I have to question the wisdom of a “conservative” website that feels it needs a profile of Adolf Hitler and none of Buckley or Goldwater. They have James Buchanan but no Patrick. They have Coulter but no Krauthammer.
I find it funny that the bio of Reagan has the following nugget showing Reagan’s Hulk-like smashing ability:
To what Taffy said: I stand corrected. :bravo:
And don’t forget Nixon! Women’s rights. Endangered Species Protection Act. Lots of environmental protection legislation. Opening up relations with China. Hell, other than all that illegal wire-tapping stuff and his position on Vietnam, Nixon was a liberal!
And don’t forget Nixon! Women’s rights. Endangered Species Protection Act. Lots of environmental protection legislation. Opening up relations with China. Hell, other than all that illegal wire-tapping stuff and his position on Vietnam, Nixon was a liberal![/quote]
How about Teddy Roosevelt? Able to go hunting (no NRA problems there, right?) but also able to set aside massive lands for preservation. We need a president who just says “Bully!” as a expression of approval without it being an exhortation to his cabinet for how to get work done.
Yes, the Conservapedia is moronic. It’s really, really stupid. But the page view statistics offer a clue to what many people viewing the site are pathologically obsessed with.
(I discovered this via AndrewSullivan.com)
It’s a lie! Bowels are not born gay–they CHOOSE to be gay!
so, what’s the conservopedia have to say about the noun “santorum”? google it…
A fine former Senator who was the victim of an unfortunate (wait for it) SMEAR campaign, hence his Capitol Hill nickname of “Frothy”.
What does the Bible say about those who take the holy things of the temple (literal meaning of “santorum”–something to do with saints or holiness?) and drag them through the mud? Or something similar to mud, heh heh.
But boy, he really screwed the pooch with his re-election campaign.
[quote]The Reality of Thanksgiving [6]
“The Pilgrims’ triumph over hunger and poverty at Plymouth Colony can be traced to something more than the charitable gestures of a few local Indians. Rather, it involves their courageous decision to replace a failed, socialistic agricultural system with one informed by the free-market principle of private ownership of property” [/quote]
I like how they minimize the contributions of the “few local Indians” who charitably gave their upstart neighbours food so they wouldn’t starve in the winter. It was also noted that the Plymouth Colony had “gentlemen” for whom manual labour was beneath them, and so would not help obtain food… yes, that’s “socialism” alright.
And in an odd twist of fate, the female prostitute may inherit the Kingdom of Heaven while the male prostitute dies a thousand deaths in hell:
Here’s a weird entry. What exactly is a homosexuality-related contract?
[quote=“rousseau”]Yes, the Conservapedia is moronic. It’s really, really stupid. But the page view statistics offer a clue to what many people viewing the site are pathologically obsessed with.
(I discovered this via AndrewSullivan.com)[/quote]
Well I went and checked out gay bowel syndrome, as I’d never heard of it, and I suspect all the fuss there has to do with gay blogs picking up on this particular pack of hate-filled nonesense. There is no such syndrome. Understandbly many a gay blogger is screaching to the high heavens.
HG
heh heh heh…
.jpg)
…we know who you all are…mwahahahahahah!
“smear” campaign. he he. i bet a few sets of other wise sparkling clean bed sheets have complained of the same thing.
Schmear, Schmuckle…
Mudslinging codswalloping drivel!
What faulty fiend has been fuggin with what once was excellence in elocution, dash in one’s diction, and the majestic marvelous muse?
In other words, where’s the sense of intellectual discourse?
Are we not learned & reasonable chaps?
Nay, we are farumosans…
Ah, such, such, were the daze…
Oops, posted on wrong thread…
Ever think Conservapedia seems like it was written by children? SURPRISE! It was!
I think these rankings can be explained by perverted liberal visitors checking out how funny and stupid the Conservapedia is. The site is a bit like conservatism in general these days–struggling not to be thought of as a joke, while the world passes them by.
[quote=“TheGingerMan”]Schmear, Schmuckle…
Mudslinging codswalloping drivel!
What faulty fiend has been fuggin with what once was excellence in elocution, dash in one’s diction, and the majestic marvelous muse?
In other words, where’s the sense of intellectual discourse?
Are we not learned & reasonable chaps?
Nay, we are farumosans…
[/quote]
Ah,… such, …such,…; were the daze…