Siteadmin, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
125,790
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 236:
Line 236: − ::What angers me the most about Conservapedia isn't so much the bias (actually, I agree; neither McCain's nor Obama's articles seems biased, compared to the hatchet jobs here), but rather the lack of infomation. So many articles are ridiculously short. Obviously that's going to happen since this place is smaller, but it's still frustrating. [[User:RobbinOf|RobbinOf]] 23:20, 2 June 2009 (EDT)
Debate:Can conservapedia become the next Wikipedia, is this good or bad (view source)
Revision as of 03:30, June 3, 2009
, 03:30, June 3, 2009Reverted edits by RobbinOf (Talk) to last version by Jpatt
Not likely. In this day and age, we will receive relentless ridicule and scourn from the mainstream media and other sources. Trust me, I've been on both sides of the issue. I am a former liberal and a former agnostic, although I was never cared much about politics until I became a conservative.--[[User:TedM|TedM]] 23:11, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
Not likely. In this day and age, we will receive relentless ridicule and scourn from the mainstream media and other sources. Trust me, I've been on both sides of the issue. I am a former liberal and a former agnostic, although I was never cared much about politics until I became a conservative.--[[User:TedM|TedM]] 23:11, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
I would agree
I would agree