There's a new encyclopedia out called Conservapedia, that is supposed to combat the 'liberal bias' prevalent in Wikipedia articles.


Here is a quote from the entry on Liberals:

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. Liberalism began as a movement for individual liberties, but today is increasingly statist, and in Europe even socialistic.


Here is a quote from the entry on Conservatives:

A conservative adheres to principles of limited government, personal responsibility and moral values, agreeing with George Washington's Farewell Address that "religion and morality are indispensable supports" to political prosperity.[1][2]
Former President Ronald Reagan said:
The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom . . . [3]

The sine qua non of a conservative is someone who rises above his personal self-interest and promotes moral and economic values beneficial to all, rather than to themselves as liberals promote. Alternatively, a conservative is willing to learn and advocate the insights of economics and the morality of the Bible for the benefit of all.


I might also add that it says that the gay rights movement is trying to advance the Homosexual agenda, it says that the Tea Partiers were grassroots and self-organizing. It criticizes Obama and Bill Clinton in their respective articles and points the fnger at liberals for not questioning them enough while the article on Reagan does not mention AIDS. This is quite interesting, somewhat hilarious--and I predict the website will soon be destroyed for its blatant disregard for what an an Encyclopedia should be. The hateful and ignorant founder is the son of a hateful and ignorant anti-feminist activist from the 1970's. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

I've got to go to bed, but I shall further investigate this at another time.

A group of ten Senators came to a Bipartisan agreement on healthcare tonight, one that may just work:

It gets rid of the government option.

Instead, it implements private non-profit insurance companies.

It gives the option to buy into Medicare at 55.


What do you think of this? Do you think it will go through?

The latest chapter of fear mongering. I think they got San Fran and New York all wrong. As a Californian, found this offensive. They did not take into account that the civic area is near the worst part of town, and they outright lied about the Wharf area. Additionally, you can make any city look bad if you only interview the drug addicts. They also said that Central Park was not as dangerous at night as San Francisco. Are you from C.A? What do you think of this?