Changes

2. In the absence of its inverse, the conservative quotient, defining the Lq is silly knee-jerk reactionism.

2. In the absence of its inverse, the conservative quotient, defining the Lq is silly knee-jerk reactionism.

: It's baffling, and a bit amusing, how liberals just won't admit they are liberal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

: It's baffling, and a bit amusing, how liberals just won't admit they are liberal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

:: It is baffling that whenever someone that Aschalft won't admit that he did bad math. He prefers to call people liberals instead, proving that he ran out of proper arguments.  --[[User:Order]] 10 May.

:: It is baffling that [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] won't admit that he did bad math. He prefers to call people liberals instead, proving that he ran out of proper arguments.  --[[User:Order]] 10 May.

3. Judging by what Ashfly calls "liberal" on this site, the US is about 60% or so liberal and 30% or so conservative.  Leaving 10% "sheep".

3. Judging by what Ashfly calls "liberal" on this site, the US is about 60% or so liberal and 30% or so conservative.  Leaving 10% "sheep".

: This is false and doesn't make any sense.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

: This is false and doesn't make any sense.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)