Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

In the past 36 hours I have spent 21 in the library. I think I've got another 6 to go and I'll have finished all my work.

At 1/30/08 01:17 PM, ABsoldier17 wrote: Assuming the big bang THEORY is true. What are the odds of a world that is just the right distance from the sun, just the right distance from the moon, has dust, and is able to sustain life just happening by accident. Seriously, I want the odds.

The odds of everything happening as they did are very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very long.

However, how long are the odds of an invisible sentient creator, who came from nothing, creates the world (then decides to create the Universe) populates it with people like him (how vain is he) and then buggers off?

At 1/30/08 01:13 PM, smokinjoeevil wrote:

Good theory. Is there any proof that God is not a werewolf?

At 1/26/08 07:54 PM, JerkClock wrote:

At 1/26/08 07:27 PM, poxpower wrote:
You can't prove a negative,

Exactly you can't prove it, you have none.

"Are you cellar in disguise? Are you cel-lar in dis-guise?"

Wow. 14 pages of people arguing about the very very very low level of "proof" that religion has. And there I was thinking that faith denied proof.

I don't believe Atheists are immoral, No trait can be properly attributed to a single group of people. But I do believe atheists have no logic behind the morality, it might be 'superior' to morality based on a reward in heaven, but if it's superior, there needs to be a reason. "Because it's right" is pretentious, and "Because I feel like it" Isn't very Awe inspiring. [At least not compared to the idea of a giant floating man in the sky giving orders]

If you don't accept the instinctivist argument (because I feel like it) simple pragmatic empathy works pretty well. Or you could base you decisions on utilititarianism, or Kantian deontology, or Virtue ethics or etc. Moral philosophy that does not include God is very very well established.

As for less attainment in Sweden, what does that mean?

It means that using Sweden as an example of the good that free college education provides is inapplicable.

Despite the fact that their healthcare is free, and therefore supposedly more accessible, Swedes still have lesser educational attainment. Thus showing that the argument for free education on the grounds of making it more accessible is bunk.

Actually, the argument about accessibility to do with class and economic wealth, not simply to do with how many people go to University. I do wonder what the class breakdown is for the respective countries' higher education systems is.

The system is in place for all.

The system in Sweden is a highly-controlled, extension of their government. Squashing innovation, and in the meantime performing less well compared to the US as far as providing quality education to a high proportion of the population.

Our higher education is superior. In fact it's the best in the world, period.

Again, that has not been proven. What has been proven is that the very best Universities are American, but that is not necessarily reflective of your entire higher education system.

I notice that no-one has pointed out the high ranking of British Universities.

But then again, if you're questioning my idea, and trust me I am not fully in favor of just chopping dicks off willy nilly, you have to question legalism as a whole. Any human who is punished can be potentially innocent despite evidence.

Hehehe. That's what you could call the punishment - "willy nilly" (or even "nilly willy.")

with some research they shouldn't be hard to find.

It's also easy to find evolutionary evidence with some "research". It doesn't change the fact that only 1 idea and 1 side of the story is presented (and sometimes required) to students.

I agree. That both schools and churches don't teach Unintelligent Design is completely unfair. People should be presented with all the theories, regardless of how much evidence each has behind it, and allowed to make up their own minds. I think it's particularly bad how children are not only allowed to go to church but forced to by their parents from a young age. Instead, they should be allowed to sample all ways of belief...even if they end up a Mormon (or, shock horror, an atheist.)

At 1/26/08 07:45 PM, cOnScRiPtRED wrote: They cant possibly think doing all of these weapons purchases in the public eye wont get the attention of America and her allies. I think they are trying to goad you into an open conflict.

Which they would want....why?

Things evolutionary theory has yet to demonstrate or prove:

-- the rise of the first self-replicating proteins and genetic molecules
-- how multicellular organisms came from unicellular organisms
-- how sexual reproduction came from asexual reproduction
-- why manners of sexual reproduction never evolved to include more than two biological actors
-- how mitochondria first merged with cells (if they even did) and what either looked like beforehand
-- the ideas behind 'punctuated equilibrium'
-- the cause of the Cambrian explosion
-- so on and so forth

The fact of the matter is, there isn't just ONE "missing link". How man could have come from monkeys isn't the only unsolved mystery quasi-answered by evolutionary theory. There are in actuality thousands of "missing links" and intermediate forms that SHOULD appear within the fossil record... but don't.

