Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Consumption (disease)

2007-07-26T21:05:17Z

Epicurius: Redirecting to Tuberculosis

#REDIRECT [[Tuberculosis]]

User:Epicurius/FullSig

2007-07-26T20:46:30Z

Epicurius: Removing all content from page

User:Epicurius/FullSig

2007-07-26T20:40:10Z

Epicurius:

[[User:Epicurius|'''E'''picurius<!-- Epicrius]]{{User:Epicurius/TestTalk}}

User:Epicurius/FullSig

2007-07-26T20:39:45Z

Epicurius: New page: [[User:Epicurius|'''E'''picurius<!-- Epicr...

Talk:Hate crime

2007-07-25T21:33:13Z

Epicurius:

Cut from the article:

:A common form is racial hate crime, 90% of which is committed by blacks on whites.[Citation Needed]

Two questions:
#Are we saying that most inter-racial crime is black on white, rather than white on black?
#Are we saying that 90% of racial [[hate crime]] is black on white?

BTW, I've heard that most crime perpetrated on blacks is black-on-black crime.

P.S. I'm a math teacher, so be careful with your statistics. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:31, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

It is mostly black on white, and I am starting to think this site is trying to piss of white people. Well, maybe I meant interracial. [[User:Tyhorm|Tyhorm]] 11:34, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Likewise, Ed Poor: Please provide a cite for the "'''The new [[Speaker of the House]] for the 2007-2008 [[Congress]], [[Nancy Pelosi]], seeks to pass hate crime legislation proposed in the prior session of [[Congress]] in H.R.3132.'''"
sentence, as the ''"Children's Safety Act of 2005"'' doesn't seem to mention "hate crimes". thanks [[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 11:32, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:Just for the record, title X of the Children's Safety Act delas with hate crimes.[[http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:3:./temp/~c1096BvIUM:e140452:]]--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 11:42, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::Thank you, Steve. Sorry Ed if I gave you the impression of not trusting your source but please try to include kinda exactly where to find these things; trying to wade through an entire piece of legislation for the germane section can be taxing.

:::Rob, I don't know anything about Pelosi or H.R. 3132. I suggest you ask Mr. Schlafly. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:53, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Well, unless he comes and visits this page he won't see my "complaint" and I'm not going to "pollute" his talk page with piddling details. Could you, though, Ed, at least fix the sentence: Changing '''seeks''' to '''sought''' ought to do it. Thanks.[[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]
::::Done.[[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]

I'm wondering if the section "Free Speech and the Gay Agenda" needs to be changed. Lines like "Homosexuality, on the other hand is not God-given or godly in any way. It therefore does not merit any protection or honor whatsoever, and is just as wrong as other perversions (such as incest), even when performed by "consenting adults"." seem to both confuse facts and beliefs (How do we know that homosexuality isn't God given or godly? That's a belief, not a fact), and is a non-sequitur (why, assuming that homosexuality isn't godly, does it not merit any legal protection?) Could I suggest changing that section so it reads as follows:

<blockquote>
Opponents charge that hate crime and hate speech rules amount to an erosion of [[First Amendment]] guarantees of freedom of religion, [[free speech]], and freedom of press. In particular, they object to rules or laws which equate condemnation of sin with prejudice.

Hate crime legislation imposes additional punishment for crimes held to be motivated by such "prejudice".

Liberals promote hate crime legislation to legitimize certain lifestyles by declaring them to be protected by law, and to chill [[free speech]] that criticizes those lifestyles. Hate crime legislation is a stepping stone for a lifestyle to become protected under anti-discrimination laws.

As part of the [[homosexual agenda]], the [[gay rights]] movement has attempted to equate racism and [[anti-Semitism]] with the condemnation of homosexuality. To do this, they must of course gloss over the fact that race is 100% inherited and immutable, while there is a debate whether or not homosexuality is immutable, and that religious and ethnic persecution against Jews involved a 6 million person [[Holocaust]] (see [[genocide]] and [[ethnic cleansing]]), which greatly exceeds any discrimination homosexuals have suffered.

Nonetheless, the strategy of some of those supporting extending hate crime legislation to gays is to insist that condemnation of homosexuality is a type of "prejudice" equivalent to a civil rights violation. They want people of conscience, who already condemn antisemitism and racism, to regard any critique of homosexuality as an expression of "hate".

This matter is complicated by the fact that some religious denominations consider homosexual behavior sinful and homosexuality to be a choice. So, from the point of view of members of these denominations, their criticism of homosexuality is nothing more than pointing out evil and telling people to stop committing sin. They see this not as hate but an expression of love.</blockquote>

This both expresses the point of view of those opposed to extending hate crime protections to gays, while making it clear that it is a point of view.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 17:33, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

The Eleventh Commandment

2007-07-25T18:54:04Z

Epicurius:

'''''The Eleventh Commandment''''' is a precept which states, "Thou shall not speak ill of any fellow Republicans." Although its creation is attributed to former [[U.S. President| President]], [[Ronald Reagan]], it was named by former [[California]] state [[Republican]] chairman, Gayland Parkinson. In the 1966 California [[governor]] primary, then actor, Ronald Reagan, ran a against mayor [[George Christopher]]<ref>An American Life, Ronald Reagan Autobiography, pg.. 150 </ref>. The primary race led to larege allegation against Reagan, mainly centered at his occupation as an actor. In response to attacks by Christopher, Parkinson advised the candidates to follow the Eleventh Commandment. Reagan later stated its, "A rule I followed during that campaign and ever since.<ref>An American Life, Ronald Reagan Autobiography, pg.. 150 </ref>" Over the years, the [[Republican National Convention]] has been criticized for not following the precept, in recent elections, prominent Republicans have helped in attacking other Republicans during primary seasons. In the 2004 Republican primary race between [[liberal]] Republican, [[Arlen Specter]], and [[conservative]], [[Pat Tommy]], Republican institutions support went towards Specter, leading to the defeat of the conservative candidate<ref>http://www.nationalreview.com/miller/miller200510180823.asp</ref>. In the 2006 Republican primary elections in [[Rhode Island]], conservative, [[Steven Laffey]], ran against liberal Republican Senator, [[Lincoln Chafee]]. The [[National Republican Senatorial Convention]] funded a barrage of negative advertisements against Laffey. During the heated campaign, Laffey stated to the press, "Whatever happened to Ronald Reagan's 11th commandment?"<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/local/rhode_island/articles/2006/09/06/fearing_loss_national_republicans_rally_behind_moderate_senator/?page=2</ref>. Although Laffey gained support of some conservative institutions, Laffey could not overcome the funding that Caffee received from other Republican leaders<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/local/rhode_island/articles/2006/09/06/fearing_loss_national_republicans_rally_behind_moderate_senator/?page=2</ref>.

==References==
<references/>

Presidents of the United States

2007-07-25T16:21:28Z

Epicurius:

