Conservapedia talk:Difference 9 - No Censorship

"Conservapedia claims it censors no fact" - well no, it claims to not censor "conservative facts". Which begs the question, what is a "conservative fact" in the first place? --Hobey 01:51, 21 June 2007 (CDT)

"Trees cause pollution." -- Ronald Reagan

"Saddam Hussein is an imminent threat to the United States." -- George W. Bush

"I am not a crook" - Richard M. Nixon

Pretty much anything on Newsmax or Answers in Genesis.

For starters.... --67.102.192.7 18:45, 14 August 2007 (CDT) (Gulik@work)

A conservative fact is anything a conservative would like to be a fact.

"Potatoe" -- Dan Quale Bondurant 13:42, 4 February 2008 (EST)

Amen. People here and other places have reminded CW that "popular opinion does not a fact make". Oh well, can't get blood from a turnip or real ideas from close minded total fundimentalists.--Waiting for Godot 17:08, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

New entry on conservative facts. I've stolen the Reagan example from above. Please add more examples, funny or otherwise. Weaseloid 18:47, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

I'm late to this discussion but I learned it today when I tried to copy an article I created on Wikipedia (Holy Wood (In the Shadow of the Valley of Death)) to Conservapedia. In my defense I wrote the article (so it's not really plagiarism), voluntarily censured expletives and provided decent counterpoint—but no. The views expressed by the album just didn't gel with their conservative point of view. Then User:Conservative reverted an unrelated comment I made on Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution about removing a pointless PZ Myers picture from the article on the grounds that I thought a cheapshot joke was more detrimental to its credibility than it is helpful. I'll assume the reversion, from User:Conservative's POV, may have been an act of kindness/mercy by sparing me from accusations/abuse from other editors of being deceitful. However, I wasn't being disingenuous at all. As someone who subscribes to a right libertarian (albeit anti-theist) worldview, I really meant what I said and wanted to see Conservapedia become a respected and legitimate source of alternative information even amongst liberal hipsters. But, admittedly, it was my mistake to think the site could be anything more—that Schlafly & co. and other cons could entertain an opposing viewpoint on their site and feel confident enough in their convictions to not feel threatened by it. Anyway here's my reverted reply for future reference.

“”Absolutely Aschlafly. It is a double-standard. But that hardly has any bearing on this topic (and I would hope Conservapedia would not allow itself to sink to that level of infantile liberal "thinking"). Don't mistake my intentions. I am not trying to defend or protect PZ Myers or atheists from ridicule at all. I have no problem with the caricature of Darwin, for instance, because it is related to the subject matter of the article. The PZ Myers picture is not and would simply open Conservapedia itself to ridicule by people looking to discredit this site. That's all I'm concerned with."

-Red marquis (talk) 09:48, 14 May 2011 (UTC)