Comments on: The Conservapedia has a Racist Agenda

By: provillus/where to buy provillus/buy provillus/provillus for men/provillus for women/saw palmetto/saw palmetto hair loss/wheretobuyprovillus.net/www.wheretobuyprovillus.net/hair loss in women/hair loss in men

Sat, 28 Jan 2012 10:21:40 +0000

provillus/where to buy provillus/buy provillus/provillus for men/provillus for women/saw palmetto/saw palmetto hair loss/wheretobuyprovillus.net/www.wheretobuyprovillus.net/hair loss in women/hair loss in men…

[...]The Conservapedia has a Racist Agenda – Jack & Jill Politics[...]…

By: Buy Procerin

Buy Procerin — Thu, 20 Oct 2011 04:16:08 +0000

let’s talk about when animals go crazy like this set of 5 videos that show when animals…

Fantastico!!! It is not cruel in the least to want to watch a Darwin boomerang contest in live action color!! A couple of stooges Effed with the bull and got the horns’ big deal. When my little nephew wanted to continue playing around a pot of boiling…

By: ÄÅÌÎÍÒÀÆ ÑÒÐÎÈÒÅËÜÍÛÕ ÊÎÍÑÒÐÓÊÖÈÉ

ÄÅÌÎÍÒÀÆ ÑÒÐÎÈÒÅËÜÍÛÕ ÊÎÍÑÒÐÓÊÖÈÉ — Wed, 27 Jul 2011 08:18:45 +0000

ÑËÎÌ ÄÎÌÎÂ…

minny…

By: adult women multiple orgasms

adult women multiple orgasms — Sun, 05 Jun 2011 20:38:56 +0000

premature ejaculation medication…

[…Are you like most men in this world? Do you wish you could have a bigger penis? No longer do you have to wish. Now that we have a better understanding of the human body; we now know that you can make your penis bigger with nothing more than your ow…

By: natural male enhancement products

natural male enhancement products — Mon, 30 May 2011 05:02:53 +0000

improve sperm…

[...There are many ways to increase your penis size without resorting to penis male enlargement surgery. You should seriously consider the risks associated with this dangerous surgery and determine if safer options are more suited to you...]…

By: 00000000032

00000000032 — Mon, 23 May 2011 07:17:52 +0000

00000000011…

agent007…

By: crazyworld2046

crazyworld2046 — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 01:25:00 +0000

I apologize in advance for not sourcing this info, but I’m pretty sure I remember it correctly, and anyone with the time and inclination to dig should be able to substantiate. This is not concerning Conservapedia, but rather the constant criticism (some of which shows up in these comments) of the inaccuracies in Wikipedia. Wikipedia, as I understand it, is, like all encyclopedias, intended to be a starting point, not a final source, and, as such, does a creditable job. (Here comes the unsourced part) According to a story I heard on NPR about a year ago, some official (but NGO) organization of scientists studied the rate of accuracy of scientific information in Wikipedia, and found it to be about 87.5%, which is approximately the same as that of conventional encyclopedias. Granted, the rate of accuracy probably dips significantly in more controversial subject matter, such as politics and some history, but I would suggest that the problem lies not with Wikipedia, but with a common misperception about its intended function. Don’t you remember being assigned research papers in grade school and being told specifically not to use the encyclopedia? I think Wikipedia is an absolutely wonderful source of information, when used as intended.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 14 May 2007 19:30:00 +0000

Unfortunately, as a lawyer I can tell you that the law behind both Roe and Brown was very very thin.

These are actually classic examples of judicial activism, simply because the court had to stretch so far in order to reach the result they apparently wanted. It is said that "hard cases make bad law." This means that the most sympathetic cases are the ones in which judges are most likely to choose the outcome and shortchange the law to reach that outcome. This is what happened in these 2 cases.