This line of thinking demonstrates the so-called worship of the gaps mentality. Frankly, I thought you would be above it. In practice, it's no more than an argument from ignorance. It's easy to say, wherever there is a gap, let's not look into it any further; let's get satisfied with the belief that it was a miracle. I'm sure you are not one of those fundamentalists who oppose further study of the subjects you have listed?

I don't support the further study of the subjects you have listed because the Flying Spaghetti Monster (Blessed Be His Holy Sauce) will simply change the results of any statistics/experiments/scientific facts through the glory of His Noodly Appendege to test the faith of those that follow the one true religion, Pastafarianism. I have faith in the FSM (BBHHS) and in the Theory of Unintelligent Design - that the FSM (BBHHS) got really drunk one evening and accidently created the universe.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/usprimar ies2008

Hehehe.

I have never seen propaganda on the BBC

First of all, the BBC is privately controlled now.

Erm.......what?

Are you going to ignore this, or admit you're wrong?

One further, more specific, reason is also worth mentioning. In the realm of political theory - looking at ideologies - scientific method has never been used. There is no ideology that is based upon a scientific view of the big elements of an ideology - human nature, the meaning of freedom, etc. How could you possibly quantifiably study them?

I'd say there's a couple ways you could do it. First, you could do polls asking people things like, "Are you happerier this year then last? Do you feel more secure about your retirement than you felt last year? Do you feel safer? etc." You could also track how much time and money is spent on "leisure activities," vacations, and hobbies compared to time spend working for money to pay bills and taxes and buy necessities. It's a no brainer that people are happier spending money on fun things then spending money on taxes. Then compare the results to countries with different economic systems and see which method produces the happiest people.

How would you manage to isolate the variables though? Happiness could be down to the climate, a national view on life (which would make the french, the miserable bastards, lose) the political system, etc. Plus, people's perceptions (which polls measure) are never static and can easily be swayed be current events. For example, do you not think that Americans would answer very differently about how safe they felt on Sept 10, 2001 then on Sept 12, 2001?

SmilezRoyale, there are three main elements to Marx's understanding of exploitation - alienation, the labour theory of value and, by extension, the idea of "surplus value". To understand his position on exploitation (and thus be able to understand where trade unions fit into his views) you need to research these parts of Marxism instead of using a dictionary definition of exploitation.

At 1/10/08 01:35 AM, butsbutsbutsbutsbuts wrote: Regardless of people's strong feelings about these ideals, marxism and all it's followers (social, democratic social, national social, trotsky, lenin, mao, stalin, anarch, commun isms) follow the same logical fallacy which is to make a declaration and hand pick the facts which back them up. Scientific method, to accumulate as many facts as possible and find trends and patterns between them which can be used to make succesful predictions, is the mirror image of this so many people do not spot the problems with all these isms. Marxists of all types are not to only group to use this kind of reasonning as it is pretty prevalent throughout politics where people are arguing 1 viewpoint but for the objective analysis you will want scientific method.

Use of the scientific method in politics should be limited to the areas of politics where it is useful - those being mostly studies on voters and voting patterns. The scientific method is absolutely useless in most other areas of politics for two main reasons. Firstly, you can not do political experiments - you can not repeat procedures and remove variables. Secondly, human behaviour on the level of the individual is generally hard to predict. Human behaviour on the mass scale - the study of which is politics - is impossible to predict because of the huge number of interactions and variables.

One further, more specific, reason is also worth mentioning. In the realm of political theory - looking at ideologies - scientific method has never been used. There is no ideology that is based upon a scientific view of the big elements of an ideology - human nature, the meaning of freedom, etc. How could you possibly quantifiably study them?

John Major: Took over from Thatcher after a decade-long Premiership, clears out all the Thatcherite yes men to make his own cabinet, and calls a snap General Election, which he won, in order to start his Premiership with a clean slate.

John Major didn't call an election until after he had been in power for 2 years and the 5-year term was up.
1987 election
1990 Major comes to power
1992 election

Name me one example of communism/socialism that has worked in history and improved people's lives.

The USSR, Cuba and China. Sure they may have been repressive regimes, but they improved the standard of living by a huge amount. Russia and China became superpowers for fuck's sake.

BTW, do you know what Nazi stood for? It was the Nation Socialist Party of Germany.

