More facepalm than you can shake a stick at: Conservapedia

[sgreger1]

Guys, has anyone else ever read this? My article I posted the other day about this wiki claiming relitivity is a liberal conspiracy inspired me to read more from conservapedia. All I can say is WOW, I mean absolute endles amounts of facepalm, enough to go around and share with your friends and family.



Look at some of this stuff:


They talk about "scientific proof" that the bible is right and atheists are wrong, and that what Christians believe is scientificaly proven, whereas atheism has no facts to support it.

According to Consvervapedia, the official numbers are:
Counterexamples to the Bible= 0 Counterexamples to Evolution= 60 IQ of Atheists= 0 divided by 60


Here is a list of methods they have at their disposal to show as "evidence" for their claim.

• Arguments based on the historical accounts of the Bible;
• Defense of the historical accuracy of the Bible;
• Christian Legal Apologetics
• Bible prophecy
• Biblical Archaeology, seeking to show that the Bible is consistent with the physical evidence;
• Creation science and Creationism, seeking to show that the creation accounts of the Bible are the most reasonable explanation for life as we know it and that the evolutionary paradigm is untenable.

What is this nonesense about the historical accuracy of the bible, that has nothing to do with anything. All they do is prove that the cities and rulers etc described in the bible were actual cities and rulers at the time in which the bible claims to have been written.

But that means nothing. For example: If I wrote a bible today, I would note that the prophet sgreger1 lived in San Francisco, and that Obama was president. What conservapedia is doing here is akin to someone at a future date looking back at the "bible" I wrote and saying "See, historical evidence shows that there was a san francisco, and Obama was the leader at the time! This renders everything in the text to be true beyond any doubt!"


And what is this creation "science". Creationism is, by design, impossible to prove using the scientific method, because it assumes the existence of entities and events which are beyond the scope fo scientific inquiry. We cannot prove god snapped his fingers one day and man and the stars and everything just suddenly appeared. There is no way it will ever be possible to prove that using science, absent a first hand testimony from God if he ever decides to come down here and have a chat at the UN or something. And creationism is "the most reasonable explanation for life"? How about no, while we can't discount it completely, it seems that god snapping his fingers is not the "most reasonable", but rather a more reasonable theory would be that it was the result a slow progression of life evolving into an ever more diverse,comlex, and interconnected system of organisms all living in a similar environment (since that is what we observe today).








If anyone wants to go on a twisted journey through a maze of disinfo and pseudo-science, this site is a must!

[chadizzy1]

[sgreger1]

BBwbwhaahhahahahahahaahhaah. Omg omg omg, check this little gem out. This is a list of "conservative words" which proves that the future will be more conservative and that they are smarter than liberals. Seriously, I dare you not to laugh out loud while reading this at work.



Each year the English language develops about a thousand new words. The King James Version of the Bible contains only about 8,000 different words,[1] and many good words have developed since then.

Conservative terms, which express conservative insights, are being generated at a faster rate, and with much higher quality, than liberal terms are. This implies an inevitable conservative triumph over liberalism.

Powerful, insightful new conservative terms have grown at a geometric rate, roughly doubling every century. For every insightful new conservative term originating in the 1600s, there are two new terms originating in the 1700s, four new terms in the 1800s, and eight new terms in the 1900s, for a pattern of "1-2-4-8". This implies a more conservative future and a correlation between conservatism and truth.


This includes "conservative" words such as:

activism (1915): this differentiates conservatives from inactive people.

algorithm (1894)" an efficient and consistent step-by-step methodology for achieving a goal, the opposite of liberal style"

claptrap (1799): pretentious, verbose, and often liberal nonsense; example usage: "the professor wasted the rest of the class on his liberal claptrap" <---- LOLOOLOLOLO

crystal clear (1815): liberals are the opposite

cyberbullying (2000s): a type of obnoxious and hurtful liberal behavior on the internet

ivory tower (1910): a description of the pampered culture of liberal professors, and how far out of touch with the truth it is

life vest (1939): a pro-life invention

wannabe (1981): a word that criticizes liberal status worship




The list goes on an on, but these are all words that conservatives allegedly coined, and they all come coupled with an absolute knee-slapper of a definition for each one. This is entertainment at it's finest.