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:left"
|+
== '''Presidents of the United States''' ==
|-
! Presidents !! Vice Presidents
|-
| [[Image:george_washington_3.jpg|80px]] [[George Washington]] (1789-1797) ||[[Image:John_adams.gif|80px]] [[John Adams]] (1789-1797)
|-
| [[Image:John_adams.gif|80px]] [[John Adams]] (1797-1801) || [[Image:Thomas_jefferson.jpg|80px]] [[Thomas Jefferson]] (1797-1801)
|-
| [[Image:Thomas_jefferson.jpg|80px]] [[Thomas Jefferson]] (1801-1809) || [[Image:George_clinton.jpg|80px]] [[George Clinton]] (1805-1809)
|-
| [[Image:James_madison.jpg|80px]] [[James Madison]] (1809-1817)|| [[Image:George_clinton.jpg|80px]] [[George Clinton]] (1809-1812)
|-
| || none (1812-1813)
|-
| || [[Image:Elbridge_gerry.jpg|80px]] [[Elbridge Gerry]] (1813-1814)
|-
| || none (1814-1817)
|-
| [[Image:James_monroe.jpg|80px]] [[James Monroe]] (1817-1825) || [[Image:Daniel_tompkins.jpg|80px]] [[Daniel D. Tompkins]] (1817-1825)
|-
| [[Image:John_quincy_adams.jpg|80px]] [[John Quincy Adams]] (1825-1829) || [[Image:John_calhoun.jpg|80px]] [[John C. Calhoun]] (1825-1829)
|-
| [[Image:Andrew_jackson.jpeg|80px]] [[Andrew Jackson]] (1829-1837) || [[Image:John_calhoun.jpg|80px]] [[John C. Calhoun]] (1829-1832)
|-
| || none (1832-1833)
|-
| || [[Image:Martin_van_buren.jpg|80px]] [[Martin Van Buren]] (1833-1837)
|-
| [[Image:Martin_van_buren.jpg|80px]] [[Martin Van Buren]] (1837-1841) || [[Image:Richard_johnson.jpg|80px]] [[Richard M. Johnson]] (1837-1841)
|-
| [[Image:William_harrison.jpg|80px]] [[William Henry Harrison]] (1841) || [[Image:John_tyler.jpg|80px]] [[John Tyler]] (1841)
|-
| [[Image:John_tyler.jpg|80px]] [[John Tyler]] (1841-1845) || none (1841-1845)
|-
| [[Image:James_polk.jpg|80px]] [[James K. Polk]] (1845-1849) || [[Image:George_dallas.jpg|80px]] [[George M. Dallas]] (1845-1849)
|-
| [[Image:Zachary_taylor.jpg|80px]] [[Zachary Taylor]] (1849-1850) || [[Image:Millard_fillmore.jpg|80px]] [[Millard Fillmore]] (1849-1850)
|-
| [[Image:Millard_fillmore.jpg|80px]] [[Millard Fillmore]] (1850-1853) || none (1850-1853)
|-
| [[Image:Franklin_pierce.jpg|80px]] [[Franklin Pierce]] (1853-1857) || [[Image:William_king.jpg|80px]] [[William King]] (1853)
|-
| || none (1853-1857)
|-
| [[Image:James_buchanan.jpg|80px]] [[James Buchanan]] (1857-1861) || [[Image:Breckinridge.jpg|80px]] [[John C. Breckinridge]] (1857-1861)
|-
| [[Image:Abraham_lincoln.jpg|80px]] [[Abraham Lincoln]] (1861-1865) || [[Image:Hannibal_hamlin.jpg|80px]] [[Hannibal Hamlin]] (1861-1865)
|-
| || [[Image:Andrew_johnson.jpg|80px]] [[Andrew Johnson]] (1865)
|-
| [[Image:Andrew_johnson.jpg|80px]] [[Andrew Johnson]] (1865-1869) || none (1865-1869)
|-
| [[Image:Ulysses_grant.jpg|80px]][[Ulysses S. Grant]] (1869-1877) || [[Image:Schuyler_colfax.jpg|80px]] [[Schuyler Colfax]] (1869-1873)
|-
| || [[Image:Henry_wilson.jpg|80px]] [[Henry Wilson]] (1873-1875)
|-
| || none (1875-1877)
|-
| [[Image:Rutherford_hayes.jpg|80px]] [[Rutherford B. Hayes]] (1877-1881) || [[Image:William_wheeler.jpg|80px]] [[William Wheeler]] (1877-1881)
|-
| [[Image:James_garfield.jpg|80px]] [[James A. Garfield]] (1881) || [[Image:Chester_arthur.jpg|80px]] [[Chester Arthur]] (1881)
|-
| [[Image:Chester_arthur.jpg|80px]] [[Chester Arthur]] (1881-1885) || none (1881-1885)
|-
| [[Image:Grover_cleveland.jpg|80px]] [[Grover Cleveland]] (1885-1889) || [[Image:Thomas_hendricks.jpg|80px]] [[Thomas Hendricks]] (1885)
|-
| ||none (1885-1889)
|-
| [[Image:Benjamin_harrison.jpg|80px]] [[Benjamin Harrison]] (1889-1893) || [[Image:Levi_morton.jpg|80px]] [[Levi P. Morton]] (1889-1893)
|-
| [[Image:Grover_cleveland.jpg|80px]] [[Grover Cleveland]] (1893-1897) || [[Image:Adlai_Ewing_Stevenson.jpg|80px]] [[Adlai Ewing Stevenson]] (1893-1897)
|-
|[[Image:William_mckinley.jpg|80px]] [[William McKinley]] (1897-1901) || [[Image:Garret_hobart.jpg|80px]] [[Garret Hobart]] (1897-1901)
|-
| || [[Image:Theodore_roosevelt.jpg|80px]] [[Theodore Roosevelt]] (1901)
|-
| [[Image:Theodore_roosevelt.jpg|80px]] [[Theodore Roosevelt]] (1901-1909) || none (1901-1905)
|-
| || [[Image:Charles_fairbanks.jpg|80px]] [[Charles Fairbanks]] (1905-1909)
|-
| [[Image:William_taft.jpg|80px]] [[William Howard Taft]] (1909-1913) || [[Image:James_sherman.jpg|80px]] [[James S. Sherman]] (1909-1912)
|-
| || none (1912-1913)
|-
| [[Image:Woodrow_wilson.jpg|80px]] [[Woodrow Wilson]] (1913-1921) || [[Image:Thomas_marshall.gif|80px]] [[Thomas R. Marshall]] (1913-1921)
|-
| [[Image:Warren_harding.jpg|80px]] [[Warren G. Harding]] (1921-1923) || [[Image:Calvin_coolidge.jpg|80px]] [[Calvin Coolidge]] (1921-1923)
|-
| [[Image:Calvin_coolidge.jpg|80px]] [[Calvin Coolidge]] (1923-1929) ||none (1923-1925)
|-
| || [[Image:Charles_dawes.jpg |80px]] [[Charles Dawes]] (1925-1929)
|-
| [[Image:Herbert_hoover.jpg|80px]] [[Herbert Hoover]] (1929-1933) || [[Image:Charles_curtis.jpg |80px]] [[Charles Curtis]] (1929-1933)
|-
| [[Image:Franklin_roosevelt.jpg |80px]] [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] (1933-1945) ||[[Image:John_garner.jpg |80px]] [[John Nance Garner]] (1933-1941)
|-
| || [[Image:Henry_wallace.jpg |80px]] [[Henry A. Wallace]] (1941-1945)
|-
| || [[Image:Harry_truman.jpg |80px]] [[Harry S. Truman]] (1945)
|-
| [[Image:Harry_truman.jpg |80px]] [[Harry S Truman]] (1945-1953) || none (1945-1949)
|-
| || [[Image:Alben_barkley.jpg |80px]] [[Alben Barkley]] (1949-1953)
|-
| [[Image:Dwight_eisenhower.jpg |80px]] [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]] (1953-1961) || [[Image:Richard_nixon.gif|80px]] [[Richard Nixon]] (1953-1961)
|-
| [[Image:John_kennedy.jpg |80px]] [[John F. Kennedy]] (1961-1963) || [[Image:Lyndon_johnson.jpg |80px]] [[Lyndon B. Johnson]] (1961-1963)
|-
| [[Image:Lyndon_johnson.jpg |80px]] [[Lyndon B. Johnson]] (1963-1969) || none (1963-1965)
|-
| || [[Image:Hubert_humphrey.jpg |80px]] [[Hubert Humphrey]] (1965-1969)
|-
| [[Image:Richard_nixon.gif|80px]] [[Richard Nixon]] (1969-1974) || [[Image:Spiro_agnew.jpg |80px]] [[Spiro Agnew]] (1969-1973)
|-
| || none (Oct 10 - Dec 6, 1973)
|-
| || [[Image:Ford_head.jpg |80px]] [[Gerald Ford]] (1973-1974)
|-
| [[Image:Ford_head.jpg |80px]] [[Gerald Ford]] (1974-1977) ||[[image:NAR0091.jpg|80px| Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller]] [[Nelson A. Rockfeller]] (1974-1977)
|-
| [[Image:Carter_head.jpg |80px]] [[Jimmy Carter]] (1977-1981) || [[Image:WalterMondale.jpg |80px]] [[Walter Mondale]] (1977-1981)
|-
| [[Image:Reagan_head.jpg |80px]] [[Ronald Reagan]] (1981-1989) || [[Image:GHWB_head.jpg |80px]] [[George H. W. Bush]] (1981-1989)
|-
|[[Image:GHWB_head.jpg |80px]] [[George H. W. Bush]] (1989-1993) || [[Image:Uyfkhm.jpg |80px]] [[Dan Quayle| J. Danforth Quayle]] (1989-1993)
|-
| [[Image:Clinton_head.jpg |80px]] [[William Jefferson Clinton]] (1993-2001) || [[Image:041109_al_gore_vsml_6a_vsmall.jpg |80px]][[Al Gore| Albert Gore]] (1993-2001)
|-
| [[Image:George_w_bush.jpeg |80px]] [[George W. Bush]] (2001-Present) || [[image:Dick_cheney.jpg|80px]] [[Dick Cheney]](2001-Present)
[[Category:Presidents of the United States]]

President Lyndon Johnson

2007-07-25T16:19:39Z

Epicurius: Redirecting to Lyndon B. Johnson

#REDIRECT [[Lyndon B. Johnson]]

Previous Breaking News/War on Terror

2007-07-25T16:18:56Z

Epicurius:

This page contains the items that were once on the "Breaking News" section of the Main Page. The articles are mainly about the '''[[War on Terror]]'''. 

#'''[[Doctor]]s of [[Death]]: Radical [[Islam|Islam's]] Influence in [[Glasgow]] Terror Plot'''. [[Oliver North]] says the MSM is trying to wrongly link the attacks to the [[Iraq war]]. [[Fox News]] article : [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,288261,00.html] [[Image:tblair.jpg|right|50px|Tony Blair]]
#'''[[Tony Blair]],''' former [[Prime Minister]] of the [[United Kingdom]], '''has a message for [[Islam|Muslim]] extremists''': ''“It’s not just your methods that are wrong, your ideas are absurd. Nobody is oppressing you. Your sense of grievance isn’t justified.”'' '''But who said #The new Prime Minister, '''
#[[Gordon Brown]] says Britain’s message to the [[terrorists]] must be''': ''“We will not yield, we will not be intimidated, and we will not allow anyone to undermine our British way of life.”'' '''Weren't the French saying that a decade ago?'''
#[[Michelle Malkin]] reports on Mr. Blair's and Mr. Brown's statements and much more [http://michellemalkin.com/2007/07/01/jihadi-suspects-on-the-loose-in-the-uk/ here]
[[Category:Breaking News]]

Category:Breaking News

2007-07-25T16:18:04Z

Epicurius: New page: This category consists of articles that were once on the "Breaking News" section of the Main Page.