And do you know what economic system they promoted? Two -sided Corporatism, where the state and business co-operate....kinda the opposite of socialism.

At 1/8/08 09:51 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: I think probably the biggest of all marxist ironys is that Karl Marx died before the establishment of Trade unions [also called worker or labor unions] Which removed the need for a violent proletariat revolution, and with proper pressure, the people did manage to make the government WITHOUT A VIOLENT REVOLUTION to improve worker conditions, which marx said was impossible because the state was an institution meant to consolidate bourgeoisie power and authority.

I disagree on two grounds. Firstly, Marx's reasoning was not that because people are being treated badly there will have to be a violent revolution. Instead Marx argued that the economic relationship between the classes was one of exploitation and when the proletariat realise this they will rise up for the final (from the view of historical materialism) bloody revolution that will end exploitation. Secondly, placating the proletariat with improvements in worker conditions hides the brutal face of capitalist exploitation and, in doing so, makes revolution less likely and thus consolidates bourgeios power and authority.

Karl marx was witness to the absolute worst of the industrial revolution, yet his followers apply his logic and reasoning to a much more equitable society that still follows the idea that people can own property and manage their own affairs; though these rights are slowly being taken away since regular people as we know are children and must be treated as such by uncle sam.

The US has very very few communists, socialists or a real left side of the political spectrum. I'm not sure what did it really, was it when they were made state enemies, was it the constant anti-communist propaganda during the Cold War or is it the constant pro-US propaganda that they put in schools? Meh.

There was so much to respond to I thought I'd just pick out the nub of the argument.

I made claims, I backed those claims up with something other than my own opinion. I used links that validated what I claimed. Slizor doesn't like those links, he says they are wrong or faulty. He doesn't provide any links himself, yet considers his words fact... that his words alone discredit the links and therefore discredit my argument.

He has a double standard. What he says he considers to be proof in and of itself.

To quote myself from the last page - "Look, either attempt to question the logic of my analysis of your sources (i.e. engage me in honest debate) or find other sources for your original statements." My points, then, are open for debate and clearly not proof in themselves.

Plus, I might point out, I did provide sources to base my points on - your sources. Look, from my first post

Schurman-Kauflin concluded that, based on a figure of 12 million illegal immigrants and the fact that more of this population is male than average, sex offenders among illegals make up a higher percentage than offenders in the general population.

She arrives at the figure of 240,000 offenders - a conservative estimate, she says - through public records showing about 2 percent of illegals apprehended are sex offenders."

So there's 12 million illegals, 2% of illegals apprehended are sex offenders....therefore 240,000. Easy......apart from the fact that it assumes that every single illegal immigrant has been arrested and patently ignores the fact that people get arrested because they commit sex crimes.

Or even

If you paid any attention to the methodology used then you would know that it does not say that. The report asked jailed illegal immigrants, not the population as a whole, how many crimes they had committed. Therefore it can not be compared with the "typical US citizen" when it comes to levels of crime as it does not profile the typical illegal immigrant.

With the point just above I'm not actually saying anything about the nature of the source, but about your interpretation of it. I could've quoted from the source where it says that it is a study of jailed illegal immigrants, but I thought it was fairly easy to find.

To sum up my point, the source of my information that I use for my analysis is your sources. What you are requiring of me is second-hand sources that provide exactly the same analysis of your sources to "prove" my argument. If I did (that's assuming that anyone has actually paid any attention to these crappy little websites and tried to rebut them) then I would not be proving anything, I would merely be showing that other people agree with me and the issue would still be open for debate.

At 1/8/08 09:54 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 1/8/08 09:49 PM, Slizor wrote:

At 1/8/08 09:42 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Holy hell, back up your argument for once in your life.

I haven't put forward an argument, there is no position for me to defend or to provide evidence for.

Your ARGUMENT is based on scrutinizing facts and ARGUING against the links I provided.

Oh please. Are you really going to try to use a word with mutiple definitions to support your view? You're really going into that area you hate the most - "semantics". Do you really think that anyone is going to think that I used the word "argument" meaning "an oral disagreement; verbal opposition; contention; altercation" rather than "a process of reasoning; series of reasons. As in "I couldn't follow his argument."? Stop being so disingenuous and debate the actual facts of the matter - your sources are shite.

In order to substantiate your arguments, you're going to have to provide valid sources to back them up. Provide alternate sources that prove the links wrong.

