https://www.conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=EWJ 2026-11-12T17:27:12Z User contributions MediaWiki 1.35.14 https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:Does_bias_impair_Wikipedia%27s_reliability%3F&diff=6332 2006-12-18T15:08:04Z

<p>EWJ: Why Wikipedia is a very bad website moved to Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?: Previous title incorporated the logical fallacy of &quot;begging the question.&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>Wikipedia is good:<br /> <br /> Wikipedia is bad:<br /> <br /> They censor non-christian stuff. They're really really biased. They only accept LIBERAL BIAS!<br /> <br /> You can write more reasons Wikipedia is a bad here.</div>

EWJ https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:Should_the_United_States_leave_the_United_Nations%3F&diff=6089 2006-12-17T02:11:42Z

<p>EWJ: /* '''yes...''' */</p> <hr /> <div>=='''Post Your Thoughts'''==<br /> <br /> ==='''yes...'''===<br /> <br /> Yes<br /> <br /> YES YES YES [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 12:24, 14 December 2006 (EST)<br /> <br /> I agree....what a powerless waste of time. [[User:David R|David R]]<br /> <br /> Assuming arguendo that the United Nations is actually an effective organization, it’s still pernicious. The underlying theory that the UN is built upon is that the world can achieve peace, security and prosperity through unified world government; however, that logic completely contradicts the principle of separation of powers. In America, the way that separate, but equal branches of government check and balance each other is one of the greatest strengths of our system of government. The checks and balances in our system of government are quite effective at preventing any faction of the government from gaining absolute power and behaving tyrannically. By unifying national governments, the UN takes a large step towards abolishing the separation of powers that truly creates peace, security, and prosperity. EWJ<br /> <br /> ==='''no...'''===<br /> No</div>

EWJ https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:Does_%22free_trade%22_increase_wealth_rather_than_simply_redistribute_it%3F&diff=4814 2006-12-07T21:30:28Z

<p>EWJ: </p> <hr /> <div>=='''Post Your Thoughts'''==<br /> <br /> ==='''yes...'''===<br /> <br /> Free trade stimulates the economy. A better economy increases demand for a wider variety of goods. In order to meet demand, people will labor to produce more goods. The result of this labor is an increase of wealth; Labor + raw materials = more valuble product. <br /> [[User:BenjaminS|Ben]]<br /> <br /> From a global perspective, free trade certainly increases the overall amount of wealth in the economy. By eliminating barriers to trade, governments encourage members of the economy to specialize in doing whatever they do best and then trading to fulfill their wants and needs. When trade is efficient, a firm can focus its production capability entirely on the area in which it has a comparative advantage. Thus, opportunity costs are minimized and each firm is as productive as possible. Production will be greater, and production costs will be lower than they were without free trade. However, it is crucial to realize that this analysis is from a global rather than national point of view. Free trade certainly does redistribute wealth, and it is quite possible that free trade will benefit the economy as a whole, but harm a specific nation by redistributing wealth away from that nation. Free trade can put industrialized nations such as the United States at a disadvantage relative to less developed nations. Businesses in the United States are heavily restricted by health, labor, and environmental regulations. This often makes production in less developed nations less expensive than production in the US. While free trade is optimal from a worldwide perspective, it may be very dismal from our point of view. EWJ<br /> ==='''no...'''===</div>

EWJ