This category consists of articles that were once on the "Breaking News" section of the Main Page.

Previous Breaking News/Wikipedia

2007-07-25T16:16:55Z

Epicurius:

This page contains the items that were once on the "Breaking News" section of the Main Page. The articles are mainly about '''[[Wikipedia]]'''. 

#'''More evidence that [[Wikipedia]] is just a [[liberal]] smear factory''':
##its entry on [[liberal]] former Vice President [[Al Gore]] contains no mention of drug charges against his son, but its entry on [[conservative]] Vice President [[Dick Cheney]] prominently mentions his adult daughter's sexuality.[[Bias in Wikipedia|[example #1]]]
##[[Wikipedia]] smears prominent [[Christian]] [[conservatives]], including [[James Dobson]] and [[D. James Kennedy]], with an allegation that they are part of a grand scheme Wikipedia calls "Dominionism"[[Bias in Wikipedia|[example #3]]]
##Its last sentence on [[Human Life International]] claimed that a killer "confessed that pamphets (sic) from the group led" him to kill. This is a complete lie designed to smear a [[conservative]] group. But this was approved by [[Wikipedia]] and remained for over a month.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_Life_International&oldid=138698827]
##Smears in its entry on [[United States of America|U.S.]] Congressman Steve LaTourette were totally false.[http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1184402220217510.xml&coll=2]
#'''[[Wikipedia]] continues to lose credibility:'''
##"[[Larry Sanger]], who founded Wikipedia in 2001 with [[Jimmy Wales]] only to leave shortly afterwards, said that even as far back as 2001 the Wikipedia community 'had no respect for experts.'" [http://www.siliconrepublic.com/news/news.nv?storyid=single8794]
#'''[[Wikipedia]]: the ''National Enquirer'' of the [[Internet]].'''
#[[Wikipedia]] editors reported on the death of wrestler Chris Benoit's wife hours before the police found out; now the cops want to know how and why: [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,287194,00.html] [http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070628/ap_on_re_us/wrestler_dead]
[[Category:Breaking News]]

Previous Breaking News/Liberal hypocrisy

2007-07-25T16:16:38Z

Epicurius:

This page contains the items that were once on the "Breaking News" section of the Main Page. The articles are mainly about '''[[Liberal hypocrisy]]'''. 
[[Image:Obama.jpg|right|50px]]
#'''[[2008 Presidential Election|U.S. presidential hopeful]] [[Barack Obama|Obama]] tells [[labor union|union]] crowd he won't shop at [[Wal-Mart]] -- Staff reports campaign purchases the same day.''' '''[[Hillary Rodham Clinton|Hillary's]] staff also shops at Wal-Mart'''. [http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/07/18/campaign-cash-more-fun-facts-to-know-and-share/ ''The New York Times''] [[Liberal hypocrisy]] in action.
#''' American [[Democratic Party]] politician from [[Texas]] who's anti-gun ''uses a [[gun]] on a would-be thief:'' [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,288737,00.html]
#'''Refugees given homes, [[education]], welfare benefits by [[United Kingdom|Britain]]; in return, the [[Islam|Islamic]] [[terrorist]]s plotted [[mass murder]]:[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=467345&in_page_id=1770&ct=5]
#The '''[[ABC|American Broadcasting Company]] Bashes Bottled [[Water]] Companies, Ignores the one Robert F. Kennedy Jr. owns. [http://newsbusters.org/node/13994]
[[Category:Breaking News]]

Previous Breaking News/Global Warming

2007-07-25T16:15:55Z

Epicurius:

This page contains the items that were once on the "Breaking News" section of the Main Page. The articles are mainly about '''[[Global Warming]]'''. 

#''''[[Global Warming]] Now [[World|World's]] Most Boring Topic’''' [[NewsBusters]]: [http://newsbusters.org/node/14167]
#'''The [[Washington Post]] reiterates the [[Global warming|Climate Change]] narrative'''. [[NewsBusters]]: [[http://newsbusters.org/node/14127]
[[Category:Breaking News]]

Previous Breaking News/Fairness Doctrine

2007-07-25T16:15:04Z

Epicurius:

This page contains the items that were once on the "Breaking News" section of the Main Page. The articles are mainly about the '''[[Fairness Doctrine]]'''. 

#'''In the United States, 113 [[Democratic Party|Democrats]] and 196 [[Republican Party|Republicans]] joined to deny funds used to re-impose the equal-time "[[Fairness Doctrine]]". The maintream media didn't like that news and chose to ignore it.''' [http://newsbusters.org/node/13853 Fairness Doctrine Loses Big in the House, Media Mum] 
#'''Paul Nowak has a great cartoon that satirizes [[Liberal]] paranoia of [[talk radio]].''' [http://newsbusters.org/node/13855]
#'''[[110th United States Congress|Democratic's]] gear up to reinstitute [[Fairness Doctrine|censorship]];''' [http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/gop-preps-for-talk-radio-confrontation-2007-06-27.html]
#'''[[Fox News]] reporter victim of violent assault by [[Fairness Doctrine]] activist'''. [http://publiceyeblog.com/]
[[Category:Breaking News]]

Previous Breaking News/Conservapedia

2007-07-25T16:14:37Z

Epicurius:

This page contains the items that were once on the "Breaking News" section of the Main Page. The articles are mainly about '''[[Conservapedia]]'''. 
#'''Conservapedia delivers: 100% pass rate on the [[CLEP]] [[economics]] exam to earn college credit. One remarkable 9th grade student earned college credit in [[economics]] based on the [[Economics Lectures|materials posted here]] on Conservapedia.''' Coursework is so much easier when the [[liberal]] distortions are removed.
#Use '''Conservapedia - "A [[conservative]] [[encyclopedia]] you can [[trust]]".
#'''Conservapedia surpasses 14 million page views!!!!''' '''Every visit can result in learning something censored elsewhere.''' [[Image:FNC_logo.jpg|right|50px]]
#'''The [[Fox News]] camera crew that was a victim of a [[liberal]] [http://publiceyeblog.com/ assault] visits and films Conservapedia today'''. '''Needless to say, we didn't assault the crew.'''
#'''Conservapedia’s page count has reached 12,000!''' Our growth continues to be strong thanks to all our hard working users. '''The winner of the Sysop contests is [[User:DeborahB.|DeborahB.]]!''' She has been making excellent contributions to Conservapedia for more than six months, and her edit total is over 1500. Congratulations Deborah! The next Sysop will be promoted when our entry count reaches 13,000. '''To read more or nominate a user, click [[Conservapedia:Sysop contest|here]].'''
[[Category:Breaking News]]

Previous Breaking News/ACLU

2007-07-25T16:13:57Z

Epicurius:

This page contains the items that were once on the "Breaking News" section of the Main Page. The articles are mainly about the '''[[ACLU]]'''.
#'''A [[Objectivism|Perception]] Issue? Revolving door between the [[ACLU|American Civil Liberties Union]] and [[National Public Radio]]'''. [[NewsBusters]]:[http://newsbusters.org/node/14128]
#'''The [[ACLU|American Civil Liberties Union]] lost a lawsuit challenging [[President of the United States of America|President]] [[George W. Bush|Bush's]] domestic spying program''', saying the plaintiffs had no standing to sue. Associated Press article at [[Fox News]]. [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,288381,00.html]
[[Category:Breaking News]]

Previous Breaking News/Environmentalist

2007-07-25T16:13:43Z

Epicurius:

This page contains the items that were once on the "Breaking News" section of the Main Page. The articles are mainly about [[Environmentalist|Environmentalism]]. 
[[Image:Billy Cottrell.jpg|right|50px|Eco-vandal Billy Cottrell in kindergarten]]
#The best and the brightest of [[United States of America|America's]] amoral [[college]]s: [[Physics]] "genius" Billy Cottrell is serving 8 years in jail for [[environmental]] [[vandalism]] of new sport-utility vehicles (SUVs), including spray-painting [[Euler's Formula]] on one of them and the torching of the cars by co-conspirators. [[Liberal]] pleas for preferential treatment for him in jail claim he could be making "major contributions" to [[string theory]].'''[http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-070712ecoterror,1,1127032.story]
#'''[[Environmentalist|Eco-terrorists]] attack a Hummer.''' [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/17/AR2007071701808.html ''The Washington Post'']
#[[Michelle Malkin]] reports on the '''[[Live Earth]] concerts'''. '''[[P.E.T.A|PETA]] has demanded that Live Earth organizers there take [[meat]] off the menu'''. A campaigner said '''"There’s no such thing as a meat eating [[environmentalist]]"'''.[http://michellemalkin.com/2007/07/07/live-earth-green-circus/]
#'''Why is America's [[NBC]] airing [[Al Gore|Al Gore’s]] [[Live Earth]] concert this weekend?''' Steven Milloy at [[Fox News]] says, "[[European]] [[government]]s and companies expect that [[global warming]] [[regulation]] will give them a competitive advantage over U.S. [[business|businesses]]." [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,288195,00.html]
#''''Green' Means [[Money]], Not [[Environmentalist|Environmentalism]] to Madonna'''. [[Fox News]] article [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,288295,00.html]
[[Category:Breaking News]]

Previous Breaking News/2008 Presidential Election

2007-07-25T16:13:23Z

Epicurius:

This page contains the items that were once on the "Breaking News" section of the Main Page. The articles are mainly about the '''[[2008 Presidential Election|2008 US Presidential Election]]'''. 