If I don't, are they, by virtue of being the status quo, correct?

Irregardless, of the points where I have criticised your sources I have generally pointed to the area of text where there is a problem and highlighted the appropriate areas.

At 1/8/08 09:42 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Holy hell, back up your argument for once in your life.

I haven't put forward an argument, there is no position for me to defend or to provide evidence for.

Before you try to settle into this stndard "you provide proof" argument, please note that you really will be missing the view that I have put forward in this topic. I have not put forward a position, I have questioned the basis of your position. You have yet be able to defend the basis of your position and so should either retract your view or attempt to defend your position.

Does anyone else think that the primary system, in its first few stages, is undemocratic? I particularly have a problem with the level of participation that is experienced in the first few goes that determine the agenda of the others.

Then provide some "high-brow, well-respected and diverse studies" to back up your argument you feckless coward.

I haven't put forward an argument, there is no position for me to defend or to provide evidence for.

Meaning, you jumped into topic for the sole purpose of scrutinizing someone's facts, and are conveniently trying to weasel your way out of doing any work yourself.

I "jumped in" for the purpose of scrutinizing the sloppy arguments that were claimed to be rock-solid. I have not put forward my own view for the simple reason that I'm not particularly bothered by the matter.

You'd rather just spew out garbage about what YOU think is wrong with the sources, without providing any evidence or facts yourself.

Politics is not about facts, it's about interpretation. Have you really not figured that out yet?

I have briefly analysed the sources that you use for your argument and found them wanting.

Just like you always do, you base your entire argument on scrutinizing links based on your own flawed logic.

And there I was thinking you'd already accepted the view that I had not, in fact, presented an argument.

The requirement then, in this argument, is not for me to now provide evidence for your view, but for you to attempt to find some good sources that do actually back up your views.

I did, like I always do I backed up my views with facts.

No, you backed up your view with a google search. You provided a limited number of ridiculously biased websites that did not even say what you wished them to.

You, being determined to disregard any facts, will use your dishonest nonsense to find some way of ignoring the facts no matter how compelling they are.

Ah, dishonest nonsense. That's what I say is it?

You provide a standard for what you consider to be fact, you yourself cannot meet that standard so you act like a complete coward and simply talk trash about individual links.

There is no standard for me to meet, for I am not presenting an argument. I have previously pointed you to respectable, high-brow sources for an argument I put forward

This is the important point - you are putting forward a view, I am questioning the basis of those views. The burden of proof lies on the affirmative side of the argument - the side that says things are a certain way, not the side that questions that view.

Then provide a source for alternate statistics.

That doesn't follow. Your sources being weak doesn't mean I should provide alternative statistics. \

You CLAIMING that sources are weak doesn't mean that you are right.

Prove that they are weak, and that they are incorrect or stfu.

It is not a matter of me proving anything - politics is not black and white. THIS IS AN AREA OF DEBATE. You seem to be under the illusion that anything that someone posts on this website is a claim, whereas when posted on a website such as WorldNewsDaily (or whatever that website was called) is fact. This is not the case, both are claims.

If they are so weak, then you'd be able to find sources that meet YOUR standard, but prove that mine are incorrect.

How, exactly? Would they contradict them, or directly address them? If they do contradict them, then by what standards are we to discern which is correct?

Of course, you know you can't do that, so you base your entire participation to bashing links just because your purpose is to bash them, eve

My "entire participation" on this forum is, at the moment, questioning your shite arguments. I do this for the sole reason that you try to rain shit on other people who know more than you by misrepresenting their opinion and using google searches and right-wing websites to back up your "arguments".

Look, either attempt to question the logic of my analysis of your sources

I don't have to, because you cannot VALIDATE the "logic" of your analysis.

Logic is a basic starting point of argument. If you can not accept that then do not try to debate. I do not desire to go into a debate over the philosophy of reasoning.

This is how pathetic you are, you think that YOUR "logic" is status quo and proof, that IT needs to be repudiated otherwise you're right. Yet, you never provide any proof to back up any of the things you say.

No, my "logic" applies to the sources that you have provided. If we accept, following my logic, that those sources are incorrect then the resultant situation is not one of my "view" "winning" but a repudation of your view. Nothing more, nothing less. Also, it is not "proof", politics does not deal with "proof" - that is a thing of science, not politics.

