A site that claims to offer an alternative to the "liberal bias" of Wikipedia. It ultimately fails because, as we have learned with Fox News, fighting bias with bias only leads to more bias. One of the best humor sites on the web.
Conservapedia: "Some conservatives claim that conservatives and an overwhelmingly small minority of liberals consider deceit wrong and actively fight it, and that there is substantial evidence that liberals are more guilty of deceit than conservatives."
Me: lol
Me: lol
by Stupid Corn November 1, 2007
Get the conservapedia mug.A disorder that plagues conservatives on the internet. Conservative Originality Disorder or COD occurs when conservatives steal a creative argument or term from people that disagrees with them and changes it around to uses against their critics. This most often results in ConservaFail. See cheap shot
For Example a original term like Conservative Hate Culture gets turned into Liberal Hate Culture by some butthurt conservative.
COD often comes along with ignorance toward their own hypocritical ways as well as a snobby attitude towards those who don't agree with them.
For Example a original term like Conservative Hate Culture gets turned into Liberal Hate Culture by some butthurt conservative.
COD often comes along with ignorance toward their own hypocritical ways as well as a snobby attitude towards those who don't agree with them.
by Persecute me at your own peril November 22, 2010
Get the Conservative Originality Disorder mug.a conservative wiki with articles (95+%?) that always somehow end up either blaming Liberals and non-Christians for some reason or another. It also seems to strongly imply one's religious beliefs has a connection to ones capability of doing certain things (e.g. violence).
due to the fact that it's a wiki some these examples might not be accurate anymore.
some examples of bias/lies/inaccuracies on conservapedia :
#1 socialism - we see a picture of Hitler on the top of the page
Nazism is more of an ideology of its own than anything else, it would be more accurate to place it in its own article than be under socialism. Also it also puts communism under this too, rather inaccurate.
#2 Fredrich Nietzsche - the first section is calling him crazy
WTF?! they didn't even explain what his philosophical views are and he's declared crazy right at the beginning?!
#3 Islam - "the most violent religion"
I don't care if this is true or not but this is this is bad etiquette calling it right off the bat, not to mention it also implies there's something questionable about it
#4 Bill Clinton - all the credits of economic success should belong to Republicans (implied)
really? please explain why public opinion favored him during the government shutdown and impeachment
#5 Grand Theft Auto
I don't even know where to begin on this...
due to the fact that it's a wiki some these examples might not be accurate anymore.
some examples of bias/lies/inaccuracies on conservapedia :
#1 socialism - we see a picture of Hitler on the top of the page
Nazism is more of an ideology of its own than anything else, it would be more accurate to place it in its own article than be under socialism. Also it also puts communism under this too, rather inaccurate.
#2 Fredrich Nietzsche - the first section is calling him crazy
WTF?! they didn't even explain what his philosophical views are and he's declared crazy right at the beginning?!
#3 Islam - "the most violent religion"
I don't care if this is true or not but this is this is bad etiquette calling it right off the bat, not to mention it also implies there's something questionable about it
#4 Bill Clinton - all the credits of economic success should belong to Republicans (implied)
really? please explain why public opinion favored him during the government shutdown and impeachment
#5 Grand Theft Auto
I don't even know where to begin on this...
some more examples of bias/lies/inaccuracies/stupidity on Conservapedia
#1 you can't edit anonymously
is this really free or is this a (right wing) dictatorship?
#2 George W. Bush
mentions nothing about him being attacked by a shoe thrower at Iraq
so much for being fair and balanced...
#1 you can't edit anonymously
is this really free or is this a (right wing) dictatorship?
#2 George W. Bush
mentions nothing about him being attacked by a shoe thrower at Iraq
so much for being fair and balanced...
by extreme133 April 10, 2011
Get the Conservapedia mug.A person who is politically conservative to an extreme degree, often with no sound intellectual basis for his or her beliefs.
Conservatards believe that loud volume, beligerence, and personal attacks trump logic and reasoning in any argument. In a conservatard's eyes, logic and reasoning are used by communists and hippies to warp the minds of the innocent young, and therefore must be avoided at all costs.
When engaged in political discourse, conservatards change subjects often; preferring to point out unrelated (or even fabricated) examples of liberal folly rather than directly addressing the topic at hand. Some conservatards like to use large words like "misunderestimate" and "nukular" to impress others with their advanced grasp of English vocabulary, and by extension, their intelligence.
Conservatards generally have no concept of history, and in fact, may not even be able to read above a third grade level. Most of their belief structure is dictated to them by a television.
Conservatards believe that loud volume, beligerence, and personal attacks trump logic and reasoning in any argument. In a conservatard's eyes, logic and reasoning are used by communists and hippies to warp the minds of the innocent young, and therefore must be avoided at all costs.
