Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Laffer curve

2007-04-13T16:29:21Z

Momoka: /* Is it based on real data? */

==Is it based on real data?==
I've always thought the Laffer curve looked ridiculously smooth and schematic, like the sort of things a marketing person might draw on a chalkboard. Is it in fact a real curve based on real data? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:52, 2 March 2007 (EST)
Not really. The Laffer Curve is more a theoretical concept than a mathematical equation. The general idea that "There is a point where raising taxes will lower revenues" is pretty much universally accepted. What that point is, though, is unknown. Data seems to suggest the optimal rate could be as high as 80% (When Reagan talked about how his actor buddies worked less because of taxes, the high-end rate was 90%) --[[User:Momoka|Momoka]] 12:29, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Laffer curve

2007-04-13T16:29:07Z

Momoka: /* Is it based on real data? */

Talk:Adolf Hitler

2007-03-16T05:14:09Z

Momoka:

I don't think "liberal" is a word most people would use in describing Adolph Hitler. --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 00:12, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:Going by Conservapedia's definition of "[[liberal]]", for example the points about gun control, same-sex marriage, amnesty for illegal aliens, foreign treaties, increased power for labor unions, etc., I think we can all agree that Adolf Hitler was undeniabley liberal in every way that matters.

:--[[User:Tooner440|Tooner440]] 01:09, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:: Gun control is a phenomena of any dictatorship, regardless of political bent. Treaties have been signed by leaders on the left and right alike; they're not a "liberal" invention. And I'd hardly call beginning a continent-wide war and the attempted extermination of an entire people "liberal" qualities. The word is pointless here.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 01:15, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::Its certainly not pointless! Just because Hiltler was evil that means he can't be called liberal? He above all other examples shows what liberalism takem to its extreme can do!!! -- [[User:Earth6000|Earth6000]] 23:45, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Hitler had a liberal stance on same sex marriage? And amnesty for illegal aliens? Goodness. I'm more galled, though, by the "in every way that matters". Sure, mass genocide isn't a terribly liberal idea, but hey, look at the big picture! The man banned handguns! [[User:Rjohnson|Rjohnson]] 07:59, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Also is there any research that shows Hiltler was possessed by satan or some sort of demon? I want to include that possibility in the article but I don't have a good source yet. Can anyone help? -- [[User:Earth6000|Earth6000]] 23:48, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

How can there be research showing Hitler was possessed by Satan or a "demon"? Regardless of whether this "research" exists, by Commandment 1 everything here has to be "true or verifiable". The existance of God, Satan or "demons" is faith-based, i.e. it is not possible to prove by a scientific method and has no place in an encyclopedia. This is not to dispute the veracity of these claims, I just do not see how something can be "verifiable" if we are talking about a matter of faith. You can believe it and it may well be true but to include it here is not readdressing Wikipedia-based bias, it's just plain wrong. --[[User:dropkickmejesus|dropkickmejesus]] 11:10, 13 March 2007 (GMT)

: Adolf Hitler was not a liberal, not even by the list positions that define [[Liberal|liberal]]. He neuterd gays, killed trade unionists, gave mothers who had more than 4, 6 and 8 kids a medal of honour (rank 3 to 1), implemented a maximun of 10% for female students at universities, madeit illegal for women to pursue a professorship, he killed and starved foreigners, broke disarments treaties and increased military spending. This just show that you don't have to be liberal to be evil. -- [[User:Order|Order]] 13 March 2007, 22:22 (AEST)

A liberal? I doubt it. A totalitarian fascist dictator would be a more accurate description. A left wing or right wing view of his politics is irrelevant to the fact that he was responsible for the deaths of millions of people - something which surely all people from all sides of the political spectrum find horrifying.

Politics is a grid, not a line. Liberals are "Government controls economy, leaves morality alone", Conservative is "Government grows morality, leaves economy alone", Libertarianism is "Government leaves morality and economy alone", and Fascism is "Government controls economy and morality". Hitler was a fascist. Of course, the real world has millions of political ideologies, but cut it down to the broad four, and Hitler was clearly a fascist. Trying to fit people, especially people with extreme viewpoints, into an either-or political equation is folly. -Momoka (I appear to be having issues signing my name. Fah.)