(i.e. engage me in honest debate) or find other sources for your original statements. It's quite simple.

Provide proof for your argument for once in your life, and quit being a disingenuous ghoul. It's quite simple.

Provide proof.

Go.

As I have already stated, I have no argument. I have no position, no agenda, that I am advancing here I am merely questioning your use of sources. You seem to be under the illusion that a good defence is a good offence - requiring me to provide evidence for my views - but you must understand that it is the person with the opinion that must seek to justify it, it is the person who puts forward a source who must defend it.

Let's cut to the chase, are you going to deny that this analysis is incorrect?
""churman-Kauflin concluded that, based on a figure of 12 million illegal immigrants and the fact that more of this population is male than average, sex offenders among illegals make up a higher percentage than offenders in the general population.

She arrives at the figure of 240,000 offenders - a conservative estimate, she says - through public records showing about 2 percent of illegals apprehended are sex offenders."

So there's 12 million illegals, 2% of illegals apprehended are sex offenders....therefore 240,000. Easy......apart from the fact that it assumes that every single illegal immigrant has been arrested and patently ignores the fact that people get arrested because they commit sex crimes."

Then provide some "high-brow, well-respected and diverse studies" to back up your argument you feckless coward.

I haven't put forward an argument, there is no position for me to defend or to provide evidence for. I have briefly analysed the sources that you use for your argument and found them wanting. The requirement then, in this argument, is not for me to now provide evidence for your view, but for you to attempt to find some good sources that do actually back up your views.

This is the important point - you are putting forward a view, I am questioning the basis of those views. The burden of proof lies on the affirmative side of the argument - the side that says things are a certain way, not the side that questions that view.

Then provide a source for alternate statistics.

That doesn't follow. Your sources being weak doesn't mean I should provide alternative statistics. Look, either attempt to question the logic of my analysis of your sources (i.e. engage me in honest debate) or find other sources for your original statements. It's quite simple.

Ah the joy of the continued woeful misuse of sources. Seriously guys, I don't think anyone actually bothers to read links that people put up. I've just tabbed al of the sources that cellardoor has used here and four are from "WorldNetDaily", two are from the "Centre of Immigration Studies" and other two quote the same source. It's not exactly a list of high-brow, well-respected and diverse studies, is it?

Let's take a look:

- Illegal immigrants in the US commit a lot of crime.

Jailed illegal immigrants in the US commit a lot of crime. I'm going to guess that any study in the world that looked at the level of crime committed by people in prison would find that a lot of crime was committed by those people.

- Illegal immigrants commit crime at a much higher rate than the typical US citizen or US resident, we're talking about several crimes per illegal immigrant on record in studies.

If you paid any attention to the methodology used then you would know that it does not say that. The report asked jailed illegal immigrants, not the population as a whole, how many crimes they had committed. Therefore it can not be compared with the "typical US citizen" when it comes to levels of crime as it does not profile the typical illegal immigrant.

- 12 Americans are killed everyday by illegal immigrants. This translates to more Americans being killed by illegal immigrants since 2001 than by the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq combined, by several times.

I had a quick look at the links that that link provided and I couldn't actually find the source for those "statistics". For such a well-researched website this is a huge abberation.

- Every year illegal immigrants commit 1 million sex crimes in the US. An estimated 100 sex offenders cross into the US illegally EVERY SINGLE DAY!

Now look at this wonderful bit of statistical trickery.
"Schurman-Kauflin concluded that, based on a figure of 12 million illegal immigrants and the fact that more of this population is male than average, sex offenders among illegals make up a higher percentage than offenders in the general population.

She arrives at the figure of 240,000 offenders - a conservative estimate, she says - through public records showing about 2 percent of illegals apprehended are sex offenders."

So there's 12 million illegals, 2% of illegals apprehended are sex offenders....therefore 240,000. Easy......apart from the fact that it assumes that every single illegal immigrant has been arrested and patently ignores the fact that people get arrested because they commit sex crimes.

- Illegal immigrants cause a net deficit to the US due to the fact they don't pay taxes yet at the same time they consume tax-funded resources and services.