When engaged in political discourse, conservatards change subjects often; preferring to point out unrelated (or even fabricated) examples of liberal folly rather than directly addressing the topic at hand. Some conservatards like to use large words like "misunderestimate" and "nukular" to impress others with their advanced grasp of English vocabulary, and by extension, their intelligence.
Conservatards generally have no concept of history, and in fact, may not even be able to read above a third grade level. Most of their belief structure is dictated to them by a television.
With its recent ruling requiring intelligent design to be taught in schools, Kansas has become the nation's conservatard capitol.
by krt December 2, 2005
Get the conservatard mug.Scum, just utter scum. Will give tax breaks to the rich and actively corrupt the normal workings of the country whilst also pretending to care about the poor and sick.
Man Dave's just like the conservative party, I lent him my car and he crashed it in to a school bus because he was high but his dad paid for him to get community services and I cant get to work because I dont have a car anymore. Fuck him and anyone who likes him with a dildo made of shards of glass
by Fuckthegoverment June 27, 2020
Get the The Conservative party mug.A conservative who backs the enactment of invasive, usually expensive laws which allow for the government to regulate or micromanage the behavior, relationships or identity of private citizens, or to prohibit government recognition of certain of these traits, based upon the need to "preserve" said individual's idealized "natural" or "godly" order for society (or to create social programs - usually of the "feel good" type - pursuant to such ideals of a "Moral Majority").
Usually a conservative who uses a religious case or justification for why the government must pass legislation (or engage in international conflicts, such as the "War on Drugs") in order to play "moral police" with the citizenry or world.
Such conservatives' self-described credentials as "conservative" are often questioned or sometimes rejected by fiscal conservatives and right-libertarians (including the Grover Norquist anti-tax types) because of such programs take up fiscal resources for potentially never-ending or unwinnable wars. Of course, when culture wars are being fought both in the US and abroad by non-government entities (such as churches), the fiscal conservatives and libertarians are often quiet and compliant for as long as *government* money is not being directed to such wars; the richer of the BGSCs (e.g., Pat Robertson) have free license to carry out such wars.
Usually a conservative who uses a religious case or justification for why the government must pass legislation (or engage in international conflicts, such as the "War on Drugs") in order to play "moral police" with the citizenry or world.
Such conservatives' self-described credentials as "conservative" are often questioned or sometimes rejected by fiscal conservatives and right-libertarians (including the Grover Norquist anti-tax types) because of such programs take up fiscal resources for potentially never-ending or unwinnable wars. Of course, when culture wars are being fought both in the US and abroad by non-government entities (such as churches), the fiscal conservatives and libertarians are often quiet and compliant for as long as *government* money is not being directed to such wars; the richer of the BGSCs (e.g., Pat Robertson) have free license to carry out such wars.
"The social conservative leaders who advocate using government to achieve their aims always push the GOP to embrace big government whenever the GOP takes power. Here's how it works:
1. Republicans gain control based on promises of limited government.
2. We get a few years of somewhat limited government, especially if the president is a Democrat.
3. We then watch the biggest statists in America -- big government social conservatives -- demand that the federal government "do something" about every perceived social ill in America.
4. We then watch the GOP respond to social con threats by becoming 100% statist. Every time the GOP gains ascendancy, it eventually decides it ought to use the power of the federal government to force "conservative" (in quotes because big government is never conservative) goals. It assumes that other conservatives will just toe the line (like the OP suggests).
5. Voters then kick the GOP out of power.
6. We then watch the GOP at least pretend to believe in small government (many in the coalition will simply wish to limit power of Dems, thus forming an accidental coalition).
7. Repeat"
-- Rich Muny, BigGovernment.com (Breitbart-owned outlet)
1. Republicans gain control based on promises of limited government.
2. We get a few years of somewhat limited government, especially if the president is a Democrat.
3. We then watch the biggest statists in America -- big government social conservatives -- demand that the federal government "do something" about every perceived social ill in America.
4. We then watch the GOP respond to social con threats by becoming 100% statist. Every time the GOP gains ascendancy, it eventually decides it ought to use the power of the federal government to force "conservative" (in quotes because big government is never conservative) goals. It assumes that other conservatives will just toe the line (like the OP suggests).
5. Voters then kick the GOP out of power.
6. We then watch the GOP at least pretend to believe in small government (many in the coalition will simply wish to limit power of Dems, thus forming an accidental coalition).
7. Repeat"
-- Rich Muny, BigGovernment.com (Breitbart-owned outlet)
by RayneVanDunem November 26, 2010
Get the big government social conservative mug.A euphemism used to relegate the Christian influence over scientific, political and moral issues such as abortion, euthanasia and evolution.
Professor S: "Many fossils are not being shown in museums anymore, thanks to conservative pressure. But that' another story.
by DesPERRYado May 21, 2005
Get the conservative pressure mug.