Is Conservipedia a joke?

Honestly, this is fairly disturbing. There’s a conservative viewpoint, then there’s outright intolerance and closed mindedness. The article for “Liberal” begins thus:
“A liberal (also leftist) is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons. There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing.”
I believe too much in human intelligence to accept that somebody actually believes that they are making legitimate arguments here. The article actually has a section titled “Liberals and Uncharitableness”. And it’s not just this article. The whole website makes a sport of childish name-calling in every article.

I don’t think people learned their lessons from the Federalists and Anti-federalists, those misnomers them!

It appears to be funny, but they are serious. It’s conservative propaganda.
Your example in mind I think most republicans would agree about that.
Since it’s a wiki, many people have tried to influence the articles or write some satire, but the core users ban everyone who smells liberal.

I think they’re dangerously good at creating their own truth and getting away with it. Imagine growing up in an extremely conservative community with those kind of narrow-minded opinions. To me it’s disturbing.

Well, from the “Article of the Year” about Evolution, you can find this:

In 1993, Professor Miron Baron, M.D., the renowned medical researcher and Professor at Columbia University, wrote in BMJ (British Medical Journal) that there is a conflict relative to the theory of evolution and the notion of genetic determinism concerning homosexuality. Dr. Baron wrote “…from an evolutionary perspective, genetically determined homosexuality would have become extinct long ago because of reduced reproduction.” In the United States, liberals are more likely to believe in the theory of evolution. Also, in the United States, twice as many liberals as conservatives (46% versus 22%) believe people are born homosexual and liberals generally have more favorable opinions about homosexuality. Given Dr. Miron Baron’s commentary about homosexuality, many American liberals are inconsistent on the issues of evolution and homosexuality.

This argument is one that makes me believe they really are serious, because they present this as a perfectly valid argument, when in reality they are linking two different viewpoints and stating that whoever believes in one of them has to believe in the other. Reading it quickly, this may pass unnoticed, but really, it doesn’t make any sense.

I found this article hilarious:

http://conservapedia.com/Essay:Best_New_Conservative_Words

Mostly because of the second paragraph, and the definitions of ‘Conservative terms’:

claptrap – 1799 – pretentious, verbose, and often liberal nonsense; example usage: “the professor wasted the rest of the class on his liberal claptrap”.

self-destruct – 1968 – often the tragic result of liberal falsehoods

and ‘Liberal terms’:

homophobia - 1969 – used by Liberals to describe a failure to subscribe 100% to the homosexual agenda.

imperialism – 1851 – a clever term used by liberals to interfere with Christian missionaries stopping anti-Christian tyranny.

As well as trying to claim words like ‘incandescent’, ‘media’ and ‘motivation’ as somehow ‘Conservative words’.

Couldn’t make this stuff up.

Someone did. Conservipedia isn’t a joke. It is actually maintained by Republicans as a reference source. It’s complete bull, that’s what it is.

What I like most is their bible rewriting project. If the scripture you’re justifying your crackpot conservatism with isn’t conservative enough, who you gonna call?

Conservipediabusters!

I wish it were a joke, rather, it seems more a propaganda machine created by Glenn Beck.

Then again, I wish Glenn Beck were a joke too.

If only if only.

Originally posted by Searth:

It appears to be funny, but they are serious. It’s conservative propaganda.

Your example in mind I think most republicans would agree about that.

Since it’s a wiki, many people have tried to influence the articles or write some satire, but the core users ban everyone who smells liberal.

I think they’re dangerously good at creating their own truth and getting away with it. Imagine growing up in an extremely conservative community with those kind of narrow-minded opinions. To me it’s disturbing.

I wouldn’t. Why would 45% of people agree with this?

Edit;; There is an advertisement about Sarah Palin on this page.

There is an advertisement about Sarah Palin on this page

I see one on Ann Coulter.

I wish there was a liberapdia just to counter this epic amount of B/S

I’ll be back, with links on just how retarded this site might just be.

EDIT: GAHHH NOWI SEE IT TOO!