No, according to those statistics they cause a net deficit to the US government, not to the US. The economic impact of immigration is greater than just the use of social services and the payment of taxes. Other than that the methodology that they use is a bit open for discussion. Since they openly admit that
"Those individuals who report that they personally receive Social Security benefits, cash assistance under Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), Supplemental Security benefits (SSI), or who are enrolled in Medicaid are also assumed not to be illegal aliens. However, other members of a household headed by an illegal alien can receive these programs, mostly the U.S.-born children of illegals."
This would mean that the study is predominantly looking at the children of illegal aliens (who, as all children are, would currently constitute a drain on tax revenues), not illegal aliens themselves.

- Most Mexicans believe that the South West US belongs to Mexico!!! The vast majority of illegal immigrants come from Mexico... these people that don't even respect our sovereignty, don't believe that the southwest belongs to us, and are invading our country by the millions.

The study, commissioned by "Americans for Immigration Control", apparently asked if the South West rightfully belonged to Mexico. This, to many, would be interpreted as a historical question or a nationalist question - based on the right of Mexico to its former land. It's not an issue of them not believing the Southwest belongs to the US, but that it rightfully belongs to the US.

- Oh, and the Mexican government is encouraging their people to come here illegally, and teaching them how.

Actually the booklet is a list of don'ts, instead of dos. It's really a matter of interpretation whether you think it constitutes encouragement or is bourn of a desire to stop Mexicans getting killed when they do try to get into the US.

At 1/4/08 09:00 PM, Slizor wrote: It turns out that Polish beer gets you more battered than any English beer.

To be honest, I'm not fucking suprised.

What does Polish beer have in it that English doesn't?

I honestly don't know. Not being a smart ass or anythinng

Most English beer hovers around the 4% mark......the main Polish beer (Zywiec) is 5.6%. When I was in Poland this summer I drank a fair bit of it, but since then I had come to doubt my memory, until I saw it again today - yup, it really is that strong.

It turns out that Polish beer gets you more battered than any English beer.

To be honest, I'm not fucking suprised.

The problem with this post is that it doesn't go deep enough - it is an opinion poll, nothing more. If you want a more indepth, reflective and critical discussion of different ideologies than you must go to their root claims - such as their views on human nature. It is from foundationalist points (points that are accepted uncritically) that all ideological views are created. If you are able to expose these foundationalist views then you are able to understand that argument between people of different political persuasions is largely useless.....unless you want to start a real debate about human nature or concepts of freedom......

I could point out about 5 different ways in which your view is incorrect, but I'll just focus on the one. The issue over US oil consumption should not be viewed as an issue over possible supplies, it should, rather, be viewed as an issue of reducing demand for oil. The US, through its foreign policy, has been able to keep up a level of consumption since the 60s/70s that was enabled by the inheritence of a very very large oil wealth. However, further continuation of this trend in consumption will threaten the economic and political security of the US. However much ANWR is drilled, or Alberta or Orinoco tar sands are converted, the issue will remain one of excessive consumption of oil, not - as the current debate is about - the source of oil.

My very very short answer here - the US has painted itself into a corner by failing to effectively tackle the issue of domestic oil consumption. Because of this, the continuation of oil supplies has become an issue of national security.

However, it openly admits to promoting a certain political viewpoint and, as such, should not be viewed as a source that is trying to take a balanced view.

More recently, Judicial Watch has also sued the George W. Bush administration for access to minutes of Vice President Cheney's Energy Task Force[5] and has also sued the Secret Service to force the release of logs detailing corrupt lobbyist Jack Abramoff's visits to the White House.[6]

You're making it partisan again. I'm not arguing that it supports the republicans, but that it does have an agenda and is promoting a certain political opinion.

Simply because they're funded by conservatives doesn't mean you get to write off their opinion as a whole, slizor.

I'm not trying to. What I'm trying to get at is not that they are funded by conservatives and so are biased, but are conservative in themselves - which they openly admit to. As such, their views should be taken with a good hit of salt and shouldn't be used to make partisan claims.

Always check where your sources are coming from. How the hell can anything be conservative and non-partisan? It seems like a thin definitional line to draw - we have (and promote) certain political views, but do not align ourselves to any party.

It is a clearly nonpartisan site.

If you go back to 2006 (a whole year ago), 6 of the top 10 were Republicans. Unless you have something better to offer me, I'll keep going with the fact that the site is nonpartisan. Though, if we really wish to dig into it, the Democrats have to do far more to get on the list than the Republicans.

I'm not denying that it does not support one party in particular. However, it openly admits to promoting a certain political viewpoint and, as such, should not be viewed as a source that is trying to take a balanced view.