Conservapedia

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Uncyclopedia is not your personal pimp)
m (oops...)
(One intermediate revision by one user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
  +
{{nologo}}
  +
<div id="title-meta" style="display:none;"><div style="width:100%; height:30px; background: #0b42a7; color: white; line-height:150%;">&nbsp;Conservapedia</div></div><div id="title-align" style="display: none;"></div>
  +
<div style="position:absolute; top: -45px; left:-1px; width:1px;">
  +
<div style="position:absolute; right: 0px; width: 200px; background: #f7f7f7; height:400px;">
  +
</div>
  +
</div>
  +
<div style="position:absolute; top: -40px; left: -150px;">
  +
http://www.conservapedia.com/skins/common/images/conservlogo.png
  +
</div>
 
[[Image:Conservlogo.png|right|thumb|250px|Conservative? It can't be - it only has PART of our glorious flag on it!]]
 
[[Image:Conservlogo.png|right|thumb|250px|Conservative? It can't be - it only has PART of our glorious flag on it!]]
 
'''Conservapedia'''<ref>Or '''Liberalpedia''', as it might as well be called</ref> is the wiki-based online encyclopedia project that purports itself to be "the trustworthy encyclopedia." This motto was chosen over the more accurate "Bullshit Encyclopedia." Little do its poor, misguided editors realize, however, that Conservapedia is actually rife with '''stinking ''liberal'' bias and viewpoints.''' While its creator, Andrew Schlafly <ref>Using the internet name Arsefly</ref>, wears an elaborate façade of the archetypical conservative: overt piety, disapproval of so-called "science," and hatred for all things liberal, the ''liberal'' stance of his sad website is manifestly clear. He single-handedly shames the United States flag by printing "conservapedia" right onto it.
 
'''Conservapedia'''<ref>Or '''Liberalpedia''', as it might as well be called</ref> is the wiki-based online encyclopedia project that purports itself to be "the trustworthy encyclopedia." This motto was chosen over the more accurate "Bullshit Encyclopedia." Little do its poor, misguided editors realize, however, that Conservapedia is actually rife with '''stinking ''liberal'' bias and viewpoints.''' While its creator, Andrew Schlafly <ref>Using the internet name Arsefly</ref>, wears an elaborate façade of the archetypical conservative: overt piety, disapproval of so-called "science," and hatred for all things liberal, the ''liberal'' stance of his sad website is manifestly clear. He single-handedly shames the United States flag by printing "conservapedia" right onto it.
Line 82: Line 91:
 
</div>
 
</div>
   
{{FA|date=14 March 2008|revision=2861793}}
+
{{FA|date=14 March 2008|revision=2861793|nobadge=true}}
 
{{UnMedia}}
 
{{UnMedia}}
   

Revision as of 03:57, June 1, 2010

conservlogo.png

Conservlogo

Conservative? It can't be - it only has PART of our glorious flag on it!

Conservapedia[1] is the wiki-based online encyclopedia project that purports itself to be "the trustworthy encyclopedia." This motto was chosen over the more accurate "Bullshit Encyclopedia." Little do its poor, misguided editors realize, however, that Conservapedia is actually rife with stinking liberal bias and viewpoints. While its creator, Andrew Schlafly [2], wears an elaborate façade of the archetypical conservative: overt piety, disapproval of so-called "science," and hatred for all things liberal, the liberal stance of his sad website is manifestly clear. He single-handedly shames the United States flag by printing "conservapedia" right onto it.

History

Conservapedia

Conservapedia in its true, liberal form.

Conservapedia was created as a seemingly trustworthy encyclopedia by Andrew Schlafly, extolling the values our great nation was built upon, the values of Real America; independence, personal responsibility, self-interest[3] as well as freedom of the press[4] and freedom of religion.[5] It began in 2006, supposedly with the grand vision of expunging the rampant liberal bias from but one small site on the internet. Perhaps the vision was too grand, but it is far more likely that Schlafly himself is to blame. It is not that he is not conservative, just that he has never had the nerve to do what was necessary to keep the liberal scoundrels, who clearly penetrate all aspects of the internet, in line.

At first, only US citizens with conservative viewpoints were able to find the site and register for accounts. This is because conservatives are naturally smarter and more physically attractive than everyone else, although it is still not 100% clear which page in the Bible indicates how the latter normal feature of all conservatives factored into their ability to find the site. For this brief time things were pious, clean, and morally sound – there was even room for some of that good old-fashioned southern hospitality and charm. Conservapedia was kept clean, neat, and factual by legions of African American volunteers. However, this utopia could not last.

