Changes

::::I have cites that say Reagan's spending extended the length of the Soviet Union's existence, I have cites that say internal social movements in the Eastern Bloc ended the Soviet Union, I have cites that the Peace movement in the United States was what brought about the changes in Reagan's attitude change that led to his willingness to open up negotiation space.  However, I wouldn't make the claim that any of these provide the strongest explanatory power.  Having cites doesn't confirm or disconfirm anything, it only provides one plausible explanation for an event.  Selective citing is just as biased as no citing at all and, in fact, is more academically dishonest.--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 00:15, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I have cites that say Reagan's spending extended the length of the Soviet Union's existence, I have cites that say internal social movements in the Eastern Bloc ended the Soviet Union, I have cites that the Peace movement in the United States was what brought about the changes in Reagan's attitude change that led to his willingness to open up negotiation space.  However, I wouldn't make the claim that any of these provide the strongest explanatory power.  Having cites doesn't confirm or disconfirm anything, it only provides one plausible explanation for an event.  Selective citing is just as biased as no citing at all and, in fact, is more academically dishonest.--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 00:15, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Well, when I say I have cites, I don't mean it in the common Wikipedia sense of WP:V that any lie anybody told somewhere so long as it got in print is a valid citation.  Not at all.  I'm refering to a credible witness who has been properly vetted to stand up against cross examination.  And I wouldn't make the refernce if it were not so.  Junk science, for example, does not qualify as a cite.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:26, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Well, when I say I have cites, I don't mean it in the common Wikipedia sense of WP:V that any lie anybody told somewhere so long as it got in print is a valid citation.  Not at all.  I'm refering to a credible witness who has been properly vetted to stand up against cross examination.  And I wouldn't make the reference if it were not so.  Junk science, for example, does not qualify as a cite.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:26, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

I think you are all too exciteable.  This is the '''Conservative''' pedia, not Wikipedia.  Go peddle your liberal, and liberal-sourced material elsewhere. --[[User:TK|TK]] 21:04, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I think you are all too exciteable.  This is the '''Conservative''' pedia, not Wikipedia.  Go peddle your liberal, and liberal-sourced material elsewhere. --[[User:TK|TK]] 21:04, 13 March 2007 (EDT)