# '''Internal rivalries sink [[John McCain]]'s lost campaign for the job of [[President of the United States of America]].[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/13/AR2007071302227.html] Advice to McCain: stop acting like a [[liberal]] and start being a [[conservative]]. But is it too late for him?'''
# '''After decades of trashing people of faith, United States [[Democratic Party]] [[2008_Presidential_Election#Opinion_polling|Presidential contenders]] embrace religion.''' [http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0%2C8599%2C1642649%2C00.html ''Time magazine]
# '''The U.S. Polls: [[Hillary Clinton]] is the only candidate a majority say they will not vote for'''. [http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/06/28/248165.aspx]
#'''Conservative [[Ann Coulter]] responds to attacks from [[John Edwards]] U.S. election campaign; Edwards still trying to detract from negative ''[[New York Times]]'' publicity'''. [http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=21345][http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/22/us/politics/22edwards.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin]

[[Category:Breaking News]]

Consul

2007-07-25T16:12:07Z

Epicurius:

A powerful position of authority shared by two men, annually elected in Rome from 509 BC onwards. They had executive authority and military command of the Roman Republic. The office survived under the imperial system of the [[Roman Empire]] that succeeded the republic, but became increasingly divested of real power. The office even survived the fall of Rome itself in 476 AD, and the [[Barbarian]] rulers of [[Italy]] continued to appoint consuls until 541 AD.
[[Category:Roman history]]

Caraka

2007-07-25T16:09:34Z

Epicurius:

Caraka was a great [[India]]n doctor who developed a code of medical ethics.
[[Category:India]][[Category:Medicine]]

Brian Michael Gall v. United States

2007-07-25T16:07:11Z

Epicurius:

This case presents a question to the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] about the [[Sentencing Guidelines]]:<ref>Gall v. U.S., No. 06-7949. Certiorari granted June 11, 2007. Ruling below: 446 F.3d 884 (8th Cir. 2006).</ref>

*Absent special circumstances, is it reasonable for a federal district court judge to sentence a defendant to a term below the federal sentencing guidelines range?

In this case the Sentencing Guidelines specified a prison sentence of 30-37 months for a conspiracy to distribute the drug ecstasy, but the defendant received no prison time and only 36 months probation and a fine. The Court of Appeals for the [[Eighth Circuit]] reversed that sentence in holding that an extraordinary reduction from the guidelines required "extraordinary circumstances," but the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] then granted cert.

The 5-4 majority that upheld application of the [[Sentencing Guidelines]] on an advisory basis is no longer intact. Chief Justice [[John Roberts]] has replaced [[William Rehnquist]] and Justice [[Sam Alito]] has replaced Justice [[Sandra Day O'Connor]]. Both Rehnquist and O'Connor were part of the 5-Justice majority, and the combination of their replacement and the grant of cert. here suggests that the Court may greatly diminish the authority of the [[Sentencing Guidelines]].

== References ==

<references/>
[[category:US Supreme Court Cases]]

Average global temperature

2007-07-25T16:05:24Z

Epicurius:

The average global temperature of [[Earth]] is 15 degrees [[Centigrade]].
*Without the [[greenhouse effect]] life on this planet would probably not exist as the average temperature of the Earth would be a chilly -18° Celsius, rather than the present 15° Celsius. [http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7h.html]

[[Category:Earth science]]

Average global temperature

2007-07-25T16:05:03Z

Epicurius:

Hades

2007-07-24T15:38:48Z

Epicurius:

'''Hades''' was the [[Greece|Greek]] god of the dead. According to Greek mythology, he and his brothers [[Zeus]] and [[Poseidon]] overthrew their father, the Titan [[Cronos]], and divided lots to decide which part of the world each would control. Hades was awarded the underworld and the dead.

Hades was also the name of the Greek underworld, where the spirits of the dead went. According to [[Homer]] Odysseus sailed upon the river [[Styx]] (that ran through Hades) to speak to the dead to gather information in his quest to return home to [[Ithaca]].

While Hades was known as the abode of the dead as described by Homer there were also differing sections. Most of the dead seemed to mill around in no particular distress, though in no way enjoying this existence either. In [[Tartarus]] though, punishment was the order of the day: for example ''Tantalus'' was suspended from a fruit tree the boughs of which would move if he tried to pluck a morsel from the tree; while suspended above a pool ever thirsting but the water never met his parched lips.<ref>Homer: The Odyssey:Book 11</ref>

Another section of Hades was known as the Elysian fields, where the souls of those who were particularly noble or heroic were sent.
==Notes & References==
<references/>

{{Nb mythology greece}}

Talk:Essay:25 Worst Court Decisions

2007-07-24T14:34:55Z

Epicurius: New page: Just some suggesttions for cases you might want to consider adding to your list: United States v Callender-upheld the Sedition Act, which made criticizing the gov't a crime The "Civil Ri...

Just some suggesttions for cases you might want to consider adding to your list:

United States v Callender-upheld the Sedition Act, which made criticizing the gov't a crime

The "Civil Rights" cases (US v Stanley, US v Ryan, etc)-Congress has no power to prohibit private discrimination, the 14th amendment doesn't apply to the federal government

The "Slaughterhouse" cases-The 14th Amendment doesn't apply to state governments

Lochner v New York-the birth of the Substantive Due Process theory, beginning of modern "judicial activism"

Korematsu v US-In time of war, US citizens may be detained without trial merely because of their ancestry --[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 10:34, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

Hades

2007-07-24T03:28:09Z

Epicurius:

Hades was the [[Greece|Greek]] god of the dead. According to Greek mythology, he and his brothers [[Zeus]] and [[Poseidon]] overthrew their father, the Titan [[Cronos]], and divided lots to decide which part of the world each would control. Hades was awarded the underworld and the dead.

Hades was also the name of the Greek underworld, where the spirits of the dead went.

{{Nb mythology greece}}

Statutory rape

2007-07-19T19:07:23Z

Epicurius:

'''Statutory rape''' is carnal knowledge of a minor who is below the [[age of consent]]. It is a crime almost universally despised. Only the most perverse of society's underworld (or social outcasts) dare to speak well of it, let alone to indulge in it.

See:
*[[Harry Hay]]
*[[NAMBLA]]

[[Category: Crimes]]

Talk:Harry Hay

2007-07-19T18:40:53Z

Epicurius:

Where does this guy come from? I've not seen him in any newspapers or on TV coverage of "gay rights". [[User:Wooyi|Wooyi]] 00:07, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
:The WP entry on him may be incorrect on his birth date; I have a source says he was born in England in 1912. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:18, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
::The birth date isn't an issue. The thing I don't understand is that both this and WP article describe this person as important in the "gay rights" movement, while he isn't really well-known, if comparing to the Human Rights Campaign guys and Barney Frank, among others. [[User:Wooyi|Wooyi]] 00:47, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
:::As the article states, Harry Hay was active in the anti-War movement in 1950, soliciting gays to sign the Moscow directed Stockholm petition. And this ''after'' he left the [[CPUSA]]. So let's not limit his activism to gay rights. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:30, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Hay was important in the gay rights movement in the sense that he was the first one to organize a gay rights organization back in the 50s, which was a major achievement and took a lot of courage at the time. He's important because of that, and because the Mattachine Society became a way for gays to speak up against prejudice and discrimination, more than because what Hay advocated or believed.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 10:57, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::Pleae, we need all that in the article. Please add it. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:28, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::I don't know...is that information appropriate for the article? The article seems to be about why Harry Hay was a bad person. You know, it doesn't really talk about his life, but just says that he was a Communist advocate of pedophillia/ephebophillia. I'm not really comfortable about adding biographical information to it. It doesn't seem to fit with the tone of the rest of the article.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 14:40, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
Cut from intro:
:Hay has been likened to [[Thomas Jefferson]], [[Emma Goldman]], and [[Rosa Parks]] among [[liberal]] advocates of [[gay rights]]. <nowiki><ref>''The Boston Phoenix'', [http://bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/other_stories/documents/02511115.htm The real Harry Hay], Michael Bronski, October 31 - November 7, 2002. </ref></nowiki>

Rob, you may not have noticed that it was only the Phoenix author who paid Hay this tribute. Has anyone else compared him to this famous personages? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:42, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Harry Hay

2007-07-19T14:57:57Z

Epicurius:

Where does this guy come from? I've not seen him in any newspapers or on TV coverage of "gay rights". [[User:Wooyi|Wooyi]] 00:07, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
:The WP entry on him may be incorrect on his birth date; I have a source says he was born in England in 1912. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:18, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
::The birth date isn't an issue. The thing I don't understand is that both this and WP article describe this person as important in the "gay rights" movement, while he isn't really well-known, if comparing to the Human Rights Campaign guys and Barney Frank, among others. [[User:Wooyi|Wooyi]] 00:47, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
:::As the article states, Harry Hay was active in the anti-War movement in 1950, soliciting gays to sign the Moscow directed Stockholm petition. And this ''after'' he left the [[CPUSA]]. So let's not limit his activism to gay rights. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:30, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Hay was important in the gay rights movement in the sense that he was the first one to organize a gay rights organization back in the 50s, which was a major achievement and took a lot of courage at the time. He's important because of that, and because the Mattachine Society became a way for gays to speak up against prejudice and discrimination, more than because what Hay advocated or believed.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 10:57, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

Cut from intro:
:Hay has been likened to [[Thomas Jefferson]], [[Emma Goldman]], and [[Rosa Parks]] among [[liberal]] advocates of [[gay rights]]. <nowiki><ref>''The Boston Phoenix'', [http://bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/other_stories/documents/02511115.htm The real Harry Hay], Michael Bronski, October 31 - November 7, 2002. </ref></nowiki>

Rob, you may not have noticed that it was only the Phoenix author who paid Hay this tribute. Has anyone else compared him to this famous personages? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:42, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

Kyiv

2007-07-17T00:00:08Z

Epicurius:

'''Kyiv''' (Ukrainian: Київ, English: Kiev) is the capital of [[Ukraine]]. It was founded in the 5th century as a [[Slavs|Slavic]] trading post.