I propose we replace the entire Glenn Beck show with a list of these words and their definitions just scrolling past the screen for an hour. On the radio they could be read aloud by Morgan Freeman.


http://www.conservapedia.com/Essay:B...ervative_Words

[RobsanX]

I don't know why you find this shocking. What do you think keeps the bottom 98% of earners in the US voting Republican? It sure as hell isn't the Republican desire to help working people.

[sgreger1]

I don't know why you find this shocking. What do you think keeps the bottom 98% of earners in the US voting Republican? It sure as hell isn't the Republican desire to help working people.

Actually it's the exact opposite:

"Income. Low-income voters tend to favor the Democratic Party while high-income voters tend to support the Republican Party."

"The continued importance of the working class votes manifests itself in recent CNN exit polls, which shows that the majority of those with low incomes and little education vote for the Democratic Party.[9][10][11]"



But, aside from that, both parties are filled mainly with people from the middle class, and EVERYONE in the middle class wants to make money, have nice things and be successfull. The only difference between the parties is how they plan to go about it. I personally tend to lean towards the free market and small government myself. The problem is that this is what "conservatives" believe in, but none of our current representatives who identify as "republican" or "conservative" actually follow that ideology. Instead they just grow government and decrease liberty.


I agree with the general conserative policy of don't suck up extra taxes in return for a lot of social programs, however I do think we should have reasonable safety nets for the unemployed, that the poor should get some basic assistance such as healthcare, and that we should take care of our elderly, but I think the current system doesn't cater to the those goals in "reasonable" levels. It's turned from temporary assistance programs into an all out welfare state, where tens of millions spend years and years on government aid.



Infact, here's a parable straight from conservapedia! lol


A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and among other liberal ideals, was very much in favor of higher taxes to support more government programs, in other words, redistribution of wealth.

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Conservative, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in school.

Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.

Her father listened and then asked, 'How is your friend Audrey doing?' She replied, 'Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over.'

Her wise father asked his daughter, 'Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of your GPA.'

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, 'That's a crazy idea, how would that be fair! I've worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!'

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, 'Welcome to the conservative's philosophy.'

[AllanH]

I remember some South American dictatorships banning vectors in maths because they're so marxist.

[texastorm]

I consider myself off the deep end when it comes to politics.

First of all in my experience, the poor tend to be Democrats. My sister is a staunch Democrat and lifetime welfare recipient (explain to me once again how people can only stay on for so long?)
The small business owners tend to be more Republican. It seem the business owner wants to make money and be left alone.

The uber wealthy tend to be Democrat? WTF? One would thinnk they would be more Republican!

I have after some very minor thinking come up with a theory. The uber wealthy have an "Everyone BUT me mentality', so they believe that they should be calling the shots for the little guy, since they are so smart and wealthy. Its the power complex, they cant get enough. They already control the money so no they want to control the people too. So the philosophy is, if there are laws for more control, then people wont do X___. So the uber wealthy are just on a power trip. Berate me all you want, but it is only a theory. I have no facts to back up my claims.

The trouble with the Republichrist party in my opinion is the interjection of religion and morals. Conservative government should be the norm, and I truly believe people could embrace a more conservative fiscal path, but I don't want to be told what is moral, just, or what God to believe in.

So why the hell are there only two parties anyway, and why when some other party pops up does the population not get behind it? Sure we have the Tea Party, but its not a true party. We have tried and failed with many "new" parties. Always this 3rd guy on the ballot gets 1% or so of the vote. It would stand to reason if people are truly fed up, they would stand up and do something. But we don't, because we are a nation being slowly overtaken by big brother, and I predict that one day (provided the Mayans are wrong) we will all have a chip embedded in us to scan our id and track us. They will pass the bill to keep the children safe (of course). I also predict that cigarettes and alcohol will never go away.

