Is this political website for real?

[MattusMaximus]

I honestly cannot tell if this website (http://www.conservatipedia.com/) is for real or if it is a spoof of Conservapedia. (http://www.conservapedia.com/)

Anyone know?

[Darth Rotor]

I honestly cannot tell if this website (http://www.conservatipedia.com/) is for real or if it is a spoof of Conservapedia. (http://www.conservapedia.com/)

Anyone know?

Stop Jenny McCarthy
Wouldn't you rather schtup Jenny McCarthy? :cool:

As to the website, I found this in keeping with Maddox style intarweb rant posting. Not as good as Maddox, but of the same genre.

Nickelback: Canada's Butt Plug

Not sure why that made me laugh, as I rather like Nickelback.

DR

[gtc]

Probably should put a NSFW on that link.

I think the chances that it is serious are pretty low (read the message on the t-shirt and g-string combo on the advert) but a site that says this about Nickelback can't be all bad:


Nickelback is a Filthy Canadian band originating out of Oil Rich Alberta. Canadians love this overly bland, ***** music where every song sounds the same.

[Toke]

Nice halloween costumes. :)

[CFLarsen]

No political websites are for real...

[Gord_in_Toronto]

No political websites are for real...

Is it that time of the month again?

Surely you are missing a period?
Should that not be: "No. Political websites are for real..."?

For varying degrees of reality of course. :eek:

[D'rok]

...I rather like Nickelback.

DR

I think that is about the bravest thing I have ever seen anyone admit publicly on this forum. Bravo!

And God have mercy on your (musical) soul.

:p

[gdnp]

I'd say that the author is a serious jerk. He is espousing extreme positions in order to attempt to generate interest. He clearly does not have the intelligence or writing ability to draw people to his site through logic and reasoning. He's basically a troll.

[Morrigan]

Poe's Law? Hmm. Obvious satire to me, but what do I know.

[leftysergeant]

Serious or not, it is stupid and sick.

I think the idiot who put it together means it to be taken seriously. Oy!

[Toke]

Where does that rightwing analfixation come from?

[jj]

My vote: Parody

[Nova Land]

My vote: Parody


I agree. Indeed, I'm surprised there's any question.

There's a lot of obvious humor. The t-shirt/underwear ad on the right-hand side of the page catches my eye right away.

And there are plenty of over-the-top posts which also seem pretty blatant tip-offs. It doesn't take much looking to find them. I clicked on the archives for January 2008, the claimed starting month, and quickly saw enough to convince me.

For example, the second entry on the site (from January 2008) is "Proof Creationism is Real, Evolution False!" (http://www.conservatipedia.com/2008_01_01_archive.html) The proof: two pieces of toast, one with what looks like the common conception of Jesus and one which looks to me like Madonna. Not the madonna of Bible stories. Madonna, the modern singer.

The entry right below it is "Hookers for Jesus". Also seems like pretty obvious humor.

Another one that grabbed my eye is "Soccer is Gay" (http://www.conservatipedia.com/2008/10/soccer-is-gay.html). Again, obvious.

But quite apart from obvious humor, there's another tip-off that the people behind this site are not who they pretend to be. Click on "Should Atheism Be Illegal" (http://www.conservatipedia.com/2008/01/should-atheism-be-illegal.html), one of the items which is less obvious in its humor.

This appears to me to be an attempt by an atheist to write something resembling what they imagine an atheist-hating religious nut might write and which is intended to be only slightly over-the-top. Still, I'm surprised anyone would take this at face value. The alleged quote from George Bush gives it away.

"I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." - President George W. Bush


This is something which some atheists believe Bush said (based on the recollection of atheist Robert Sherman of an encounter he had with Bush). But it's something which, from what I can see, anti-atheists deny the authenticity of.

It is possible Sherman's recounting of Bush's words is accurate, but this has never been confirmed. As such, it has been a point of contention. Some atheists use this as an example of the prejudice and discrimination which exists against atheists.

Now, I haven't browsed a whole lot of anti-atheist sites to confirm that. But I would be very surprised if there are any genuine fundamentalist sites which use this alleged quotation and believe it to be genuine. (They might agree with the sentiment; but I doubt they acknowledge it as an authentic statement by Bush.) To me, its presence on the site is a pretty good indicator this site was written by atheists rather than atheist-haters.