Soon, some conservatives who may have been slightly more socially liberal and who agreed with some American democrats on one or two issues began to discover the site. In other words, everything was ruined. They thought they could make Conservapedia more "fair," and soon the rivers of "fact"[6] – nothing more than filth, and yes, even liberal deceit – began to flow freely, branching off into denser and more complex creeks, tributaries, and oxbows of depravity.

Andrew Schlafly

Conservapedia's founder, Andrew Schlafly. Smiling on the outside, liberal on the inside.

Andrew Schlafly tried to slow this inevitability. Banning anonymous editing was a step in the correct direction, as it is clear that all anonymous IPs have a strong liberal bias. However, when banning liberal vandals, many of which had made as much as one mistake, administrators often distributed bans only lasting for five measly years. In Texas, mistakes warrant the death penalty! True conservatives are "tough on crime," and Mr. Schlafly was clearly not tough on crime.

Before long, Conservapedia contained articles about such falsities as "Evolution," which isn't real, "Homosexuality," which isn't real, either, and "Bacon," which, despite being real, is far more delicious than it is portrayed by the liberal dogs that wrote the article about it.

In recent times, Conservapedia has degenerated into little more than a melting pot of heathens and sodomites. If this corruption by liberals continues, it is assured that soon even the Bible will no longer be considered a pure source of factual information.

Gunsandgod

The problem isn't that Conservapedia isn't pro-gun and pro-Jesus. The problem is that Conservapedia isn't pro-gun and pro-Jesus enough.

Wiki: the Communist Manifesto

The format called the "wiki", being based on collaborative contributions by many contributors, is the opposite of good, clean, American Conservative values. It is, simply, collectivization in disguise.

Real Conservative internet sites, like Worldnetdaily, use laissez-faire competition, not collaboration, for their pages. Conservapedia is a wiki, and wikis depend on the input of the common worker for their content. Therefore, Conservapedia, and its Conservapedian proletariat supporters, is a Commie-pinko front for liberal values.

Comrade Schlafly says that Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public, but statistics show that members of Conservapedia are, on average, more than eleven times more liberal than real Americans![7]

Worse, Politburo Chief Schlafly wants to take the internet in a worldwide revolution of so-called "Conservative values". Luckily, real Conservatives see through his paper thin disguise, and point out that under his no-clothes this self styled Emperor is a dirty, naked liberal.

Some critics have pointed out that the dictionary definitions for communism and liberalism are two quite different things. Real conservative critics, in turn, reply that neither communism nor liberalism are conservatism. Therefore, they're both the same thing; enemies of conservatives. Besides, real Conservatives don't own dictionaries. They don't need them.[8]

Christian values???

Another example of the rampant liberalism in Conservapedia is its unwillingness to ban people for the amount of time that God would have wanted. As it states in Holy Scripture,

603px-Sputnikteck

Andrew Schlafly, shown connecting the Conservapedia server to the internet. Just out of frame, Phyllis Schlafly (his mother and a "conservative" activist) is burning an American flag.

Cquote1 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast [it] from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having none. Cquote2

—Matt 18:9

Or, the more direct quote:

Cquote1 God beholdeth at all things and knoweth all sinnes. God sayeth in his wrath, "I hath seen thine liberal[istic] editing on Conservapedia and I will wish thee a fine time in hell, for thou knowst that is where thou belongst. Thine editings are a disgrace and blasphemise mine teachinges and thou knowest that thou art a sinner. " Cquote2

—Joseph 4:20

In other words, it's better to be saved than sorry. God's ban is a permaban. The Bible doesn't lie.[9] Unfortunately, Conservapedia refuses to ban Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists for any length of time even close to what God would have wanted. One Jewish user was blocked for 5 years. Five puny years! That's not even close to the eternity of hellfire that all sinners (and Liberals!) in the wrong religions will endure! And that was after a warning. Does God give warnings? Hell no, he smites. Not only that, but the Jewish user, was subsequently unblocked! Obviously, Rabbi Schlafly was in on this, and is perpetuating a degradation of true Christian values.

Similarly way-too-short blocks were issued to users like this Hindu, this Jew, this Voodoo, this Jew, and this Jew. Clearly, Imam-High Priest-Brahmin-Witch doctor-Guru-Rastafarian-Rabbi-Thing Schlafly lacks any sort of true Christian morality.

Homosexuality at Conservapedia

Since the creation of the site by Andrew Schlafly, son of feminist Phyllis Schlafly and brother of homosexual John Schlafly, there's been a noticeable focus on homosexual desires in many of the articles. Overall, this disturbing trend leads to the conclusion that homosexuality is always on the tip of the tongue of various Conservapedians. Indeed, this trend has seemingly intensified over the past year, with some users finding themselves ganged up on in regards to homosexuality. Obviously, due to the nature of the site (the site is aimed towards homeschooled children), parents have expressed concern over numerous articles and discussions, including "Homosexual Overcoming" and "Smoking Homosexuals". One of the clear proponents of the Homosexual focus of Conservapedia is user Ed Poor, who displays with pride that he is a member of the Homosexual "Bear" community, woof!

