Yes... Yes he is. But Conservapedia taught me "Guevara was in his time known as a charismatic leader and his image is still used as an iconic one which adorns millions of t-shirts as well as a whole raft of paraphernalia. It is for this reason Intelligence analysts in recent decades have refrained from recommending killing terrorist leaders so as to avoid creating the image of a martyr. Yasser Arafat and Osama bin Laden are two of the most prominent examples of this policy of not creating living legends in death by executing a terrorist leader."

So you see, it's not that we haven't killed Bin Laden because we can't, it's that we don't want to, because then he'd be on more T-shirts.

These people have been running the country for the past eight years... In all my remaining years I will never be able to get over that.

Che's in one of those little "NO" symbols. He's crossed out.

Oh my God, these people. The teacher looks completely dead inside. The girl they let do all the talking seems smart enough that she might have grown up into a worthwhile person in a different environment. Oh well.

Well, reality does have a clear and consistent liberal bias.

Also,

http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Statistics

Wow, thanks. That is actually great. So they are boasting about their enemies visiting their website to laugh at them, basically.

Actually, I think they're demonstrating how the vast majority of those who visit and edit Conservapedia happen to be uniquely and uniformly interested in homosexuals and the homosexual lifestyle. Which is.... interesting.

Two interesting bits here, while I'm on the subject is that one of the objectives of the "Homosexual Agenda" is to "Make the victimizers look bad." I guess without this faggot conspiracy, victimizers would look peachy keen.

The other one is the Arguments Against Homosexuality (I searched and there is no "arguments for") which is "the bible says not to." Again, interesting.

actually, Wikipedia says that most of those numbers are due to click bots

Excuse me? EXCUSE ME? Have you learned nothing? If the wikipedia says it, it's probably part of the vast demofaggot conspiracy. Don't trust it.

So it's a Giant RoboFaggot Conspiracy then.

I know, but it didn't fit. I had to prioritize!

Also, Earth to you sweetie, a lot of Christians wanted to kill Sir Isaac Newton. Not to mention the fact that he was also into the occult.

Also, because it bothers me that they are linking Isaac Newton with their fucking crazy speaking in tongues malarky, he was convinced that the Holy Trinity was a lie and that Jesus was not the equal of God, which technically made him a heretic. He was religious and believed in God but he also questioned dominant thoughts on the subject.

also I was sort of confusing him for Copernicus with the people wanting to kill him thing. Although if these idiots had been alive at the time then they probably would have called him a witch and thrown him in a river.

The list of things these people believe will overwhelm and eventually destroy you. Don't look at them too closely.
They have responded to a complicated world by creating a world of their own. They are best laughed at and sealed away where they can fuck each other chastely while jerking off to child porn on the devil's internet in the early mornings.

Conservapedia enjoys elevating Newton to the tippy top of Christian scholarship while failing to mention that the man reveled in the torture of counterfeiters as Warden of the Royal Mint. I guess as long as you admit that the Trinity exists you're on God's side!

Come to think of it this website could be a source of endless entertainment.

Oh wow but check out this little find on Google, it's a list of Isaac Newton's sins, written in his journal:

http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/texts/viewtext.php?id=AL CH00069&mode=normalized


Among my favorites:

Denying a crossbow to my mother and grandmother
though I knew of it

Beating Arthur Storer.

Making a mousetrap on Thy day

Threatning my father and mother Smith to burne
them and the house over them (wow)

Ding

Ha, well put.

Hee

Wikipedia, like any encyclopedia, is a reasonable place to start a literature search. Moreso than many print encyclopedias, since scholarly articles can be linked to directly.

Yes, but not in the way GOD INTENDED. Obviously.