Here’s a link. Just type in Sarah Palin or Barrack Obama. Then laugh. Laugh really hard. http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page

Here’s a funny little link where they try to associate Stalin, atheism, evolution, and Darwin all in one using the term “brutal atheist.”
http://conservapedia.com/Evolution

1. Everything you post must be true and verifiable. Do not copy from Wikipedia¹ or elsewhere unless it was your original work.² 2. Always cite³ and give credit to your sources,⁴ even if in the public domain.⁵ 3. Any content you create or change (including edits, new pages, images and links) must be family-friendly, clean, concise, and without gossip or foul language. 4. When referencing dates based on the approximate birth of Jesus, give appropriate credit for the basis of the date (B.C. or A.D.). “BCE” and “CE” are unacceptable substitutes because they deny the historical basis. See CE. 5. Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry. Opinions can be posted on Talk:pages or on debate or discussion pages. Advertisements are prohibited. 6. The operation of unauthorized wiki-bots is prohibited.⁶ 7. Unproductive activity, such as 90% talk page edits and only 10% quality edits to Conservapedia articles, may result in blocking of the account.⁷ See the Guidelines for more detail.

Here’s their rules.

Originally posted by 1132:

Here’s a link. Just type in Sarah Palin or Barrack Obama. Then laugh. Laugh really hard. http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page

I haven’t laughed so strongly in such a long time.

It’s just so wrong, it’s hilarious.

Originally posted by 1132:

It’s just so wrong, it’s hilarious.

Obama’s article looks like it was written by a 4 year old. Seriously, it’s pathetic. Then again, these are hyper-conservatives. The ones that seem to want to speak online seem quite similar to aforementioned children in terms of intelligence. They are probably smarter than that, but they need to try a helluva lot harder if they expect people to realize it.

LOL DOWN WITH LIBERALS!

^{(And all other ethnicities or people unlike me.)}

I took a good look around the wikia, it was amusing.

If you look throughout the articles, you see they tend to bunch all liberals together into one group, blaming them for certain things (whether they’re stated to be good or bad).

Yeah, the site is so extreme it’s actually quite hilarious. Their definition of a liberal is pretty darn hilarious. To answer the question of the thread title, to anybody with a brain, it most definitely is. I enjoyed their articles on Stephen Colbert and atheism.

It was also funny how one of the first things they put on their article of homosexuality are instances of the bible condemning it.

They also seemed quite resentful about the 2008 election:

In 2004, 64% of voters aged 18-29 were registered to vote. This year 75% of voters in that age group are registered. This demographic usually favors Democrats.

During the Republican debate, some claimed that many of the questions were from Democratic supporters just meant to embarrass the Republican candidates. For example, a question over whether or not homosexuals should serve in the U.S. military was asked by retired general and gay activist Keith Kerr, an adviser to Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

With Obama spending 110 million dollars on TV advertising in October alone, including 30 minute specials on each of the major networks, McCain was hard pressed to make up the necessary ground to win the election after being outspent by 3 to 1 for TV adds over that time period. He couldn’t count on regular TV to help put in a good word for him either, as late night political jokes are running at a pace of 7 jokes against McCain/Palin for every 1 joke against Obama/Biden and a study of news stories on McCain and Obama since the end of the conventions found that 57% of news stories about McCain were negative while only 29% were for Obama.

if i said “fail” a billion times, it would not be enough to expresst the failure i have seen. so, just enjoy this link to a picture of a monkey. failing. http://i38.tinypic.com/f0z6r.jpg

Originally posted by flashdeath30:

I wish there was a liberapdia just to counter this epic amount of B/S

Wish granted.

Originally posted by SaintAjora:

Originally posted by flashdeath30:

I wish there was a liberapdia just to counter this epic amount of B/S

Wish granted.

Woa……..Now thats blown my mind, I now feel better.

Eh….. guru turned wish granting genie……

That liberapedia should balance out the stupidity….

From the page on Obama: “The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons observed that Obama used techniques of mind control in his campaign”

I lol’d

Conservepedia doesn’t represent all conservatives.

Just throwin it out there guys.

Originally posted by SaintAjora:

Originally posted by flashdeath30:

I wish there was a liberapdia just to counter this epic amount of B/S

Wish granted.

I thought I’d never say it… But the superliberals are worse. D:

Originally posted by Ferretferret:

Originally posted by SaintAjora:

Originally posted by flashdeath30:

I wish there was a liberapdia just to counter this epic amount of B/S

Wish granted.

I thought I’d never say it… But the superliberals are worse. D:

I’m 99.9% certain that the site is a joke – it’s meant to be a parody of conservapedia, not a serious wiki.

On that note, thank you Saint, for the most amusing 2 hours of the past 3 weeks.