Promises of Conservapedia in Christian Scripture

In Revelation, the book wherein basically everything is promised if you try hard enough

Cquote1 ...I saw a woman seated on a scarlet beast that was covered with blasphemous names, with seven heads and ten horns Cquote2

—Rv 17:3

This states that God promises that one day, a great beast shall rise up from whence he was banished, and he would be great. This beast, clearly, is the beast of liberal pussy communist bastards. Further symbolizing them is the fact that a woman is seated on it. A WOMAN!!! Who is, by the way, not in the kitchen. What does this tell us? That avarice and inhumanity will rise. Later in this chapter, we get a promise of a savior:

Cquote1 ...but the Lamb will conquer them, for he is Lord of lords and king of kings... Cquote2

—Rv 17:14

This is Conservapedia! It will crush the disgusting insurrection of the moralless beast, restore the gross misogyny and tyranny that God would want. It is killing beasts and harlots since before Angels and Airwaves were born. Alas, something has gone wrong...

Bible2

Artist's conception of Conservapedia 1.0, which WILL beat Wikipedia 1.0 to the shelves! Liberal pussy communist bastards...

In Genesis, which is kinda the opposite of Revelation, but hey!

Cquote1 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. Cquote2

—Gn 3:5-6

This seems, at first, to be Conservapedia. What else could the fruit that teaches all that is true be? But wait! God is pissed off now!

Cquote1 And he said, Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten of the tree, of which I commanded that you should not eat? Cquote2

—Gn 3:14

And now it's clear. These false truths are what God dislikes, these blasphemous lies perpetuated by liberal "scientists," who weren't even homeschooled and are therefore retarded, and then spread by evil websites just like Conservapedia. We all know who else presents these false truths; the serpent. The serpent...or those liberal, pussy, pink, socialist, feminist, lesbian, softy, anti-fascist communist bastards. And here God promises Conservapedia:

Cquote1 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; it shall strike at your head as you strike at his heel. Cquote2

—Gn 3:15

What better representation of Conservapedia than a concept such as enmity? We will STRIKE at the liberal pussy communist bastards as they attempt to bruise our heels, and we shall slaughter all of them, just as God undoubtedly intended.[10]

Drawing the obligatory conclusions

Conservlogo
For those who want their "facts" presented to them with rampant liberal bias, the pinko cowards at Conservapedia have an article about Themselves
Bouncywikilogo7
For those without comedic tastes, the so-called experts at Wikipedia have an article about Conservapedia.

And so, all in all, it is painfully clear from the above-cited evidence that the website Conservapedia is an abhorrent, liberal scourge of the internet. The very fact that its misnomer of a name falsely claims conservative beliefs is itself evidence of the website's glaring liberal deceptions. Perhaps Mr. Schlafly had a better vision in mind when he spawned Conservapedia, but he should know that pride is one of the seven deadly sins, just as sloth, wrath, evolution, and premarital masturbation are.[11] Mr. Schlafly's pride deceived him into thinking that the internet has any hope of supporting clean, family, Christian values, and because of that he is an ignorant stupid liberal pinko commie left-wing tax-raising media-supporting ignorant stupid liberal. And he is going to Hell. A website as conservative as this surely has the authority to make that judgment.

See also

External Links


Footnotes

  1. Or Liberalpedia, as it might as well be called
  2. Using the internet name Arsefly
  3. ...and obedience to authority
  4. Go Fox News!
  5. You know which one
  6. Ronald Reagan once said "Facts are stupid things." Ronald Reagan said it. It's true. It's not a fact, though. They're stupid.
  7. No references needed here, it's painfully obvious!
  8. Definitions are for University professors and blue states.
  9. It's inerrant. Obviously.
  10. Messages of peace and love in the Bible are metaphorical or anecdotal, what God really wants is genocide of all liberals.
  11. Little-known honorable mentions for the seven deadly sins included homosexuality, liberalism, questioning any established institutions, and the female orgasm.
Potatohead aqua Featured Article  (read another featured article) Featured version: 14 March 2008
This article has been featured on the front page. — You can vote for or nominate your favourite articles at Uncyclopedia:VFH.
<includeonly>Template:FA/14 March 2008Template:FA/2008</includeonly>
   v  d  e
Conservapedia is part of Uncyclopedia's series on Mass Media.


Personal tools
In other languages
projects