[[category:capital Cities]]
[[category:cities]]

Kyiv

2007-07-16T23:59:23Z

Epicurius: Reverted vandalism

'''Kyiv''' (Ukrainian: Київ) is the capital of [[Ukraine]]. It was founded in the 5th century as a [[Slavs|Slavic]] trading post.

[[category:capital Cities]]
[[category:cities]]

User talk:DanH

2007-07-13T16:11:09Z

Epicurius: /* Vandal? */

'''Archives:'''

[[User talk:MountainDew]]

[[User talk:DanHarchive1]]

== unicode ==

Do you know how to use unicode to avoid the spam filter? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:30, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

*I am sure you read all that on that other wiki. Check with them. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 22:57, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

== Vandal? ==
So I'm a "vandal" am I? Clean out your ears, knucklehead, because I'm about to tell you something about real vandals. The real Vandals were a race of pagan barbarian murderers and thieves who swept across Europe killing anyone who got in the way of their "fun." Know who does that sound like? Not me, certainly. Maybe it sounds like those stupid teenagers you cater to on this site, who just want to "get high" and play their little murder simulators, no matter what it's doing to their family, their culture, or their country.

When I found this place, I thought it was finally the venue(look it up if you don't know what it means) for truth about dangerous parts of popular culture like Dungeons and Dragons and violent video games. You try to insert some truth into the articles over on Wacopedia, and you get shot down by mindless liberals chanting their little mantras "It's just a game," "You're a close minded fanatic," and "Get a life." I've got a life, junior, and it's a lot better than yours because I go OUTSIDE once and a while. But this was supposed to be where people can showcase a conservative(read: realistic) viewpoint on this filth. And when I come back, what do I find? Some scrawny little coward had deleted all my work and called me a "vandal."

YOU are the real vandals, peddling this smut to young children who come here to escape from the cesspit that is Wacopedia. Their loving parents see all the conservative trappings here and say, "Oh, this must be safe," but most probably never take the time to actualy read the idiotic and subversive lies you present as truth. Let's take a look, shall we?

The article on video games has pages full of nice, harmless sounding fluff, but how much information does it have on the scientificly proven pyschological effects they have on people who become violent and obsessed from playing them? A SINGLE line at the very bottom of the page about Grand Theft Auto, which everyone has already heard about and a comment from some pixelante about how we shouldn't "judge" video games based on what "a couple crazy kids did." That's the same tired rhetoric used by hippies who want their pot legalized. "Hey, man, a couple of people kill each other over drugs. But, like, the ends(brainwashed teenagers having "fun") justify the means(the death of the innocent" Here's an idea. Get out of your parent's basement and try actually living life, instead of rehearse taking the lives of those who are actually doing something worthwhile.

Your article on Dungeons and Dragons is also very telling. It's got three sections on how to play the game, and I counted at least six different places where criticism is deflected, and that's without reading the section on the "Magic System" (I don't worship the devil, and I'm not planning on casting any magic spells anytime soon, so why on earth would I read a section about how to do so?). I wander how parents would feel if they found out your website had occult knowledge right out in the open? But, hey, I suppose "If it feels good, do it." And if anybody trys to stop us, we can just plug our fingers in our ears and concentrate on something that makes us feel all warm and fuzzy inside, like how your article on Hitler calls him evil. Well, duh!. A bunch of book burners is what you are, heeping all the truth about anything wrong that isn't one of your pet causes onto the bonfire with your morals and common decency.

My page on "anime," as these perverted freak call it, was mangled. Your little slant eyed toadie, Ed Poor Morals, only had the courage to put a little note at the end about how well this sick "art" blends into porn.(Of course, some little brain fried deliquent has already subtely changed even that, so it sounds much less disgusting than it really is.) I can only thank God that you left enough of my message in that parents will be able to see the link to porn, and stop their kids from becoming ignorant sociopaths, kinda like most of the people on this site.

And finally let's look at your little advertisement for online games(your page on Massively Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Games, in case you don't know). I clicked on a few, then went back and got rid of the links to protect children from smut. I even put a note saying that they weren't family friendly. And what did one of you little cowards do? Put them back and said "I hope he's not right about them not being family friendly." Here's a novel ideal, why don't you actually CHECK? Then you could see all the violence, New Age idealogy, and practical nudity in these "family friendly" websites. But you won't do that. I'm on to you. You've probably got a little side deal with the game companies. You give them free advertising with a spin that makes it seem like their product is harmless, and you get some money for the advertising.

That just makes me sick. These children come to you for the facts without the bias and lies most media shoves down their throats. And what do you do? Line them up and march them right into the hands of the gaming companies that don't care if people get hurt or if society is degraded, as long as they can make a buck. Most gaming companies are Japanese, did you know that? Or where you too distracted by counting your shiny silver coins to actually research what you were doing? Sure, but who cares right. Aren't the Japanese Buddhist? So they believe in love and peace, right? Islam is the FASTEST GROWING religion in the world. You're kidding yourself if you think none of the Japs have converted so they could get their 72 virgins. Even a search on the internet will show you thousands of site about people who have stolen, killed themselves or others, and wasted their lives on twisted "entertainment." How many repeats of Columbine will it take before you wake up and do your part to stop this insanity?

But, I suppose this will fall on deaf ears. After all, George Washington said "Few men have virtue to withstand the highest bidder." But you don't really understand what you're selling. Will you still mock me when it one of YOUR friends or loved ones who gets gunned down by some pale, greasy gamer who's driving down the street thinking the people he's shooting aren't real, or kidnapped so some lunatic in a black robe can sacrifice them to his Dungeons and Dragons gods(who are really demons) so he can get a better result for his latest spell? Will you still think that it's all just "harmless fun" and that you don't need to warn people about a very real danger to themselves and their families then? You can do the right thing. You can stop censoring people who come here to expose the truth. You could save a life by stopping some innocent little boy from growing up to be a deranged killer.

I'm probably wasting my time though. You've probably already thrown away your mind, drooling over the latest murder simulator with all the biggest looking swords and "coolest" spells. People who try to spread the truth are always harrassed and mocked, but good always wins in the end. Hopefully, enough people will read this and do a little research on these subjects. Then they'll try to clear up the lies and misconceptions you have all over this place. They'll get censored and thrown out of course. But soon, enough people will see through these blatant advertisments for this smut and try to correct it you'll be doing nothing but trying to stem the tide of light into the tangle of biased nonsense you're using to shield your spineless business partners, who have to use tactics like this because they're to cowardly to come out in the open and defend their dangerous product. And do you know why? Because they can't. I know it, they know it, and, deep down, you know it too.

I'll be praying that somehow you find it in your heart(or at least the part that hasn't been destroyed by the dehumanizing messages these things send) to help spread the truth.

(P.S. Oh, and I'm not Jack Chick. Contrary to what you might believe, there is more than one person in this country with that name.)

: This post wins the internet. Anyways, if I were to guess, it's this guy. [http://www.jackthompson.org/] --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 22:52, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
::This might be the funniest thing I have ever read [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 23:26, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

*He seemed "normal" to me on other issues. But then I have no idea what sparked his post, or anything else.... --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 23:33, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

Just to nitpick, at the time the Vandals attacked the Roman empire and took over North Africa, they were Arian Christian, not pagan.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 12:11, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

== reminder ==

does the word [[Hannibal]] mean anything to you? heh heh heh[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 02:16, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

I'll have to get that tomorrow morning; I'm going out of town for three days. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 02:16, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

Lord Lucan

2007-06-29T16:42:29Z

Epicurius:

Richard Binggam, 7th Earl or Lucan, also known as '''Lord Lucan''' was (or possibly is) a British peer who vanished in 1974, after his children's nanny was found murdered.

An inquest named Lucan as the murderer, but his whereabouts continue to be a mistery. In a curious twist of fate, the MP [[John Stonehouse]], who had faked his own suicide, was arrested in [[Australia]] in the belief that he was Lucan.

Although officially declared deceased in 1992, alleged sightings continue to this day.

[[Category:Criminals]]
[[Category:Murderers]]

Democratic Party

2007-06-29T14:49:01Z

Epicurius:

[[Image:democraticpartyusalogo.png|right|thumb|200px|Official logo of the Democratic Party.]]

The '''Democratic Party''' is one of the two major political [[parties]] in the [[United States of America]]. It is generally seen as being politically between center and [[leftist | left]] of center, while the rival [[Republican Party]] is positioned to the [[rightist | right]] of center (see [[political spectrum theory]]). Members and supporters of the Democratic Party are known as Democrats.