== Fire in the Reichstag ==
This page is protected so you will have to edit it yourself. The circumstances of the fire in the Reichstag are still contested. Its not clear if the Nazis put it on fire themself or if Maarten van der Lubbe actually did it as the Nazis claimed. However the fire gave Hitler the opportunity to obtain dictatorial powers by an emergency law. You might want to say that this ended the Weimar Republic. But Hitler was already Chancellor at that point, and he wasn't president, yet. The statement that he put the Reichstag on fire to end the republic is way too simplistic. You either remove it, or give more background. Namely, that Hitler was already appointed chancellor, that the fire led to emergency laws which effectively made an end to parliamentary democracy, and that he later, when president Hindenburg died, also assumed the powers of the president. But the statement, as it is now, is simplistic can better be removed. --[[User:Order|Order]] 16:50, 15 March 2007 (AEST)

: ''Utilizing'' is a bit better than ''starting''. What about ''exploiting''? --[[User:Order|Order]] 17:30, 15 March 2007 (AEST)
:okay [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 02:32, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Looks good to me. --[[User:Order|Order]] 17:50, 15 March 2007 (AEST)

Talk:Adolf Hitler

2007-03-16T05:11:26Z

Momoka:

I don't think "liberal" is a word most people would use in describing Adolph Hitler. --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 00:12, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:Going by Conservapedia's definition of "[[liberal]]", for example the points about gun control, same-sex marriage, amnesty for illegal aliens, foreign treaties, increased power for labor unions, etc., I think we can all agree that Adolf Hitler was undeniabley liberal in every way that matters.

:--[[User:Tooner440|Tooner440]] 01:09, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:: Gun control is a phenomena of any dictatorship, regardless of political bent. Treaties have been signed by leaders on the left and right alike; they're not a "liberal" invention. And I'd hardly call beginning a continent-wide war and the attempted extermination of an entire people "liberal" qualities. The word is pointless here.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 01:15, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::Its certainly not pointless! Just because Hiltler was evil that means he can't be called liberal? He above all other examples shows what liberalism takem to its extreme can do!!! -- [[User:Earth6000|Earth6000]] 23:45, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Hitler had a liberal stance on same sex marriage? And amnesty for illegal aliens? Goodness. I'm more galled, though, by the "in every way that matters". Sure, mass genocide isn't a terribly liberal idea, but hey, look at the big picture! The man banned handguns! [[User:Rjohnson|Rjohnson]] 07:59, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Also is there any research that shows Hiltler was possessed by satan or some sort of demon? I want to include that possibility in the article but I don't have a good source yet. Can anyone help? -- [[User:Earth6000|Earth6000]] 23:48, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

How can there be research showing Hitler was possessed by Satan or a "demon"? Regardless of whether this "research" exists, by Commandment 1 everything here has to be "true or verifiable". The existance of God, Satan or "demons" is faith-based, i.e. it is not possible to prove by a scientific method and has no place in an encyclopedia. This is not to dispute the veracity of these claims, I just do not see how something can be "verifiable" if we are talking about a matter of faith. You can believe it and it may well be true but to include it here is not readdressing Wikipedia-based bias, it's just plain wrong. --[[User:dropkickmejesus|dropkickmejesus]] 11:10, 13 March 2007 (GMT)

: Adolf Hitler was not a liberal, not even by the list positions that define [[Liberal|liberal]]. He neuterd gays, killed trade unionists, gave mothers who had more than 4, 6 and 8 kids a medal of honour (rank 3 to 1), implemented a maximun of 10% for female students at universities, madeit illegal for women to pursue a professorship, he killed and starved foreigners, broke disarments treaties and increased military spending. This just show that you don't have to be liberal to be evil. -- [[User:Order|Order]] 13 March 2007, 22:22 (AEST)

A liberal? I doubt it. A totalitarian fascist dictator would be a more accurate description. A left wing or right wing view of his politics is irrelevant to the fact that he was responsible for the deaths of millions of people - something which surely all people from all sides of the political spectrum find horrifying.

Politics is a grid, not a line. Liberals are "Government controls economy, leaves morality alone", Conservative is "Government grows morality, leaves economy alone", Libertarianism is "Government leaves morality and economy alone", and Fascism is "Government controls economy and morality". Hitler was a fascist. Of course, the real world has millions of political ideologies, but cut it down to the broad four, and Hitler was clearly a fascist. Trying to fit people, especially people with extreme viewpoints, into an either-or political equation is folly. [[User:Momoka}Momoka]] 15 March 2007

== Fire in the Reichstag ==
This page is protected so you will have to edit it yourself. The circumstances of the fire in the Reichstag are still contested. Its not clear if the Nazis put it on fire themself or if Maarten van der Lubbe actually did it as the Nazis claimed. However the fire gave Hitler the opportunity to obtain dictatorial powers by an emergency law. You might want to say that this ended the Weimar Republic. But Hitler was already Chancellor at that point, and he wasn't president, yet. The statement that he put the Reichstag on fire to end the republic is way too simplistic. You either remove it, or give more background. Namely, that Hitler was already appointed chancellor, that the fire led to emergency laws which effectively made an end to parliamentary democracy, and that he later, when president Hindenburg died, also assumed the powers of the president. But the statement, as it is now, is simplistic can better be removed. --[[User:Order|Order]] 16:50, 15 March 2007 (AEST)

