Because reality has that nasty progressive bias, conservatives have again created their own, more comforting version, led by none other than Andrew, House of Schlafly. In response to that bastion of overly tolerant, anti-Americanism called the Wikipedia, we present the Conservapedia, dedicated to insuring that wingnuts young and old maintain their grip on ignorance. Let’s look at a few of the evolving definitions, how about, say, global warming?
A wiki is a sort of encyclopedia/dictionary which can be edited by users at will. This makes for some rather dizzying changes and deletions on the conservative incarnation. Here for example was the reported entire entry on Stalin, at least until it was removed out of either shame or embarrassment:
Hitler, the ever-clever Nazi atheist, not only fooled everyone by couching his perverse ideology in the context of religion again and again, he defeated Stalin in World War II by ingeniously committing suicide while Soviet troops mopped up the last crumbling remnants of the Third Reich in 1945 Berlin.
It’s a laugh a minute on the Conservapedia as the base of the GOP discovers how ungainly a resource can be, when the goal is to mislead readers with lies and deception on a venue which can be updated with actual facts and references by anyone who reads it. So go on over, check it out, help make it a success, and enjoy.
Hope comes to us by Scriptures. We said already that hope is founded in the promises of God, but we know these promises through the Scriptures, where God has revealed us His promises. Paul says: That we, through the patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope (Romans 15:4).
In other words, the site is just slow, probably in anticipation of the rapture. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapture
Global warming is a controversial theory that claims that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) due to industrialization is causing temperatures to increase around the world, to the detriment of our environment. Al Gore, Vice President under President Clinton from 1992 to 2000, is a high profile advocate of this theory. Promoters of this theory, including many prominent scientists, call for international treaties, like one proposed in Kyoto, Japan, to limit carbon emissions using a combination of conservation and technological innovation.
The theory is widely accepted within the scientific community despite a lack of any conclusive evidence, though that is not to say there is no evidence at all.[1][2] On February 2, 2007, an internatonal panel of hundreds of scientists and representatives of 113 governments issued a report concluding:
The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice-mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past 50 years can be explained without external forcing, and very likely that is not due to known natural causes alone."[3] It should be noted that these scientists are motivated by a need for grant money in their field of climatology. Therefore, their work can not be considered unbiased, though no more than any scientist in any other field.[4]. Also, these scientists are mostly liberal athiests, untroubled by the hubris that man can destroy the Earth which God gave him.[5]
There are some scientists among the critics of the theory that global warming is caused by human activity. For example, Dr. Fred Singer observed that “CO2 changes have lagged about 800 years behind the temperature changes. Global warming has produced more CO2, rather than more CO2 producing global warming.”[6] Though, it must be said, that no scientist denies that C02 has lagged behind temperature at certain times in Earth’s history. They maintain this doesn’t negate in any way c02’s influence on temperature. It merely means it wasnt a first cause of temperature increase at particular times in Earths distance history.
Some people claim that Liberals would like to see the economy of America destroyed by forcing us to drive solar cars to work, and use geothermal energy to heat our homes. Global warming is merely a thinly-veiled liberal attempt to destroy capitalism, they claim. Others, on the other hand, rather than claim it’s about destroying capitalism claim that it’s actually a money making scam on the part of investors who stand to reap significant profits if the economy switches to alternative energy sources. Such is the passion and paranoia surrounding this topic.
Global warming is a controversial theory that claims that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) due to industrialization is causing temperatures to increase around the world, to the detriment of our environment.
Some people claim that Liberals would like to see the economy of America destroyed by forcing us to drive solar cars to work, and use geothermal energy to heat our homes. Global warming is merely a thinly-veiled liberal attempt to destroy capitalism, they claim. Others, on the other hand, rather than claim it’s about destroying capitalism claim that it’s actually a money making scam on the part of investors who stand to reap significant profits if the economy switches to alternative energy sources. Such is the passion and paranoia surrounding this topic.
No, their site has been overwhelmed by the huge numbers of people going there to laugh at them.
Actually, these guys are so stupid that it’s hard to tell which are the parodies, but I think this has the genuine YEC looney-tunes flavour (Whoop! Whoop! Red Alert! British spelling!!- one of their objections to Wiki is that some entries actually have that funny foreign English from…England.)
[quote]The existence of unicorns is controversial. Secular opinion is that they are mythical. However, they are referred to in the Bible nine times,[1] which provides an unimpeachable de facto argument for their once having been in existence.
In the original texts, unicorns go by the Hebrew name Re-em whereas the Greek Septuagint used the name Monokeros.[2] Unicorn itself is Latin. All three names mean “one horn”
While popularly characterized as a horned member of the horse baramin, it is likely that the unicorn was actually quite unhorselike. One recognized theory is that the unicorn was actually the rhinoceros,[1] however a growing number of Creation researchers are theorizing that the unicorn was actually a member of the ceratopsian baramin.[2]
Post-Noachian references[1] to unicorns have led some researchers to argue that unicorns are still alive today. At the very least, it is likely that they were taken aboard the Ark prior to the Great Flood.[/quote]
I pity the poor teachers in America, who are going to be faced with having to explain to some poor kid that, no, unicorns don’t really exist.
“But, but, I read it in Conservapedia!”, followed by angry parents storming in to demand teacher be fired for violating their little angel’s religious freedom.
“I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.” J.S. Mill
[quote]Islam is a religion of Abraham that has grown to be the second largest religion with over 1.4 billion followers.
…
Others have pointed to the pagan roots of various Muslim prohibitions, such as the ban on pork originating in the 3rd-century AD Damascene cult of the pig-god Jamal.[/quote]
Because there wouldn’t be any other source for a religion of Abraham prohibiting eating pork, now, would there? Doesn’t quite seem kosher.
TT what’s your point? What are you trying to say … are you anti-atheist? Are you one of those screwnut ‘christian’ preachers you can watch on American TV …
So what Hitler and Stalin were atheists … muslims shoot each other … and I guess there are ‘christian’ muggers running around …
The obscure titles (nobility, not royalty, actually) are: baron, baronet, earl
Speaking of bias, you might think that this would be the time for the author (and chief editor of Conservapedia) to point out that he is General Counsel for the AAPS ( a right-wing anti-malpractice group) but apparently not.
I wonder what the old-school conservatives would think of this current trend to bend science and reality to fit an ideological agenda. Somewhere Lincoln has to be rolling in his grave when modern GOP members write how the Confederacy won the Civil War.
Well, I’m pretty sure if Lincoln were watching from his grave all this time, he would have given up on the GOP sometime around the 1920s or 30s, when the GOP stopped being the liberal party.
When the GOP governor of Texas hosted that event with Ted Nugent screaming anti-Latino hate into the crowd in his little stars-and-bars outfit, the crowd ate it all up – the minorities at the event surely would have been lynched on the spot if the GOPpers hadn’t thought they were useful for serving food and drinks.
I don’t know what an old school conservative is, but I think it’s pretty stupid. Next thing you know people will be basing political policies on Oscar Award winning movies with ideological agendas.
Content shmontent. What tees me off is that they totally ripped off Wikipedia’s look. If you’re gonna rip on them for bias and whatnot, don’t leech off of their reputation to establish yourself.
Wikipedia’s base software, Mediawiki, looks like this off-the-shelf. It’s open-source, so anyone can use the software to set up their own wiki. So they didn’t rip it off, they just used it as is. Of course it can be customised to alter the look, but when they haven’t even bothered to add an image, I hardly think they’d be worrying about doing that. I like their disclaimer.
