• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is E=mc2 A Liberal Conspiracy?

Is E=mc2 a Liberal Conspiracy?

  • No

    Votes: 5 27.8%
  • Yes (lol explain)

    Votes: 3 16.7%
  • These polls just keep getting whackier!

    Votes: 10 55.6%

  • Total voters
    18
9. The action-at-a-distance by Jesus, described in John 4:46-54.
10. The failure to discover gravitons, despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching.
27. It is impossible to perform an experiment to determine whether Einstein's theory of relativity is correct, or the older Lorentz aether theory is correct. Believing one over the other is a matter of faith.
28. In Genesis 1:6-8, we are told that one of God's first creations was a firmament in the heavens. This likely refers to the creation of the luminiferous aether.

:lol:
This is a joke website, right? No one could possibly be this stupid.
 
They seem to think it's serious. It's the "conservative" version of wikipedia. Supposedly.

Did you check out their project rewriting the Bible? It just doesn't get any funnier than this.
 
Really, really.....
 
The theory of relativity is a mathematical system that allows no exceptions. It is heavily promoted by liberals who like its encouragement of relativism and its tendency to mislead people in how they view the world.[1]

How can something allow no exceptions and at the same time encourage relativism?
 
Conservapedia

Counterexamples to the Bible 0
Counterexamples to Evolution 60
IQ of Atheists 0 divided by 60

Lolz...
 
Converapedia is a perfect example of how destructive groupthink. Taken individually, most conservapedia posters would probably be your run-of-the-mill partisan. However, combined into a single location where dissenting views don't exist and sooner or later you end up with this luancy. The best part about DP is that everyone constantly has their beliefs questioned to provide other perspectives.
 
There was a thread on this a while back....

It came out that a number of the "editors" of the site and main contributors were actually liberals that were basically posting up the most stereotypically over the top things possible to make things look bad. The reason it worked is because the guy that actually founded it IS bat **** insane and is ACTUALLY stereotypically over the top. However, its about as legitimate as encylcopedia dramatica
 
There was a thread on this a while back....

It came out that a number of the "editors" of the site and main contributors were actually liberals that were basically posting up the most stereotypically over the top things possible to make things look bad.
I'd like to see some proof of that
 
Wow, so when vandals come by and post something stupid, what happens is the site then reverts from fake wacko back to real wacko?

What does this have to do with whether or not E=mc2 is a liberal conspiracy?
 
Wow, so when vandals come by and post something stupid, what happens is the site then reverts from fake wacko back to real wacko?

What does this have to do with whether or not E=mc2 is a liberal conspiracy?
The problem, as far as I can tell, is that the fake wackos are better at being wackos than the real wacko...

Which is amusing, to say the least.

And it may have something to do with it if the "E=mc2 is a liberal conspiracy" bit if that bit is actually a fake wacko pretending to be real.

I didn't read the thing, as it for some reason caused issues with the comp here at my workplace.
 
Last edited:
There was a thread on this a while back....

It came out that a number of the "editors" of the site and main contributors were actually liberals that were basically posting up the most stereotypically over the top things possible to make things look bad. The reason it worked is because the guy that actually founded it IS bat **** insane and is ACTUALLY stereotypically over the top. However, its about as legitimate as encylcopedia dramatica

Wait! Encyclopedia Dramatica is not reliable?
 
Got to love Poe's law (or love to be disgusted by the reality of it at least)
 
There was a thread on this a while back....

It came out that a number of the "editors" of the site and main contributors were actually liberals that were basically posting up the most stereotypically over the top things possible to make things look bad. The reason it worked is because the guy that actually founded it IS bat **** insane and is ACTUALLY stereotypically over the top. However, its about as legitimate as encylcopedia dramatica

Honestly I would love to believe you and I would lean towards at least half of the stuff is from faux-conservatives. I just heard about the site today and I looked them up and there have been serious articles about their inaccuraices on legit magazines such as Wired, so apparently it is truly a real movement. I just want you to understand that illogical **** like this is what gets thrown into the pot on both sides (liberal and conservative) and it becomes very tough for both sides to cut through the fat and get to the actual meat of an issue, and it seems that Americans love fat.

I am actually waiting for a certain bat**** insane faux-conservative on here to put in her two cents....
 
All I got to say is please remember these people are voting. I'm not making any snide comment about them voting republican, I'm just reminding you that they vote.
 
The amount of lunacy in this world never ceases to shock me!
 
Back
Top Bottom