Hmmm, yes, these are definitely liberals

Conservapedia is absolutely wacky.

The curator, one Andrew Schlafly, once tried to write a new, improved, "more conservative" version of the Bible. But, Mr. Schlafly is neither a historian nor a linguistic scholar, and he couldn't consult the source texts. So, his way of "correcting the liberal bias" found in modern translations of the Bible was just to change the words in a modern English translation (~~probably the 1611 KJV~~ EDIT: Apparently Schlafly prefers the NIV) to better fit his politics.

One of the changes I remember reading about was altering the words in The Beatitudes to be things like, "Blessed are the managers, for they provide for their employees," and such. He also deleted parts he didn't agree with, like removing one of Jesus' utterances from the cross: "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." According to Schlafly, Jesus' executioners knew exactly what they were doing and thus shouldn't have been forgiven.

Isn't revising the Bible in this fashion, you know, heresy? Wouldn't churches disapprove of this?
- In an academic sense, no, revising the Bible is not heresy (though some branches of Christianity will call you a heretic for it anyhow). Every time one sect or another of Christianity wants to put out a new translation, they will also consider some revisions based on things like newly discovered manuscripts or breakthroughs in ancient linguistics.
  That was not what Mr. Schlafly was doing, though. He was taking an already existing English translation of the Bible and rewording it to suit his politics. As such, yes, it would definitely be considered heresy by some people. In fact, his harshest critics were other conservative Christians, especially those with actual academic credentials in the field of Biblical Studies.
- Most Christian churches would probably consider it so, but I doubt any would do anything about it beyond writing an open letter
- According to revelations it can literally get you removed from the book of life.
For years I thought this website was a parody of conservatives! You can't be telling me that someone actually, genuinely, believes this shit!
- It seems outrageous, but either they really believe their own nonsense, or it's one of the longest and most convincing trolling campaigns ever waged.
  My vote is that it's 100% sincere. One of Andrew Schlafly's other misadventures involved harassing the head of a microbiology research team because they had shown evolution in bacteria in a laboratory. Sending formal emails to this one specific scientist seems well outside what someone who was just in it for the laughs would do.
- Same. A tough lesson in Poe's law
Holy shit that is hilarious.
Not really a fan of RationalWiki, but they seem to have a decent writeup and their examples are killing me:
KJV Luke 11:53-4
And as he [Jesus] said these things unto them, the scribes and the Pharisees began to urge him vehemently, and to provoke him to speak of many things Laying wait for him, and seeking to catch something out of his mouth, that they might accuse him.
"Conservative Bible" Luke 11:53-4
As Jesus told them off, the scribes and Pharisees furiously interrogated Him about everything, plotting and seeking to quote Him for a politically incorrect remark to use against Him.
KJV Luke 12:43-4
Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing. Of a truth I say unto you, that he will make him ruler over all that he hath.
Conservative Bible
Blessed is that manager, whose employer finds working so diligently. Truly I tell you, he will promote that manager to run all of his affairs.
KJV 1 Corinthians 1:17
For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
Conservative Bible
In any case, Christ didn't send me to baptize. He sent me to preach the gospel, but not with the kind of liberal claptrap that would make Christ's sacrifice ineffectual.
I'm fucking rolling.
- Yah, chronicling the shenanigans at Conservapedia is one of RW's strong points.
Phyllis Schlafly was a fucking cancer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yj45YLlus0c
Imagine changing the Bible version of Jesus to supply side Jesus unironically. I swear my ribs hurt from laughing at the OP and your comment, thank you, I needed that.
wtf

See, to the informed, liberal means someone who follows the liberal capitalist school of thought, typically associated with the Austrian school.

To absolute fucking morons, it means "people I have been told I don't like"

This is why constructive conversation is tough

I mean, liberal, in broad definition, means a person believing in liberalism - that the liberty of people should not be infringed unless it's absolutely necessary (like you can forfeit your right to liberty if you kill someone or steal something)
- and that doesn't include Joseph Stalin
- Well okay yes, also a totally fair interpretation, but still very much in contrast to "people I don't like" at the end of the day
to the informed, liberal means someone who follows the liberal capitalist school of thought
Not really. It's more about personal and societal liberty than capitalism. If you are "economically liberal" then you are a republican

God i wish Jim Davis was a homosexual communist

War is Peace

Freedom is Slavery

Ignorance is Strength

The Sith Code, as rewritten by Conservatives cca. 2025

There's three types of liberal:

politically liberal (means you can say what you want)
economically liberal (means your company can do what it wants)
socially liberal (means you can love who you want)

typically, it's important to distinguish which types we're talking about. An economic-liberal is sometimes also called a neo-liberal, and does typically not help social wellbeing.

The Fascists have been burning this country down since Reagan.
The Neoliberals have been refilling their flamethrowers.
The United States has no major party that protects the people from the oligarch capitalist's greed. Trump isn't the cause of that, merely a symptom of it. Without the Kemp/Reagan trickle down grift, and it's furtherance by both parties ever since in exchange for bribes, Donnie would still be wasting daddy's money on real estate scams.

Why is the Tennessee GOP praising Infamous Liberal Adolf Hitler then?

Why do they have to label this "trustworthy"? Oh, it's like "Truth" Social.

Maher is famously not such.

Maher is a narcissistic asshole that, like all narcissistic assholes, leans in whatever direction will give him the most attention.
It's amazing how people were convinced that a Libertarian was a liberal just because he didn't like George W bush.

Wikipedia for ignorant people

As far as I know Conservapedia was abandoned by its original creators and became satirical overtime, at least I think it did.

2008 called, they want to know if you still listen to Paper Planes by M.I.A. and if Ron Paul ever became president.

Imagine naming your 'encyclopaedia' after a political school of thought and making it crystal clear that it's more about pushing ideology than information, then giving it the tagline "The Trustworthy Encyclopaedia".

And the sad part is that the people this caters to will 100% believe that tagline while ignoring all other evidence to the contrary and clutching their Trump bibles and wearing their red hats.