I know nothing about conservapedia, and have no opinion about it, but I can say that any more conservative or economically oriented law school will severely criticize both roe and brown, not because they had good motives, but because the legal arguments supporting them were bad. There just wasn't really much to support the courts taking this action, as opposed to leaving it up to Congress.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 12:45:00 +0000

I am certainly not a fan of Conservapedia, but characterization of Brown v Board as judicial activism per se is not an endorsement of segregation. It states that the law did not support forcible desegregation. I am not of the opinion all of Conservapedia’s constituent authors feel that it in fact was a good thing, activism or not; still, if one concludes the judicial action was not proper, there is still the legislative option, the option designed for democratic government since the start.

By: Endymion

Endymion — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 05:57:00 +0000

I looked up some Census2000 data because of the big Schlafly quote.
% of US pop. ‘native born’: 87.624
Compare that to her stats, crunched courtesy my Windows Calculator.
% Declaration signers ‘native born’:85.714
% Constitution signers ‘native born’:82.051
Friends, this land is being overrun. By Americans.

By: ent lord

ent lord — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 22:46:00 +0000

I am surprised the Dred Scott decision is not cited as proper judicial restraint but on the other hand, I had no ideas the slaves brought to America chained and sold themselves or that so many American Indians had signed the Constitution and Declaration.

By: Jill Tubman

Jill Tubman — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 20:51:00 +0000

Thanks y’all for your great comments. Keep looking up keywords in the KKKonservapedia and let me know what you find.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 17:03:00 +0000

While I agree that the Conservapedia is a piece of garbage, I don’t think your example #2 says what you think it says. In fact, the text you cite implies the opposite of what you claim — it says that race (well, the group “Negroes”, at least) is an ad hoc grouping of humans, not that they’re different biologically.

By: Bode Miller Jokes

Bode Miller Jokes — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 15:42:00 +0000

Systems breed supremacy.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 07:19:00 +0000

Lifted from Conservapedia:

"There are two major types of judicial activism practiced in the United States' court system:

"1. Liberal judges striking down laws that uphold core conservative American values

"2. Liberal judges refusing to strike down laws that subvert core conservative American values"

Thank you, Conservapedia, for "introducing" objective standards where Wikipedia fails. The above Conservapedia contribution clearly exhibits no bias whatsoever.

Thankfully judicial activism has now been defined. No longer must we hear about Bush-appointed judges with financial conflicts of interest. No longer must we endure any claims of judges favoring commercial interests over the rights or well-being of individuals.

Thank you Conservapedia, for being so free of any bias.

Garv

By: aviatrix

aviatrix — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 05:25:00 +0000

another funny thing: wikipedia is supposed to work because it harnesses the “marketplace of ideas” — i.e., the user-community each puts in ideas and something like the “invisible hand” makes it such that absent the occasional purposeful attempt to distort the truth, information that is generally useful and factual comes up when one searches for an entry.

so like their economic policies, conservatives aren’t so happy with an actually free market–rather they prefer a market in which the deck is stacked in favor of their friends from the outset.

By: vargusvictor

vargusvictor — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 02:39:00 +0000

Is it OK to encourage this type of thing?

I’m thinking that if we can just help them down the path that they’re already on (more home school for their kids, ID compatible “science” curricula, Dominionist theology approved “reality” and common sense vetted by Pat Robertson), they might just drive themselves to extinction…

By: Horseonovich

Horseonovich — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 01:08:00 +0000

I anxiously await the entry on me, Tom Horseonovich Colligan, on Conservapedia. To learn more about me, you currently have to Google me – Horseonovich

By: MEC

MEC — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 00:21:00 +0000

"Most of the creators of our unique land were not immigrants."

My mind is blown, and I can't find the fuses. How, exactly, does Mrs. Schlafly think those "creators of our unique land" got here? By spontaneous generation?

Q. How many generations have to pass before the descendants of immigrants are not longer "tainted" by immigration?

A. How many generations ago did Mrs. Schlafly's ancestors immigrate to this country?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 26 Feb 2007 23:56:00 +0000

They refer to Jesus as God’s dad. They even got that backwards. What a bunch of morons…….
“Jesus almost always refers specifically to Jesus of Nazareth, believed by Christian followers to be God’s dad, who came to earth as a human c 2 AD.”