You heard it here first folks... now go tell a friend.

And oh yeah, the aliens are coming (back)

[sgreger1]

I remember some South American dictatorships banning vectors in maths because they're so marxist.

LOLOOOLOLOLOLOLLOL, that's awesome. It's actually an intiresting "people watching" experience to read two completely different accounts of the same story. For example the creationist/evolusion thing. Read wikipedia's version on evolution, then read conservapedia's. It proves beyond any doubt in my mind that 2 people looking at the same thing will always come away from the situation with a radically different view of what happened. I mean it's like reading the news from two different countries.


It's like that with a lot of things too, if you live in Iran for a while you start to think everyone is a zionist jew, and that anyone who listens to punk rock is a vampire who worships the devil. On the other end, if you live in America for a while you learn that everyone everywhere is a communist and that there is an ongoing epic battle of biblical proportions between Americans and socialism/marxist, and you also believe that you are just the free'ist guy on the planet just because your American, and that the whole rest of the world is living under despotism or something.

Reading conservapedia is briliant example of how blatant the ongoing infowar is between the various parties. Everyone lives in their own world, colored by their cultural biases and shaded by ongoing propaganda coming in from every angle.

[ChaoticGemini]

I propose we replace the entire Glenn Beck show with a list of these words and their definitions just scrolling past the screen for an hour. On the radio they could be read aloud by Morgan Freeman.


http://www.conservapedia.com/Essay:B...ervative_Words

I might actually have to watch/listen to that.

[Randall]

BBwbwhaahhahahahahahaahhaah. Omg omg omg, check this little gem out. This is a list of "conservative words" which proves that the future will be more conservative and that they are smarter than liberals. Seriously, I dare you not to laugh out loud while reading this at work.



Each year the English language develops about a thousand new words. The King James Version of the Bible contains only about 8,000 different words,[1] and many good words have developed since then.

Conservative terms, which express conservative insights, are being generated at a faster rate, and with much higher quality, than liberal terms are. This implies an inevitable conservative triumph over liberalism.

Powerful, insightful new conservative terms have grown at a geometric rate, roughly doubling every century. For every insightful new conservative term originating in the 1600s, there are two new terms originating in the 1700s, four new terms in the 1800s, and eight new terms in the 1900s, for a pattern of "1-2-4-8". This implies a more conservative future and a correlation between conservatism and truth.


This includes "conservative" words such as:

activism (1915): this differentiates conservatives from inactive people.

algorithm (1894)" an efficient and consistent step-by-step methodology for achieving a goal, the opposite of liberal style"

claptrap (1799): pretentious, verbose, and often liberal nonsense; example usage: "the professor wasted the rest of the class on his liberal claptrap" <---- LOLOOLOLOLO

crystal clear (1815): liberals are the opposite

cyberbullying (2000s): a type of obnoxious and hurtful liberal behavior on the internet

ivory tower (1910): a description of the pampered culture of liberal professors, and how far out of touch with the truth it is

life vest (1939): a pro-life invention

wannabe (1981): a word that criticizes liberal status worship




The list goes on an on, but these are all words that conservatives allegedly coined, and they all come coupled with an absolute knee-slapper of a definition for each one. This is entertainment at it's finest.


I propose we replace the entire Glenn Beck show with a list of these words and their definitions just scrolling past the screen for an hour. On the radio they could be read aloud by Morgan Freeman.


http://www.conservapedia.com/Essay:B...ervative_Words

Is Pat Robertson the writer? Sounds like his way of thinking.

[teeotee]

If i wasn't so trashed right now i'd read more .... if work is slow tomorrow i'll come back to this thread

EDIT ...... "Implied Facepalm" pic .... awesome !!!!!!!

[justintempler]

Conservapedia =