Difference between revisions of "Talk:Settled science"
(wa$ted opportunity) |
Autofire372 (talk | contribs) |
||
| (8 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | [[User:Ed_Poor|€d]] why wa$te a good opportunity to i££u$trate the $en$e of [[free trade]]? The<br>¢urrent arti¢£e ju$ | + | [[User:Ed_Poor|€d]] why wa$te a good opportunity to i££u$trate the $en$e of [[free trade]]? The<br>¢urrent arti¢£e cou£d be u$ed to ju$sify [[Essay:_Liberal_Falsehoods|£ibera£ Fa£$ehood$]] that ¢onfu$e [[absolute advantage| ab$o£ute advantage]] with [[comparative advantage|¢omparative advantage]] i.e. [[offshoring|off$horing]] and the importation of unde$ired ''produ¢t$''. Even [[Liberal|£ibera£]] [[Protectionism|prote¢tioni$t]]<br>e¢onomi¢$ are pedd£ed [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Tfa&direction=prev&oldid=217623 here]. i$ thi$ <big>¢</big>ommypedia? [[User:BritishConservative|BritishConservative]] 20:35, 7 July 2007 (EDT) |
| + | |||
| + | I believe this is meant to illustrate the silliness of "settled science".--[[User:Autofire|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.--[[User:Autofire|Autofire]] 20:44, 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) | ||
| + | :::Uh, Ed, while I do consider myself liberal in many areas, I can still see that the person who originally said the quote is quite obviously a severely closed-minded nut.--[[User:Autofire|Autofire]] 22:54, 7 July 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Can I assume real conservatives are not welcome here and their contributions will be [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Settled_science&diff=221475&oldid=221463 deleted] by [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]'s socialist [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_Police thought police]. [[User:BritishConservative|BritishConservative]] 13:56, 8 July 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Yanno what? You're being a troll, BritishConservative. --[[User:Autofire|Autofire]] 15:23, 8 July 2007 (EDT) | ||
Latest revision as of 19:23, 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)
- 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? --Ed Poor Talk 21:00, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
- Uh, Ed, while I do consider myself liberal in many areas, I can still see that the person who originally said the quote is quite obviously a severely closed-minded nut.--Autofire 22:54, 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? --Ed Poor Talk 21:00, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
Can I assume real conservatives are not welcome here and their contributions will be deleted by Aschlafly's socialist thought police. BritishConservative 13:56, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
Yanno what? You're being a troll, BritishConservative. --Autofire 15:23, 8 July 2007 (EDT)