The Democrats currently control the [[110th United States Congress]] together with the majority of State governorships and legislatures. <ref>[http://www.multistate.com/Site.nsf/Elections2006PostMaps?OpenPage Multistate.com] Post-Election 2006 Maps</ref> According to a Pew Research Center poll, 50 percent of Americans identify themselves with the Democratic Party as opposed to 35 percent for the Republican Party.<ref>[http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=312 Trends in Political Values and Core Attitudes: 1987-2007] Pew Research Center, 22 March 2007</ref> However, Democrats have served out only three of the last ten presidential terms. Democrats in the US Congress currently have a 64.2% disapproval and only a 25.2% approval rating -- the lowest in ten years since the [[Impeachment#Bill_Clinton|Impeachment]] trial of [[President Clinton]] -- according to the RealClearPolitics Average of several dozens of Congressional Job Approval polls conducted 06/05 - 06/14 . <ref>[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/archive/?poll_id=18 RealClearPolitics Congressional Job Approval Poll], 05/18 - 06/10. </ref> ''Investor's Business Daily'' remarked, "For all the promises of its new Democratic leaders, Congress seems truly interested in doing only one thing: surrendering in [[Iraq]]. No wonder its public approval ratings have sunk below the president's." <ref>[http://ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=264123134498383&kw=For,all,the,promises The Do-One-Thing Congress], ''Investor's Business Daily, May 15, 2007.</ref>

Like the Republicans, the Democrats are currently selecting their candidate for the 2008 presidential election; the front-runners in the contest are Senator [[Hillary Clinton]] of [[New York]] and Senator [[Barack Obama]] of [[Illinois]]. The most recent president who was a Democrat was [[Bill Clinton]], who served from 1993 to 2001.

==History==
The Democratic Party was founded in 1792 by [[Thomas Jefferson]] as a congressional caucus to fight for the [[Bill of Rights]] and to oppose the elitist [[Federalist Party]] led by [[Alexander Hamilton]], which fought for the [[Constitution]].

In 1798 , the party was officially named the "Democratic-Republican Party", and in 1800 Jefferson was elected as the first Democrat [[President of the United States]]. Jefferson, a member of the landed gentry and a slave owner, served two terms as president with distinction, and was succeeded by another Democrat, [[James Madison]], in 1808 . During Madison's tenure, the United States fought the [[United Kingdom]] to a draw in the [[War of 1812]]. James Monroe, another Democratic-Republican, was elected president in 1816 and led the nation through a time commonly known as "The Era of Good Feelings". In this period, the party dominated American politics with little opposition. Monroe was followed by John Quincy Adams who won the hotly contested election of 1824, becoming the first son of a former president to be elected president.

[[Andrew Jackson]], defeated Adams in the 1828 election and signed into law the [[Indian Removal Act of 1830]] <ref>[http://edweb.tusd.k12.az.us/UHS/APUSH/1st%20Sem/Articles%20Semester%201/Artiles%20Semester%201/Remini.htm Andrew Jackson and Indian Removal], by Robert Remini.</ref> according to the Democratic National Committee's website is "considered — along with Jefferson — one of the founding fathers of the Democratic Party." <ref>[http://www.democrats.org/a/2006/06/our_history.php Democratic National Committee, ''Our History''], retrieved 25 March 2007.</ref> Annual Jefferson-Jackson Day celebrations nationwide by local chapters of the Democratic Party commemorate the two founders of the Democratic Party. <ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/20/AR2007022001949.html String of Successes Enlivens Democratic Party], Michael D. Shear, ''The Washington Post'', 22 February 2007.</ref> The Indian Removal Act, enforced through a series of dishonest dealings with native people such as the Treaty of Dancing Rabitt Creek and the Treaty of New Echota, resulted in the wholesale deportation of Native Americans from the Southeastern states to Indian Territory (present day Oklahoma). <http://digital.library.okstate.edu/kappler/>

The Jacksonian period also saw the expansion of the voting franchise as most states did away with, or decreased property requirements for voting. The beneficiaries of the expansion of the franchise however, were nearly all white males. Annual Jefferson-Jackson Day celebrations nationwide by local chapters of the Democratic Party commemorate the two founders of the Democratic Party. <ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/20/AR2007022001949.html String of Successes Enlivens Democratic Party], Michael D. Shear, ''The Washington Post'', 22 February 2007.</ref>

Democrat [[Franklin Roosevelt]], who served as President from 1933 to 1945, led the United States during the [[Great Depression]] and throughout most of the [[Second World War]]. Under his successor, [[Harry Truman]] the United States emerged a victor from World War II and articulated the Doctrine of [[Containment]] which committed the U.S. to stop the spread of global [[Communism]]. Truman ordered the Berlin airlift in 1948 and sent U.S. troops to Korea in 1950.

==Policies and criticism==

In June 2005, while Democrats held a mock impeachment inquiry in President's Bush's foreign policy, [[anti-Semitic]] materials were distributed at the Democratic Party National headquarters. The literature claimed that an Israeli company had warning of the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]], and an "insider trading scam" on Wall Street had occurred simultaneously. <ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/16/AR2005061601570.html Democrats Play House To Rally Against the War], Dana Milbank, ''Washington Post'', June 17, 2005.</ref>

The views of individual Democrats sometimes diverge from the party's official stance as expressed in its national platform, however unlike the Republican party, the Democratic National Committee has not allowed dissenting opinions to share the podium on matters such as abortion at National Conventions.

R. Emmetrt Tyrell has been highly critical of the currect Democratic leadership, stating, "Can anything embarrass [[Speaker Pelosi]] and the rest of the Democratic leadership? Frankly I doubt it. They are all neatly shut off from the world in their fantasy of moral and intellectual superiority." <ref>[http://www.nysun.com/article/54321 Vietnam All Over Again] By R. Emmett Tyrell Jr., ''The New York Sun'', May 11, 2007.</ref>

===Economic policy===
In the field of economic policy, Democrats favor high progressive taxes, higher government spending and increasing the minimum wage.'{{fact}}

The Democratic Party has historically had ties to [[union|organized labor]]. The [[National Education Association]],<ref>[http://www.nea.org/index.html National Education Association homepage]</ref> the largest union of public school teachers, is a backbone of the party, supplying the largest number of delegates to its national conventions.{{fact}}

===Foreign and military policy===
According to its platform, the Democratic Party has the objective of strengthening America. Democratic national leadership has been accused of being ambivalent about terrorism<ref>[http://www.news10.net/display_story.aspx?storyid=22045 "Democrats, ACLU Outraged Over Traveler Terrorism Screening Program"] C. Johnson, Associated Press</ref> and insufficiently patriotic. <ref>[http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0112/01/smn.19.html CNN Saturday Morning News]Transcript: December 1, 2001 </ref>

===Education===
An organization affiliated with the [[Democratic Leadership Council]] called the [[Progressive Policy Institute]] which claims a long standing opposition to school vouchers <ref>21st Century Schools Project Bulletin: Special Edition [http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=110&subsecID=900001&contentID=250630 ''Putting Vouchers in Perspective''], PPI E-newsletter 2 July 2002</ref> reported Jonathan Alter of ''Newsweek'' saying,
:"Can wealthy white liberals - many of whom send their kids to private school - really say to poor parents: 'We can have choices, but you must not?'...This is a glaring hypocrisy sitting at the heart of the liberal opposition to targeted vouchers… Right now, Democrats are in a highly compromised position on education." <ref>[http://www.edreform.com/index.cfm?fuseAction=newsLetter&sectionID=29&NLissueID=4&articleID=11&altCol=2 Center For Education Reform, Monthly Letter to Friends No. 75], Back to School 2002.</ref>

===Environment vs Labor===
Two other important coalition groups also find themselves in direct conflict with each other within the Democratic party coalition--[[Environmentalist]]s and Labor Unions.{{fact}} While environmentalists support efforts like clean air and alternative fuels, for example, this creates tension with the workers of American automobile manufactures whose jobs are threatened by environmental policies such as increasing regulations and high costs. Such policies can lead to cutbacks and layoffs. Balancing these issues is difficult because some sacrifices of interests must be made by both sides.

===Healthcare===
The Democrat fondness for heavy government intervention into the marketplace{{fact}} and social engineering{{fact}} means that a significant proportion of their base and of their candidates for the 2008 U.S. Presidential Election ideologically favor introducing a system of [[socialized healthcare]]{{fact}}; regardless of the crippling tax burden this would require to sustain itself{{fact}} and the low standard of care achieved by socialized health programs in other countries compared to the United States.{{fact}} Despite these disadvantages, Democrats generally regard universal healthcare to be a priority because of the appeal to nearly 50 million voters without any kind of health insurance. Among the leading proponents for this idea include [[Barack Obama|Sen. Barack Obama]] and [[John Edwards|Sen. John Edwards]]; the latter formerly being the running mate to [[John Kerry|Sen. John Kerry]] in the [[2004 Presidential Election]].

===Homosexual Agenda===
Democrat lawmakers and opinion-formers consistently favor measures such as the establishment of same-sex civil unions, gay marriage and gay adoption of heterosexual children over defense of the traditional family. Likewise they are vigorous in attempting to amend [[hate crime|"hate crime"]] laws to make criticism of the homosexual lifestyle illegal;<ref>[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54535 Christian belief a 'hate crime' under plan], WorldNetDaily, March 3, 2007. </ref> while at the same time supporting efforts to [[propaganda|disseminate favorable opinions]] regarding [[homosexuality]] through channels such as the mainstream media and even the educational system in the face of opposition from churches and religious authorities, a broad coalition of [[Republican Party|Republican]] and Independent politicians and a clear majority of the American public{{fact}}. Democrats reject the idea of a [[Homosexual agenda]] preferring to speak in terms of [[Gay rights|"gay rights"]] when this issue is raised; the Democratic Party is the recipient and beneficiary of funding from homosexual lobbying groups and can be seen by their positions as the United States' largest and most powerful ''de facto'' supporter of the Homosexual Agenda. <ref>[http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.asp?ID=D000000158 Human Rights Campaign], opensecrets.org </ref>

===Other Policies===
Democrats frequently support the minimum wage, workplace protections, the right of women to choose to have an [[abortion]], [[gun control]], gay marriage, and the separation of church and state.

