Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Godless liberal

2008-03-16T13:53:16Z

Orrelon:

"'''Godless Liberal'''" is a pejorative term describing [[Liberal]]s who are [[atheists]], or whom their opponents claim believe in purging spirituality and all references to [[God]] from public life. Conservapedia actively fights Godless Liberals.

[[George Clooney]] regularly describes himself as a 'godless liberal' in a joking manner.
[[category:politics]]
[[Category:Liberals]]
[[Category:Articles with unsourced statements]]

Liberal redefinition

2008-03-16T13:52:54Z

Orrelon:

'''Liberal redefinition''' is the distortion of traditional meanings of words to advance the [[liberal ideology]] and often to erode [[faith]]. Conservapedia actively fights Liberal redefinition. Examples include:

* [[equality]]
* [[evolution]]
* [[faith]]
* [[feminism]]
* [[gay]]
* [[hate crime]]
*[[Rainbow|rainbow]]
* [[secular]]
* [[they]]

(add more)

[[Category:liberals]]

Liberal tricks

2008-03-16T13:52:12Z

Orrelon:

Here are some common [[liberal]] tricks that many people fall for:

# [[liberal]]s [[liberal friendship|befriend]] you so you should become liberal (why don't they become [[conservative]]?)
# "live and let live!" except when it comes to praying aloud in school, keeping the money you earn, building on your own property, and every other liberal issue
# it doesn't hurt to try! (In reference to drugs, alcohol, and other immoral behaviors)
# everyone else supposedly believes in something so it must be right
# your [[parent]]s aren't cool
# [[Hollywood]] is cool
# there is a shortage of everything we want
# [[prayer]] is for dummies, or is antiquated
# [[children|kids]] are getting smarter than old folks
# smear your adversary with a highly offensive accusation or insinuation
# atheism equals intelligence
# call someone a [[racist]] if he criticizes a ''liberal'' having a different skin color
# [[conservative]]s don't care about regular people
# [[vandalism]] is ok
# if you don't like it (something offensive on [[television]]), don't watch it (but they don't seem to go for ''if you don't like [[whale]]s being killed, don't watch them being killed'').
# don't kill the [[shark]] that attacked someone; the person invaded the shark's territory (ignoring/rejecting that all of creation was made for [[homo sapiens|man]]).

(please add to list)

== Example ==

Here is an example of an actual attempt at [[liberal tricks]] that was posted on this very page:

{{QuoteBox|This article, and many others on a similar line, are a sad demonstration of incipient mental illness. Andrew Schlafly appears to be an educated man - after all, he edited a legal journal which was later edited by [[Barack Obama]] (I assume that Andy's tenure wasn't a result of [[affirmative action]] in favour of the narrow minded and the bigoted) - yet his denunciations of 'liberalism' get ever wilder and more paranoid as his definition of that beknighted state become ever more encompassing.}}

The above example (by a non-American) attempts to smear a [[conservative]] by implying that he has a mental illness, reflecting '''liberal trick''' #10 above. To someone unfamiliar with '''liberal tricks''', this can be upsetting and intimidating. But once one realizes that this is a basic trick from the [[liberal]] playbook, its silliness and ineffectiveness becomes obvious. The [[liberal]]'s foolish tactic is then revealed for what it really is. Conservapedia actively fights Liberal Tricks.

{{liberalism}}

User talk:Orrelon

2008-03-16T13:32:45Z

Orrelon:

Please avoid parody, or an admin will ban you. Sarcasm is okay, but please confine it to user talk pages. You have been warned. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 09:32, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

Where exactly did I perform the parody? [[User:Orrelon|Orrelon]] 09:32, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Liberal media bias

2008-03-16T13:29:29Z

Orrelon: New page: Another great article. Awesome Ed! ~~~~

Another great article. Awesome Ed! [[User:Orrelon|Orrelon]] 09:29, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

Liberal media bias

2008-03-16T13:29:14Z

Orrelon:

'''Liberal media bias''' dominates the English-speaking press and broadcasting. Conservapedia actively fights Liberal media bias with an unbiased front page, offering our own opinion on the facts.

Talk:Double standard

2008-03-16T13:28:23Z

Orrelon:

The New York Times published only '''two''' articles about the Pol Pot regime and its mass murders ?????????? Does anybody believe this ??? This statement should be removed.
[[User:Maupiti|Maupiti]] 15:31, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
:Good point. And the claim is so specific that I can't help but wonder where it originated in the first place. --[[User:DHayes|DHayes]] 15:47, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

::Try not to split the discussion:
::*I wondered where this claim comes from and whether it's true since it's extremely specific and sounds unlikely.

::You can either:
::#Try to refute the claim, if you want to assert that the liberal press is '''not''' using a double standard on communist and authoritarian governments; or,
::#Investigate the claim yourself, if you are interested in the truth about [[liberal media bias]].

::You can help this website more by doing the latter, but that assumes you actually care about (1) what is true and (2) providing trustworthy information to the general public. If you have bias, then this is not a task for you. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 09:27, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

Keep up the good work Ed! [[User:Orrelon|Orrelon]] 09:28, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

Double standard

2008-03-16T13:28:02Z

Orrelon: spelling!

A '''double standard''' is a rule or principle which ought to be applied equally (or in all cases), but which is used selectively to advance a hidden purpose. Conservapedia actively fights double standards.

The history of politics is full of examples of this sort of hypocrisy.

*[[Cambodia]] and [[Chile]]: In the 1970s, the ''New York Times'' published hundreds of articles about the 3,000 "disappearances" of [[Augusto Pinochet]]'s political opponents after the [[1973 Chile coup]]. They only published two articles about the 2,000,000 people murdered by the [[Pol Pot]] regime in Cambodia.{{fact}}
*[[Global warming]]: Supporters of the [[Kyoto Protocol]] (an emissions reduction treaty) say that "[[correlation is not causation]]" when scientists point out the dozens of natural [[climate cycles]] linking changes in sunspots to changes in Earth's air temperature. But their argument for a [[runaway greenhouse effect]] is based on a single period from 1850 to present in which carbon dioxide levels and air temperatures have risen together.

[[category:political terms]]

Double standard

2008-03-16T13:27:48Z

Orrelon:

A '''double standard''' is a rule or principle which ought to be applied equally (or in all cases), but which is used selectively to advance a hidden purpose. Conservapedia actively fight double standards.

The history of politics is full of examples of this sort of hypocrisy.

*[[Cambodia]] and [[Chile]]: In the 1970s, the ''New York Times'' published hundreds of articles about the 3,000 "disappearances" of [[Augusto Pinochet]]'s political opponents after the [[1973 Chile coup]]. They only published two articles about the 2,000,000 people murdered by the [[Pol Pot]] regime in Cambodia.{{fact}}
*[[Global warming]]: Supporters of the [[Kyoto Protocol]] (an emissions reduction treaty) say that "[[correlation is not causation]]" when scientists point out the dozens of natural [[climate cycles]] linking changes in sunspots to changes in Earth's air temperature. But their argument for a [[runaway greenhouse effect]] is based on a single period from 1850 to present in which carbon dioxide levels and air temperatures have risen together.

[[category:political terms]]