Conquer Club

For your slightly less biased encyclopedic reference.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page

I found that website kind of outdated (in it's ideas) but I did find an awesome quote...

"When your work speaks for itself, don't interrupt.”
---Henry J. Kaiser

Norse wrote:For your slightly less biased encyclopedic reference.

Are you kidding? The sites very URL admits that it's biased!

My theory is that entire site is just one big joke.

It spends so much time describing how "educational, clean, and concise" it is that no-one in their right mind could take it seriously.

I really, really hope it's a joke...

Neutrino wrote:It spends so much time describing how "educational, clean, and concise"

A fact that I find amusing because the article on "Politically correct language" has this to say:

"Politically correct language, or political correctness, consists of linguistic restrictions imposed by authorities or pressure groups"

http://www.conservapedia.com/Political_correctness

I consider myself conservative, but this website is ridiculous.

Site is basically run by the administrators. Barely qualifies as a wiki. Editing is very carefully controlled, editing isn't even possible when there are no moderators around, they shut down editing for the night sometimes.

qeee1 wrote:Site is basically run by the administrators. Barely qualifies as a wiki. Editing is very carefully controlled, editing isn't even possible when there are no moderators around, they shut down editing for the night sometimes.

Sounds very conservative. Very controlled and police stateish.

Whereas most wiki's are monitored communism... The People's Encyclopedia.

Harumph!

I only use http://www.uncyclopedia.org thankyou very much.

kwanton wrote:Harumph!

I only use http://www.uncyclopedia.org thankyou very much.

ah. a great site. i was about to post it...but you have saved me the trouble. the funniest things are the news articles and the random did you know facts

News story: Soccer Victory Proves Iraq Strategy is Working, Says Bush

theonion.com

Wikipedia has two million entries, but not one for liberal. Users who go to that term are redirected to the Wikipedia entry on liberalism that conceals the liberal support of gun control and taxpayer funding of abortion, and liberal censorship of prayer in public school.

How desperate is that site at condemning Wikipedia?

Norse wrote:For your slightly less biased encyclopedic reference.

Slightly less biased? Are you fucking kidding me?

EDIT::

I typed up United States, and this is a sentence in it about what countries it borders.

Conservapedia wrote:The United States has land borders with Canada and Mexico, as well as several territorial water boundaries with Canada, Russia and The Bahamas. It is otherwise bounded by the Pacific Ocean, the Bering Sea, the Arctic Ocean, the Atlantic Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Caribbean Sea.

Now.. I'm wondering, where is Cuba in that bordering? And you can't say Cuba does not border the US by water, because it does, and I have a world map on my wall to prove it.

Because Cuba is Communist does not mean that it should not be mentioned in the border's of the US. Is it because the US is the biggest Capitalist country and can't be known to be near a Communist country?

Russia is further away from Alaska than Cuba is to Florida.

Slightly less biased my fucking arse.

The first paragraph of the entry for "Conservative bias":

Conservapedia wrote:Conservative Bias is partisan support for conservative positions or policies ... There is a difference between being conservative, having a conservative perspective, and having a conservative bias. Conservapedia has a conservative perspective, but not a conservative bias.

As it has no bias, I'm using this website as my main reference point from now on.

Also, I seriously recommend the page for "Liberal bias", and the section therein headed "Examples of Liberal Style" - it's funny as f*ck.

Some examples from a long list:

7. preference for obscenity and profanity

8. insistence on having the last word in a discussion or debate

22. often long-winded and verbose, and in debates liberals often consume more than their fair share of the alloted time, leaving less time for the other side.

31. silly demands for apologies.

Stopper wrote:Also, I seriously recommend the page for "Liberal bias", and the section therein headed "Examples of Liberal Style" - it's funny as f*ck.

Some examples from a long list:

7. preference for obscenity and profanity

8. insistence on having the last word in a discussion or debate

22. often long-winded and verbose, and in debates liberals often consume more than their fair share of the alloted time, leaving less time for the other side.

31. silly demands for apologies.

It's got me spot on I think

From the entry on George W. Bush under "foreign policy":

In a show down with Congressional Democrats after taking control of the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate in the 2006 Congressional Midterm elections, Democrats retreated on their pledge to end the Iraq War early and bring the troops home.

Whose side are they on anyways?

This has got the bleating drones out en masse, from their pitiful little communal holes!

SHAMMY SHAMMY SHAMMY!

First sentence for the entry of 'politically correct language' is just hilarious.

Politically correct language, or political correctness, consists of linguistic restrictions imposed by authorities or pressure groups, particularly by liberals.

So true.

So true that it's hilarious.

"The term homophobia is a snarl word used by gay rights activists to verbally tar and feather anyone who dares to oppose homosexuality. The term implies that everyone who opposes homosexuality is being irrational, i.e., literally suffering from a mental illness (see also Phobia). Often the word is used interchangeably: the distinction between "any opposition" and "crazy opposition" is deliberately blurred."

Conservapedia speaks the truth goddamit!

Yeah because this so isn't biased:
There are a number of reasonable explanations for atheism:

* Rebellion: Atheism stems from a deliberate choice to ignore the reality of God's existence
* Moral depravity:
* Superficiality:
* Error:
* State churches:
* Poor relationship with father:
* Division in religion:
* Learned times, peace, and prosperity:
* Negative experiences with Christians
How the f*ck isn't that so biased.

Bagsy moral depravity!!

I'm ignoring reality, me.

What does Conservapedia say on the EU?