==Religion==
In the United States, there is some correlation between religious and political affiliation, though people of all faiths and denominations can be found among the supporters of each of the main parties.

Both historically and today, [[Roman Catholic Church|Catholic]] voters have had a tendency to identify with the Democratic Party {{fact}}, and a number of Democratic office-holders, such as Speaker of the House [[Nancy Pelosi]], are Catholics. However, several general ideals of the Democratic Party's platform - most notably, the party's overall support for the legality of [[abortion]] - are contrary to the position of the [[Catholic Church]].{{fact}}

With regard to [[Protestant]] Christians, members of [[Evangelical]] churches in particular are associated with the [[Republican Party]]. One unusual feature of the Democratic Party, however, is that it draws substantial support both from committed African-American Protestant Christians and from secular and atheist white voters.{{fact}} The strong opposition to [[homosexuality]] found among many Black Protestant Christians (and, indeed, among orthodox Catholics) contrasts strikingly with the support frequently shown by other Democrats for the [[homosexual agenda]].{{fact}}

Democrats also generally believe that religion should be separate from public life, and as such are typically supported by the ACLU. For example, in 1999 the Congress took up a bill to protect the display of the [[Ten Commandments]]. In the House of Representatives, over 3/4ths of the Democratic party members voted to remove the display. <ref>http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/06/18/gun.rollcall/ten.commandments.html</ref>. The measure did not pass the Legislature, and as a result when Justice [[Roy Moore]] posted a [[Ten Commandments]] display in his courthouse, the ACLU was able to have the display removed.

==See also==
*[[Phonemarks]]

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
*[http://www.therealdemocratstory.com/ The Real Democrat Story], Open the File on the Freshmen Democrats.

[[Category:American Political Parties]]

Talk:Concentration camp

2007-06-28T14:08:24Z

Epicurius:

Factual edits with sources needed here. First, it was primarily Jews, political dissidents, gypsies and homosexuals killed in the camps. By sheer numbers, Jewish deaths far exceeded all others. Second, it is not true that the camps were unknown until found by allied troops. For example, FDR knew of the camps and their significance quite early in the war, but felt that defeating Germany was the best way to help, rather than directly bombing train lines, etc.
[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 15:57, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Anne Applebaum (see external link) says the concept predates the Boer War. John Toland says Indian Reservations were t he first concentration camps. Nonetheless, the term known as "concentration camp" as a appearing in the literature, was first coined by Lenin. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:12, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

:The term itself was first used during the Boer War. See, for instance, the Fawcett Commission report from 1902, here:
http://library.stanford.edu/africa/pplcx.html
;entitled "Report on the Concentration Camps in South Africa"--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 10:08, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

== Bosnian Camps ==

I have removed the section on the Bosnian camp. As focused on in the article, concentration camps are set up to systematically wipe out large populations over a period of time based upon decisions made from the highest levels of a regime. The death rate, both for the Nazis and for the Russians, was in the millions. The Bosnian Camp, while brutal, resulted in the death to over 100 people, a different level of scope. To equate this to German or Soviet concentration camps does not seem to be a fair comparison. I hope you understand. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:09, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Council of Jerusalem

2007-06-26T21:16:07Z

Epicurius:

The Council of Jerusalem was a meeting in [[Jerusalem]] between the apostle [[Paul]] and the Christian leadership in Jerusalem, probably around AD 50, to settle a dispute over the requirements behind converting to Christianity. The community in Jerusalem believed that non-Jewish converts to Christianity needed to be circumcised and to accept Jewish law, while Paul argued that that should not be required. Paul was able to convince the rest of the early Christian leaders that his views were correct, and the requirements that converts be circumcised and obey Jewish law was dropped.
[[Category:Christianity]]

Council of Jerusalem

2007-06-26T21:14:55Z

Epicurius:

Talk:Socialism

2007-06-25T05:22:55Z

Epicurius: /* Let's not get carried away here, please */

"This correlates with a rise in atheism," I think it should be noted that correlation does not show causation. What is the correlation coefficient? Is there a positive or a negative correlation?
-Gasmonkey

"Socialism has caused more deaths…" What, really? A reference would go great with that opinion. --[[User:Prometheus|Prometheus]] 01:19, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Laughable bias ==

"Leading European Socialists are very critical of America."

Of America? Of the american government? Some of the american governments? Some of the american goverments policies? American corporations? American food? American anti-americans? American republicans, democrats, liberals, jews, muslims, african americans, hispanics? I assume you mean all those things since you just say America? Do you have a valid point somewhere buried under that mountain of prejudice and generalisation? [[User:Messpm|Messpm]] 15:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Also, the source that backs it up mentions America ''once''.

' One thing is clear: the unilateral military style approach of the Bush-administration has failed'

I'm removing it with the ridiculous 'vastly superior' remark. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

[[User:AmeriCan]] keeps reverting my edits saying that it stresses the rights of the many over the priveliges of the few, as opposed to vice versa. I'm tired of edit warring and don't want to get blocked for something that is not worth it. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 01:32, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:Okay, this article is just [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Socialism&diff=next&oldid=135051 ridiculous]. I give up. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 13:49, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
== Incentives ==

I couldn't find anywhere in this article where socialism lacks incentives. Should I add it in? The lack of incentives is a crucial reason to why socialism doesn't work in societies. [[User:AdrianP|AdrianP]] 01:40, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

This article's lack of knowledge is laughable and as an evil limey toothéd bastard who can spell things right (color=LOL) who is also a European Socilaist who is critical of America (the whole world is socialist by that standard) I must correct this issue.
LOL at the moron who re-edited my work, they do not know history well enough to try and battle me over Atlee.

== "Socialist" Britain ==

Rob, re your revision to Socialism. First, you make a large assumption about how socialist New Labour is (they aren't), second, the Conservatives would be far less likely to change the rules than any Socialist party, partly because thirdly, it would require disestablisment of the Church of England, which in any case could almost certainly not be achieved in the ten years New Labour have been in power, even if it was something they intended to do. Based on this I think the phrase "Socialist Britain" is inappropriate and removing it would not be liberal bias. In fact, retaining it is conservative bias. --[[User:Olly|Olly]] 15:23, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:So the Socialists do not oppose religious discriminition then? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:30, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::Which socialists? New Labour do - they have in fact introduced legislation outlawing discrimination based on religious belief. But as I said - they're not Socialists in the sense that you would use. And as the article says - Catholics are not barred from being Prime Minister. They are barred from holding one of the ceremonial offices associated with the post - an office which could be renounced without having any impact on the powers intrinsic to the post of Prime Minister.--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 15:35, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::This article gives a glowing description of what Socialism has done for Britian since 1945; it does not differentiate between Brand X Socialism and Brand Z; together, whatever stripe, along with all those great things they've done, you'd think eliminating bigotry would be high on the list. Must be a case where they are willing to compromise their principles in exchange for real political power. Nonetheless, they never stop talking about things like oppression, etc. Oh, I forgot, people who beleive in God are fair game for discrimination -- that's one of the basic tenets of Socialism. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:44, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Socialism in Britain has done more to eliminate bigotry in Britain than any other movement. In fact so much that it is accused of political correctness. That this singular example remains is not an indictment of socialism - in fact that such a small example seems to raise your ire so much shows just how far bigotry has been eliminated.

::::People who believe in God are not discriminated against in this case. Adherants to '''any faith or denomination''' except Catholic are eligible; and the restriction to Catholics applies only to one essentially irrelevant ceremonial office associated with the post. Can you please address the points I make in the way I have yours?--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 15:53, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::So Britian, under various Socialist governments since 1945, has continued to discriminate against Roman Catholics. Why should this be surprising? It is very much in keeping with Socialist doctrine. And we can certainly conclude, Socialism ''does not'' respect equality. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:04, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::Everything you say can be repeated for Conservatism in this case, and you continue to ignore all of my points. Forget it.--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 16:08, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Ignore which points? Are arguing discrimination against Catholics is not discrimination? Why? Because they're Catholic? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:15, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::: I have to reiterate Olly's point here. I live in Britain, and I know that the Labour Party, since the [[Third Way]] (the third way, see? Not socialism, not conservatism, but a middle), is not a socialist party. ergo, blaming discrimination on socialists is false. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

