over the CHAOS at Wikipedia, perhaps you could do this....

Suppose you programmed a page for EACH user interested in the particular article. Let them modify a COPY of the article saved under their user ID, but not visible to the outside public. REMEMEMBER there could be dozens of changes involved, all in different places. SO it is hard to DESCRIBE what one wants to add.

Then responsible editors could review different PROPOSED versions of the final article, take what they agree with from various versions, and come up with a high-quality final result.

Wouldn't that be better than the CHAOS at Wikipedia?

Jon Moseley

NAME CHANGE ?

I love what you are doing, but with your passionate commitment to truth (unlike Wikipedia and the left-wing blogosphere) the name "conservapedia" tends to paint you as too narrow. You deserve to be widely used and cited, by all who want to learn useful and truthful information.

You're missing a trick

Hello. I've created a new user really just to comment on this page. I'm a Wikipedia editor (different username) who's getting more and more fed up with their anti-christian bias, especially regarding the use of BCE/CE. However, I'm also not happy with Wikipedia's pro-American (yes, that's right) bias. This manifests itself in the way many articles are written and edited by contributors who don't seem to realise there's a whole world out there. Many topics are covered purely from the American point-of-view. Today I found out about Conservapedia (it was used as an example of "where to go" by an admin who was admonishing a user for making a perfectly valid BCE --> BC change) but was disappointed to note the Wikipedia description of Conservapedia, which states that it attempts to counteract the perceived anti-American bias of Wikipedia.

Perhaps you should make Conservapedia more global; get rid of the logo, for example, and if you do put an American slant on things, then maybe you shouldn't. I will look more at Conservapedia (I found out about it only 15 minutes ago!) to see if this really is the case. I hope it isn't, because there's a global opportunity here to fight against the political correctness of Wikipedia. Good luck with the project. SilasStoat 16:36, 18 January 2008 (EST)

There was an intention months ago to replace the logo, and Conservapedia has eased back on its pro-American stance a bit (which, being an Aussie, I'm glad of). However, I think that you are comparing two slightly different matters.
  1. Wikipedia has a pro-American bias in that a large proportion of its editors are American, and therefore tend to write from an American perspective, being ignorant of the rest of the world. So there might be a lot written on George Washington, but relatively little on Winston Churchill (these are just hypothetical examples).
  2. However, Wikipedia tends to have an anti-American bias in the sense of denigrating America and its place in the world. Leftists/liberals in western society tend to run their own countries down (I see it here in Oz too), particularly if a conservative government is in power, and with a high proportion of such people in Wikipedia, they tend to denigrate western ideals, which tends to mean denigrating America, being in some ways the epitome of those ideals.
And it's number 2 that Conservapedia is opposed to, I believe, although in the process, it does strongly have problem number 1, unfortunately.
Philip J. Rayment 20:30, 18 January 2008 (EST)

Grammar

Could someone with greater editing powers edit the line "do you know what pretzels have their shape". BrianCo 11:36, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Got it. Thanks!--Aschlafly 12:23, 26 February 2008 (EST)

David Barton is one of my heroes!!!!

Wikipedia is most certainly biased against freedom of thought - no possible explanation for our existence is allowed except evolution. Wikapedians I dealt with were bullies. Could I post my little ditty about David Barton here? Wikipedians would not allow me to make even changes to create an actual article, but preferred the random ramblings of those who hate David Barton; they banned me and told me to "cool off" when I kept reposting my additions; I left in all but the most redundant "pseudo-historian" drivel. Looking through the history, others had also tried to make an unbiased article, but they also had been expelled! MourningWarbler

Go ahead and write the article. Karajou 14:17, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

A page for PIPA, the Program on International Political Attitudes

I was hoping to find some indepth information on PIPA but can't find anything on Conservapedia. I really want to get some unbiased info rather than the slanted info I keep finding on Wiki.. Can someone add such a page?

Why not do so yourself? Bugler 11:07, 2 November 2008 (EST)

You Serious?

I would like to say I am shocked. But, after all this is Conservatism we are talking about. A belief system completely based in fantasy. What, you think the bible is to liberal?! I have got news for you, REALITY IS LIBERALLY BIAS. It doesn't mean to be, it just is. That weapons company sells weapons cheaper to 3rd world countries, not because it is the liberally bias thing to do. They do because it is called reality. Showing war as being horrible and evil is not liberally bias, it is because war IS horrible and evil. Exposing poverty as avoidable and unnecessary isn't liberally bias, it IS merely avoidable and unnecessary. Lets take the first post for example. Obviously an agent for some white supremacist group or something. Claiming that the white man is oppressed. Typical conservative view. HOWEVER, if you look at the REALITY (better known to you guys as LIBERAL BIAS) the white man is still on top and has been for a thousand years.

You all are merely the next link in the chain that is to be the Orwellian State that you are trying to create on earth. God even speaks of it in the bible. Revelations tells of a people mislead by a great evil. Surprise! you are those people. Funny thing is you think everyone BUT you are the mislead ones. Sorry, if you were more based in REALITY (liberal bias to you guys) you would see that is not the case.

Now go ahead and alter what I have said. It appears that when the truth is spoken, you choose to distort it to suit your perverted needs. The bible has been edited so much I guess it was inevitable that political extremists come along and put their twist on it. Has happened before, and probably won't be the last.

I can tell you're liberal just by your high word-to-substance ratio. If you really believed what you say, then you'd be protesting Obama's position about Afghanistan. Nope, I bet you support Obama 100%. You're not anti-war, you're a liberal who uses anti-war arguments only when they suit you. That's why people are liberal, so they can cling to double standards as they like.--Andy Schlafly 10:31, 6 October 2009 (EDT)
I can tell your a conservative by your 'I know you are but what am I argument'. If you really believed anything you say you would be protesting Bush's war for profit in Iraq. Double standards like Mark Foley you mean? Or maybe Tom Delay... He was found innocent because his bribe was in the form of a check. The ultimate in double standards. Conservatives cling to the illusion that they some how represent morality. What is moral about adultery, war, and exploitation? But, I see you are rewriting the bible to give yourself that morality you so desperately crave.
Liberalism's version of bias has severe distortions of the truth; defense of adultery and any other kind of sexual perversion; defense of drug use and abuse. Liberalism has a history of attacking God, Jesus, Christianity, and the Bible, which is now proven once more by their attacks on the Conservative Bible Project within and without this website. Liberals have supported cold-blooded murderers (read William Ayers and Bernadine Dorhn) and dictators (read Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez), as well as cold-blooded murder (read abortion). Liberals claim freedom of speech, the press, and the right to assemble, but continue to try shutting down conservative speech, press, and assembly via bills set before Congress or the mocking of events like the Tea Party movement. Truth and facts do not have a liberal bias; they have their own bias, and the fact is, liberals cannot take the truth when they are exposed for what they are. Karajou 11:54, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

Writing

Leaving aside the political, ideological, religious, nationalistic etc. aspects of your project, I have to ask one question: Why is the quality of the writing here almost invariably abysmal? AngusF 22:54, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

"Angus", do us all a favor and go whine somewhere else. Your contributions are nothing to brag about, that's for sure.--Andy Schlafly 23:54, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

Conservapedia template

May I suggest that the Conservapedia template "{{Conservapedia}}" be added to the bottom portion of this article? I think it goes well with the message and can assist with other guidelines/rules/themes not mentioned here. DerekE 01:06, 21 December 2009 (EST)

Great suggestion, DerekE! Done. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 08:00, 21 December 2009 (EST)
Personal tools