SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
3,266
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 322:
Line 322: + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Mystery:Why Do Non-Conservatives Exist? (view source)
Revision as of 16:34, August 28, 2015
, 16:34, August 28, 2015→Mystery:Why Do Non-Conservatives Exist?: new section
I don´t think that [[The Simpsons]] inject liberal beliefs and mock conservative values. Although there are many liberal themes like supporting gay marriage, many episodes have a strong church focus like "Homer the Heretic". It also criticizes public schools.--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] 08:19, 30 June 2014 (EDT)
I don´t think that [[The Simpsons]] inject liberal beliefs and mock conservative values. Although there are many liberal themes like supporting gay marriage, many episodes have a strong church focus like "Homer the Heretic". It also criticizes public schools.--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] 08:19, 30 June 2014 (EDT)
:I believe that the program has liberal and conservative writers and does a better job mocking both sides such as the atrocious ''Family Guy''. It does a very good job satirizing the American public school system, and the Democratic Party, for instance. --[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 08:24, 30 June 2014 (EDT)
:I believe that the program has liberal and conservative writers and does a better job mocking both sides such as the atrocious ''Family Guy''. It does a very good job satirizing the American public school system, and the Democratic Party, for instance. --[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 08:24, 30 June 2014 (EDT)
== Mystery:Why Do Non-Conservatives Exist? ==
Honestly, this is the most arrogant question I've seen in a long while. If this is not a joke, and it probably isn't, the question amounts to saying: We are in possession of the whole truth and everybody else is just deluded. I'd recommend a trip to a psychiatrist to the one who came up this idea. He'll probably be diagnosed with megalomania, and as I understand it, that is not a Christian value. [[User:Sorte Slyngel|Sorte Slyngel]] ([[User talk:Sorte Slyngel|talk]]) 17:00, 24 August 2015 (EDT)
:Isn't there a better answer to the question than that??--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 17:32, 24 August 2015 (EDT)
::Andy, you gave a sensible and respectful answer to that guy. Even though his remarks were provocative. I applaud you for that, and note that it seems to be consistent with the more tolerant attitude that I have noticed here lately. And I applaud you for not blocking him, also consistent with the more tolerant attitude. But not everyone "got the memo". You see, Sorte Slyngel (really stupid name, but that's not for me to judge!) got blocked shortly after you wrote your reply. Please unblock him, and see that everyone gets the memo. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 20:31, 24 August 2015 (EDT)
:::He broke the Conservapedia commandment "Thou shall not engage in 90/10 behavior. You shall surely be blocked". No need for a memo. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 20:38, 24 August 2015 (EDT)
::::But if Andy extended the courtesy of replying to him, he must not have thought Sorte's thoughts were worthless, or pointless arguing, "last wordism", or any of those things that sysops quite rightfully object to. For Vargas to ban this person was rude and disrespectful to Andy. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 23:01, 24 August 2015 (EDT)
:::Note the assumptions and consequences of the word "must". Perhaps Andy was asking a rhetorical question like "Will no man rid me of this meddlesome priest?" addressed to all except Sorte. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 01:34, 25 August 2015 (EDT)