: ''Utilizing'' is a bit better than ''starting''. What about ''exploiting''? --[[User:Order|Order]] 17:30, 15 March 2007 (AEST)
:okay [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 02:32, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Looks good to me. --[[User:Order|Order]] 17:50, 15 March 2007 (AEST)

Talk:Liberal bias

2007-03-16T05:02:21Z

Momoka:

This article has no definition of what a Liberal Bias is.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 22:30, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

I'd go for some citations, too. And some fries. :D [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 11:36, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Should the Daily Show and Colbert Report be on here? Neither make any claim to be unbiased, and Jon Stewart has occasionally derided interviewers (most famously on Crossfire, when he wasn't calling them bad for America) for assuming he was a real news outlet and should be expected to act like one. There's a difference between, say, Air America (Liberal Spin, or Liberal Perspective, depending on how nice you are) and NPR (Liberal Bias) [[User:Momoka|Momoka]] 01:02 15 March 2007

Hernando de Alarcon

2007-03-16T04:58:19Z

Momoka: Was a bunch of Hitler pictures with the phrase "Jews did 9/11". Better a blank than something like that, until it can be restored

*This page is being restored*

Talk:Weapons of mass destruction

2007-03-15T04:55:44Z

Momoka: /* Boeing 747 */

== Say What?! ==

"a more stable state that does not threaten international order should be able to use Weapons of Mass Destruction peacefully" Does this suggest that using WMDs on your own population is a peaceful use? Is it possible to have a peaceful use of a weapon of mass destruction? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:13, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:Maybe one could use bombs as bridge abutments? [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:15, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:I know Saddam used WMD on his own population. We're talking about stable states here, not Saddam's Iraq. [[User:Affirmlife|Affirmlife]] 03:42, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== One can argue ... anything ==
"One can argue that the earliest weapon of Mass Destruction was the Israelite Samson, who was the instrument of God in killing a large number of the various Canaanite tribes (Judges)."

And the point of making the aforementioned "argument" would be...? That since (arguably) WMDs are "in the Bible" they're OK by God?[[User:McTavidge|McTavidge]] 06:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:Well, I do think you're missing the point. Deterrence, from peaceful nations having WMDs, is the only reason we have the globalized society we do now. [[User:Affirmlife|Affirmlife]] 12:08, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Well, if that's the point, maybe it could be spelled out clearly (instead of merely hinted at) -- and supported by a citation. Sounds like a lot to rest on just one factor.[[User:McTavidge|McTavidge]] 22:13, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::If you really want to put the bible into it, remember that God did kill all of humanity, raze several cities, and destroy livestock and firstborn sons. Of course, God is the first and ultimate WMD.

==Boeing 747==
Since when has a 747 had anything to do with weapons of mass destruction? [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 00:52, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:Since September 11th, 2001. [[User:Momoka|Momoka]] 00:55, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Weapons of mass destruction

2007-03-15T04:55:26Z

Momoka: /* Boeing 747 */

Democratic Party

2007-03-15T04:52:05Z

Momoka:

A somewhat degrading euphemism for the Democratic Party. Although the term is often used in even the mainstream media, liberals and Democrats take offense to it<ref>http://mediamatters.org/items/200608160005</ref>. Generally, only highly partisan Democrats will take offense to the term.

The term is criticized for being factually and grammatically incorrect, as Democrat is a noun.

Note that referring to a member of the Democratic Party as a "Democrat" is considered acceptable.

==References==
<references/>

Democratic Party

2007-03-15T04:50:41Z

Momoka:

A somewhat degrading euphemism for the Democratic Party. Although the term is often used in even the mainstream media, liberals and Democrats take offense to it<ref>http://mediamatters.org/items/200608160005</ref>.

The term is criticized for being factually and grammatically incorrect, as Democrat is a noun.

Note that referring to a member of the Democratic Party as a "Democrat" is considered acceptable.

==References==
<references/>

False Dilemma

2007-03-15T04:16:19Z

Momoka:

A logical fallacy in which two options are presented as if they are mutually exclusive, when in fact they are not. <ref>http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/adhom/dilemma.html</ref>

An example of a false dilemma is the phrase "You're either with us, or against us." It is possible that you are completely unaware or apathetic of us.

