111
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 186:
Line 186: + + + + + + + + + +
Conservapedia:Desk/Miscellany (view source)
Revision as of 18:55, April 14, 2008
, 18:55, April 14, 2008A Call For Conservapedia's Rise to Activism (Part II)
Barb
Barb
: I agree that it's a problem, and I've looked before into changing it. There appears to be only two ways to do so. One is simply to reduce the size of the menus above it (which means eliminating some entries) and the other (although I'm not certain about this one) is to put it above "master control". In other words, it's not possible to put it between "master control" and "help" or between "help" and "supreme court". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:55, 13 April 2008 (EDT)
: I agree that it's a problem, and I've looked before into changing it. There appears to be only two ways to do so. One is simply to reduce the size of the menus above it (which means eliminating some entries) and the other (although I'm not certain about this one) is to put it above "master control". In other words, it's not possible to put it between "master control" and "help" or between "help" and "supreme court". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:55, 13 April 2008 (EDT)
== A Call For Conservapedia's Rise to Activism (Part II) ==
This is slightly annoying. I know it's been a while, but I don't have a way to respond to comments w/o having to create a new entry. :P
Philip J. Rayment, I don't mean to offend your sensibilities by focusing my earlier remarks toward an exclusively American audience. I acknowledge we Yanks have like-minded friends in other countries, but the reason for my message being tailored to U.S. citizens is because ours happens to be the one nation currently embroiled in a very hotly contested election season, where the future of conservative values is at stake. Additionally, one might well accuse this entire web site of being American-centric... just look at the logo!
In any event, Aschlafly, the kinds of "blogs" I consider to be higher quality are [http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com], [http://www.hotair.com], and so on. These, I consider to be semi-reliable sources of cutting edge news, and they come out daily with useful information that would be handy in debates about the current Democratic candidates. If we think of an Conservapedia as an ocean of archived knowledge, then such news blogs can be endless sources of information. All of us, who have been following the election process closely will easily recall many of the reasons why, for example, Barack Obama would be a terrible president. From the Reverend Wright comments, to his most recent remark about "clinging to guns or religion," to even more recent uncoverings of his promises to abortion lobbyists: "Well, the first thing I'd do as president is, is sign the Freedom of Choice Act."
You can be sure Obama will continue to paint himself as someone who can "trascend party lines," but everything about the man's political (vice merely biographical) history paints a very different picture. In short, suppose Conservapedia were developed into an information war machine, where most efforts during the election season would be used to collect any information that would be useful for sustaining the conservative movement? I hope I'm making sense. [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 14:55, 14 April 2008 (EDT)