Andy Schafly just has his panties in a bunch because the show is called My Little Pony and not My Little Elephant.

@someguy111 Teddy Roosevelt was conservative, and is also responsible for the national parks system :> (granted he probably hated extinction because it gave him less animals to shoot at on his homespun safaris)

@Background Pony #D4A6  
Spot on.

@Millennial Dan  
Just wanted to make sure.

@Monfang  
Yeah, we kinda went through all that already.

Only because I know that someone is goin to think this is true, here is the actual page:
 
http://conservapedia.com/Unicorn

@someguy111  

@SeraphimDawn  
this
 
THIS!

@someguy111  
At this point, I think they should abolish politics, Period.

@SeraphimDawn  
Categorize me if you want, but I am me and that will never change regardless of the political parties or political climate.

@someguy111  
So a Rōnin, I see.

@Background Pony #CA81  
I’m not a Libertarian, although i do agree with a lot of their ideology there some things I most defiantly do not agree with.

@someguy111  
Libertarians are hipsters.

@Background Pony #783E  
You missed me. I have no political affiliation, I have my own I ideas and don’t want to be grouped with others who share some but not all of my views. For instance, I can’t be Conservative because I care about the environment and I can’t be Liberal because I hate taxes.
 
I also hate being labeled and categorized, not even as an Independent I am me, not a category or statistic.

@Mad Black  

@Mad Black  
What, you don’t believe in angels? What a sadducee.

as well as giants and angels…

@Background Pony #5B27  
Ha, ninja’d. It appears to me that the phrasing in the above image only lasted a few months, not years.

And if you look up Liberal Wikipedia under Unicorn you get this.
 
http://liberapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn

@Millennial Dan  
Check a little earlier. The paragraph as it’s captured here first appears in an edit dated 22:10, 1 March 2007, and persists in various reworded forms until about December 2010 when the article underwent a major rewrite.

@Millennial Dan  
Never mind, the earliest entries do look a little like this. It didn’t stay that way for long though. Until now, I’d never even heard of Conservapedia, so I’m not particularly invested in whatever their project is, but I don’t particularly care for people setting up conservative straw men.

Conservapedia= Poes’ Law Incarnate. Also an example of Poes’ Law inverted (I have heard instances of people making entries on there that the people running it deleted and had their accounts banned because they thought the entries were - a parody.)  
Seriously, you can’t make this stuff up.

@Background Pony #5B27  
I’ve been checking through the history, and I still can’t find any evidence that this isn’t totally fake.

@Background Pony #D4A6  
And all moderates are wishy-washy and will say anything to anyone just so no one’s feelings get hurt.
 
We miss anyone?

It’s not fake, it’s just the first paragraph of the article as it stood from early March 2007 to some point later. It is a wiki, after all.
 
And yes, it is a serious project - it’s just run by a tiny clique of ultra-conservative Biblical literalists who mercilessly ban, revert and salt the earth of anyone dares to disagree with them. This is the source of that hilarious Conservative Bible Project that made the news a couple of years ago, where the users undertook the task of removing any language they felt was “too liberal” from the Bible (not going from the original source texts, I might add - just rewriting the bits of the KJV they didn’t like). Even a lot of conservative Christians regard them as embarrassing nutjobs.