== References ==

<references/>

Sabbath

2007-03-15T04:00:49Z

Momoka:

In the Bible, the Sabbath is a weekly religious day of rest as ordained by one of the Ten Commandments: the third commandment by Eastern, Roman Catholic and Lutheran numbering, the fourth by other Protestants.

For Christians, the day of Sabbath is Sunday.

According to the Bible, the Sabbath must be taken very seriously. Breaking the Sabbath is just cause for death according to '''Numbers 15:32-56'''

''They found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. ... And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones.... And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses. ''

However, Jesus Christ implied the the Sabbath, and all Biblical edicts, could be broken under extreme situations, according to '''Matthew 12:1-9'''

12:1 At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn and to eat. 
12:2 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day. 
12:3 But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him; 
12:4 How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests? 
12:5 Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless? 
12:6 But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple. 
12:7 But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless. 
12:8 For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day. 
12:9 And when he was departed thence, he went into their synagogue:

Sabbath

2007-03-15T04:00:17Z

Momoka:

In the Bible, the Sabbath is a weekly religious day of rest as ordained by one of the Ten Commandments: the third commandment by Eastern, Roman Catholic and Lutheran numbering, the fourth by other Protestants.

For Christians, the day of Sabbath is Sunday.

According to the Bible, the Sabbath must be taken very seriously. Breaking the Sabbath is just cause for death according to '''Numbers 15:32-56'''

''They found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. ... And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones.... And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses. ''

However, Jesus Christ implied the the Sabbath, and all Biblical edicts, could be broken under extreme situations, according to '''Matthew 12:1-9'''

12:1 At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn and to eat.
12:2 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.
12:3 But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him;
12:4 How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?
12:5 Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?
12:6 But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple.
12:7 But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.
12:8 For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.
12:9 And when he was departed thence, he went into their synagogue:

False Dilemma

2007-03-15T03:55:33Z

Momoka:

Iran-Contra affair

2007-03-15T03:40:45Z

Momoka: Minor grammar fix. "America, sworn enemy Iran, and...", becomes "America, its sworn enemy Iran, and...", to make clearer who's enemy Iran is.

The Iran-Contra Affair (also called the Iran-Contra Scandal, the Iran-Contra Matter and Iran-gate) was the result of an illegal arms deal between the United States, its sworn enemy Iran and the Nicaraguan Contras, an anti-communist group operating against the [[Marxist]] government of Nicaragua. The Reagan Administration sought to hide evidence of its collusion in this illegal circumvention of a Congressional ban on arms support for Iran and the Contras by shredding tons of documents in violation of direct subpoena of these documents. Many details of the affair are still classified and the level to which money from cocaine sales in the US were used to fund this illegal war are shrouded in secrecy, though that this occurred is [http://foia.fbi.gov/filelink.html?file=/christic_institute/christic_institute.pdf well documented by the FBI]. Essentially, arms were sold to Iran against an international embargo which was spearheaded just years earlier by the United States. The proceeds from this arms sale were then used to purchase additional arms for the Contra Guerilla group operating in the mountains of Nicaragua. These arms were often used against civilian populations in the Contras' war against the government of Nicaragua.

After the arms sales were revealed in November 1986, President Ronald Reagan appeared on national television and denied that they had occurred. However, a week later, on November 13, he returned to the airwaves to affirm that weapons were indeed transferred to Iran. He denied that they were part of an exchange for hostages. Reagan had nothing to do with this scandal.

Poland

2007-03-15T03:31:43Z

Momoka: Mentioned Poland's aid in Iraq.

Poland is a mid-sized country in eastern [[Europe]]. It has suffered many hardships before and after the [[World War I]] and II. It was ruled by the [[communist]] regime and finally liberated in the 1980's. [[Pope John Paul II]] was from Poland and was a major part in bringing down communist Poland.

Poland was a member of the "Coalition of the Willing", allies of the US in the Iraq War, contributing a peak of 2,500 troops.

[[Image:Poland_map.gif]]
[[Category:Countries]]

LM Curve

2007-03-15T03:29:03Z

Momoka: A brief discription of the LM curve

The LM curve identifies combinations of income and the interest rate for which the demand for money equals the money supply. As income, y, rises, the interest rate, i, must also rise in order to maintain equilibrium. The initials LM stand for "Liquidity preference/Money supply equilibrium".

It is generally used in conjunction with the IS Curve. The government can shift the LM Curve through monetary policy (increasing or decreasing the money supply), and the IS curve through fiscal policy (taxes and spending)

[[Category:Economics]]