Difference between revisions of "Talk:Settled science"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(stop wasting my time) |
m (Reverted edits by BritishConservative (Talk); changed back to last version by Ed Poor) |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
::I assume that if liberals reply with jokes, etc., it means they ''acknowledge'' that they cannot dispute the facts or principles involved. Why else would they try to make a distraction? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 21:00, 7 July 2007 (EDT) | ::I assume that if liberals reply with jokes, etc., it means they ''acknowledge'' that they cannot dispute the facts or principles involved. Why else would they try to make a distraction? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 21:00, 7 July 2007 (EDT) | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
Revision as of 02:41, July 8, 2007
€d why wa$te a good opportunity to i££u$trate the $en$e of free trade? The
¢urrent arti¢£e cou£d be u$ed to ju$sify £ibera£ Fa£$ehood$ that ¢onfu$e ab$o£ute advantage with ¢omparative advantage i.e. off$horing and the importation of unde$ired produ¢t$. Even £ibera£ prote¢tioni$t
e¢onomi¢$ are pedd£ed here. i$ thi$ ¢ommypedia? BritishConservative 20:35, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
I believe this is meant to illustrate the silliness of "settled science".--Autofire 20:38, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
- You know, if you'd quit using currency symbols in place of letters, it would make your statement much easier to understand.--Autofire 20:44, 7 July 2007 (EDT)