Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 24: Line 24:     
:::: It's interesting you don't know what the "invisible hand" is, and I appreciate your candor.  I bet the familiarity with that term and concept is far higher among conservatives than liberals.  Indeed, it has been said that a good economics course is more likely to convert liberals to conservatives than any other teaching.  That said, it's almost impossible to present or discuss a concept for an invisible hand of marriage without using the term "invisible hand."  The lack of Google cites to it was meant to be illustrative rather than a proof of originality.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:30, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
 
:::: It's interesting you don't know what the "invisible hand" is, and I appreciate your candor.  I bet the familiarity with that term and concept is far higher among conservatives than liberals.  Indeed, it has been said that a good economics course is more likely to convert liberals to conservatives than any other teaching.  That said, it's almost impossible to present or discuss a concept for an invisible hand of marriage without using the term "invisible hand."  The lack of Google cites to it was meant to be illustrative rather than a proof of originality.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:30, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
 +
 +
== Google search on "invisible hand of marriage" ==
 +
 +
I tried this, and it actually looks as if it is true that it is an original Conservapedia term. I do get one hit now, and oddly it's not for Conservapedia, but for a website that seems to be blocked by the Conservapedia spam filter.
 +
That website appears to be offline at the moment, but judging from the summary on google, it looks as if it is mocking Conservapedia (explaining the censorship of the term here). Are there moves afoot to get other blogs and websites to publish comments and articles or to get Conservapedia itself on the search engine results? [[User:Davidklein|Davidklein]] 09:51, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
42

edits

Navigation menu