The Conservapedia Cars Guide

[Logic please]

One needs to keep reminding oneself that this is not a Poe - STARTER LINKY:

Originally Posted by drive.com.au article extracts

aa What cars do conservatives buy?
Date August 11, 2012
Tony Davis dips into a right-wing encyclopaedia in the United States to get their unique take on the automotive world.

When pondering this, or other highly important questions, one can turn to that font of knowledge known as Conservapedia. Billed as ''The Trustworthy Encyclopaedia'', it was founded by Andrew Schlafly in 2006 to counter the pinko bias of that Maoist tract Wikipedia.
Andrew is the son of high-profile US lawyer Phyllis Schlafly, known for opposing equal rights for women in the 1960s and pretty well every reform proposed since then.
...
Here are some extracts, with typos and literals included. And, no, this is not a parody. There's plenty more at conservapedia.com.
...
Toyota sells more Hybrid electric vehicles than any other automobile manufacturer … [these have] lower fuel efficiency than advertised, and having questionable battery life and cheap quality at for the vehicles expensive prices. They also are unsafe with danger of electrocution after an accident and they produce harmful electromagnetic radiation which can give you cancer.''
...
In 2006, over 9 million GM cars and trucks were sold. Since then a series of massive losses have brought GM into bankruptcy … GM is currently trying to find better ways to market to the homosexual community.''
Conservapedia's obsession with what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own godless, Marxist-Leninist dens of iniquity comes up again and again.
In the Hybrid Car entry we are told ''Hybrids are very popular with Hollywood celebrities, homosexuals and liberals''.
...
Sopping wet, bleeding-hearts don't realise global warming is a ''liberal hoax'' and Barack Hussein Obama is ''almost certainly the first Muslim president of the United States''. Those dupes also think fossil fuels come from fossils. Take it away, Conservapedia:
''Mineral oils, such as petroleum, are obtained from geological sources. The latter is not formed by decayed matter … but instead during a theobaric process. This oil existed in pristine state before the Flood, and moved during the Flood into the reservoirs where Noah emerged from the Ark, and where we now find it. Consequently much of the oil is found in the Middle East …''
What, you ask, is a theobaric process? Follow the Conservapedia footnote, dummy: ''Theobaric (Gk., theo-, God; bar, weighty) means 'made by God'. This word was recently coined by John D. Matthews.''
Ah, now it's all clear.

Googling the above nonsense term (theobaric) and originator provides much merriment, as Answers In Genesis entries occupy many of the top spots on the results list. FMD, the (total lack of) scientific and academic credibility of it all.

Well, there you go. Guess I can throw out all my now-useless motoring mags, no?

[EvilDRMike]

Thanks Logic Please I am certainly much better informed about the world now. Well I'll certainly be avoiding those GM and Toyota cars what with me not being a homosexual, liberal celebrity. Was there a recommended car for the readers of the site? I want to know which cars are safe for us real god fearing, misogynistic, homophobic fuckwits?

EDM

[robertkd]

Thanks LP although the sad part is people might actually follow that diatribe.

At least it's cleared up why the middle east is so oil rich.

[Logic please]

@rkd: thinking a bit more on it, would people who would genuinely follow such obvious twaddle, actually be capable of operating complex machinery like motor vehicles?

Originally Posted by EvilDRMike

Thanks Logic Please I am certainly much better informed about the world now. Well I'll certainly be avoiding those GM and Toyota cars what with me not being a homosexual, liberal celebrity. Was there a recommended car for the readers of the site? I want to know which cars are safe for us real god fearing, misogynistic, homophobic fuckwits?

I'm not sure if there's an actual recommended car, but the general look and feel of the *info* suggests a longed-for return to the days of the horse and buggy, methinks...

Just having a look at the "cons" under the "Hybrid electric vehicle" entry:

Originally Posted by Funny how that last bit isn't footnoted...

Cuts CO2 emissions by 25% to 35% over the most fuel-efficient gas powered vehicles.[4] (Meaningless because global warming is a myth)

Clearly there's no bias or blinkered pretence at science here, oh no no no...