::::::::: I rarely comment on politics but I have to agree with the British users here (being one myself). The Labour Party ceased to be a socialist party with the move to becoming New Labour (their proper title) and the implementation of the [[Third Way]]. New Labour seem to be in the strange position of trying to appeal to both the left and the right at the same time with neither Conservative nor Liberal values other than those required to win the popular vote. What is more worrying to the British conservative is that the Conservative Tory party seem to be following the same path required to win the mass vote leaving Britain in the strange position that both our main left and right parties have moved to the centre leaving nothing that would reflect either conservative or liberal views other than some rather, errr, I'll be polite here and say odd, fringe political groups such as the detestable BNP (no policies other than those of racism) and the pointless UKIP (too insular by far). Socialism has been dead since Labour morphed into New Labour (best described as a "Labour scented party") and traditional conservatism seems to be following the same path --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 17:54, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:: new labour is certainly not socialist in nature! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 17:56, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I have to confess, I get lost in leftist ideological fever swamps. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:00, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: I have no idea what that means but nothing about modern britain or it's govt fits anything that resembles "socialism" in any significant manner - fees and loans for students, PFI, Invasion of iraq etc etc. The current govt is actually further to the right in many ways that Mrs. T government! was Thatch a socialist! I think not! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:02, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::::: Similarly, our Conservative party is no longer traditional conservatism. Think two parties both using the same elastic ideologies to chase the same fickle voters and appeal to conservative and liberal alike and there you have recent British politics. No left or right, just two sets of "middle". --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 18:05, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::Yep. I was just reading how Socialist leaders in Britian send their kids to private schools. Very similiar to American liberals -- who then give us the Cain vs Abel speil about getting even with the rich! [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:21, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Which socialist leaders? You mean the leader of the socialist workers party? I doubt it. I'm really struggling to understand what's going on here - Britain does not have a socialist government and if the catholic thing is meant to be an indication of socialist discrimination then Mrs. Thatcher was a socialist because she did nothing about it either! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:25, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:Here. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1970902,00.html] At least now we know why Blair's popularity has shrunk; it's not the War in Iraq, it's all those compassionate liberals and socialists who found out he was thinking of converting to Catholicism. [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/10/15/ncath15.xml] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:35, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

eh? Do you think this is a big issue in the UK? That someone is a catholic? Can I suggest in a friendly manner that maybe your understanding of the UK is slightly lacking and you are looking at it via the lens of the US? I'll leave it at that stage because you want the article to say that Britain is a socialist nation and as a sysop - well you win straight out of the box. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:38, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:It was somebody elses idea to trumpet the glories of British Socialism, whatever for. What is obvious from this is, Socialist do not care at all about equality and human rights. It's simply fraud to pretend that they do. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:46, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Thing is, we have no true socialist leaders or true conservatives anymore. Ideology is dead, long live chasing after anyone that will vote for you. And I come from a very long line of Catholics who were also passionate supporters of the NHS, minimum wages and other socialist ideals. I happen to be Christian and Conservative but there are many good Christians who hold to what are considered socialist values. Many many many shades of grey here. Very hard to pin down to a few neat paragraphs. One thing holds true though, New Labour are not and never were Socialist. This is why most of my extended family stopped voting Labour as they felt it was a betrayal of their values. --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 18:48, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::The only limitation that Blair would face if he became a Catholic would be that he would be unable to suggest the appointment of Bishops in the Church of England to the Crown. This restriction came about from the Catholic Relief Act of 1829, which repealed earlier laws outlawing Catholic participation in voting and government. There is also a law prohibiting the King or Queen from being a Catholic or married to a Catholic, the Act of Settlement of 1701. British anti-Catholic laws have nothing to do with Socialism or the Labour party, but instead are due to the English Civil War, the Restoration, and resistance by Protestant Britain to Catholic rule. The Act of Settlement and that provision of the Catholic Relief Act aren't still in force due to strong anti-Catholic sentiment in Britain, but just due to inertia and the fact that the law doesn't really come up. I don't think it's true to say that these restrictions have anything at all to do with socialism in Britain, either currently or historically.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 18:50, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::This BBC article quotes Blair, "changing the law would be hugely complicated involving changes to nine different pieces of legislation." [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/529227.stm] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:13, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

We still have a great number of old laws that technically still apply (policemen in certain counties are still supposed to walk in the gutter for example) that no one adheres to, very few remember and no one cares to repeal due to the fact that they are archaic and pretty much forgotten. Hardly tantamount to discrimination, more a quirk of history. [[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 18:54, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:Right...that's my point. I'm agreeing with you. It's an old law that has never been changed because it's never been an issue.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 19:02, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Would it be more correct to rephrase the final sentence in this article thus. "''In Britain, Catholics are discriminated against by being barred from holding certain offices associated with the post of Prime Minister. These offices can be renounced without any practical inhibition to the powers of the post, but no government, socialist or otherwise has done so since 1829."'' Or better yet, remove it. Or am I just tired from a long day down t'pit? --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:07, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:Sounds good, but we should add, "a reform measure was voted down as recently as 1999." [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:16, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::Well, the 1999 reform measure you're citing doesn't have anything to do with religious restrictions of the Prime Minister...just religious restrictions for the monarch. But, still, I don't really see what this has to do with socialism.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 23:52, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::It evidently isn't that easy. Blair says it affects nine pieces of legislation, some it appears affecting his office. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:08, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

If that is the case then please do. No shame in the truth providing all governments since 1829 share the blame equally. --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:20, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:Go ahead and do it. That is indeed how a democracy works, even when socialists are dominant. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:47, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

My only issue with making these amendments to an article on Socialism is that, as all governments since 1829 are complicit in this lack of reform, it is no longer purely a Socialist issue and, as such, should have no place here. I'd like other people's views on this but, as it is not soley a Socialist failing, I think the entire reference to this Catholic discrimination should be removed. Other people, the floor is yours ; ) --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:56, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

I think this section illustrates the folly of applying a US conservative-liberal axis to the political culture of other countries. There's an interesting article to be written about socialism in Britain but it doesn't belong in an article that puts anyone who supports universal health care in the same camp as Stalin and Hitler.--[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 01:05, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:Yes and no. It all depends on the conduct of the British Socialists. Name calling, and outrageous assertions can be a two way street. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:13, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Hang on a minute. The information about the Act of Settlement is correct, but it has absolutely nothing to do with Socialism. What on earth is it doing here? If nobody else removes it I will.

how are catholics discriminate against by labour? there are catholic schools funded by the state, the only part of the UK that discriminates against catholics is Northern Ireland and if you called men like paisley a socialist he'd knock your teeth out.[[User:Foxley|Foxley]] 15:18, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

:How many decades over the past century has the labour/left coalition dominated British politics? Why haven't they acted on this? Being the self-appointed defenders of the oppressed and against injustice, how come no one speaks up?

:We don't have to look far to see how deeply rooted and respectable anti-Catholicism is in British culture. Why, one of the ''Beatles'' greatest hits, ''Lady Madonna'' is a celebration of despicable anti-Catholic attitudes & stereotypes. And several Beatles have been, if recollection serves me correct, Knighted for their achievements and service. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:47, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Right. Just one Beatle -- Paul -- has been knighted and both he and John Lennon were themselves raised as Catholics. I really don't think Lady Madonna can be seriously regarded as a criticism of ANYTHING.
:Read the lyrics. [http://www.lyrics007.com/The%20Beatles%20Lyrics/Lady%20Madonna%20Lyrics.html] George Harrison, too. John Lenin didn't live long enough, and everybody knows Ringo's a bit slow. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:48, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

:Facts are, for all criticism of the US, the treatment of Catholics, by law, in Great Britain, as second class citizens, or the open, naked prejudice and ridicule they suffer, would never ever be tolerated in the United States. And truth be told, there is anti-Catholic prejudice in the US, but nothing like the respectability it has gained over the centuries in Great Britain. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:54, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

What do you mean "George Harrison too"? Are you under some delusion that he, too, was knighted. You are wrong. All of them did, of course, get MBEs, though Lennon -- "Lenin"? Oh, you are SO witty -- returned his in protest at the Vietnam War. As for Lady Madonna, speaking as an Irish Catholic myself, I am flabbergasted that you could regard this as a recognisable criticism of that community.
:Read the lyrics. I was raised Catholic but left the Church many years ago. But I ''still'' get deeply offended by the blatant intent, and ridicule of the message in that song. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:15, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
::Paul McCartney, a lapsed Catholic, said he wrote ''Lady Madonna'' in response to seeing a photograph of a woman and child entitled ''Mountain Madonna''.[http://www.iamthebeatles.com/article1208.html] It's bizarre to read an anti-Catholic sentiment into that song -- it's an expression of sympathy for a struggling mother. In answer to an earlier question you posed Labour has governed the UK for about 30 of the last 100 years and has traditionally enjoyed strong support from Catholics[http://www.ipsos-mori.com/publications/rmw/the-catholic-vote.shtml]; The greatest opposition to changing the constitution to allow a Catholic monarch comes from traditionalist Conservatives who want to retain the privileges of the Church of England. --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 13:21, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Sympathy? On what planet? ''Labour has governed the UK for about 30 of the last 100 years'' {{fact}} And we are really discussing Socialists here, and their record of being defenders of the "oppressed", and rectifying injustice. Even if it's only 30 years, what is the record of rectifying this injustice? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:01, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
::::Sigh.[http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/area/uk/pm.htm] Catholics in Britain have traditionally favoured Labour for a number of reasons, not least of which is that Labour has been more sympathetic towards Nationalism and the Conservatives more sympathetic to Unionism -- it's more to do with green vs. orange than red vs. blue. Perhaps we could have a cite for the "oppression" that has somehow escaped the attention of those living in Britain who have contributed to this thread? --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 15:17, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::Cough. Sneeze. [http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA992.htm][http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article512736.ece] Thank God she's not a Catholic. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:17, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

== DAB's version ==

DAB's version on 'succesful socialism' has already resisted 9 minutes. How long before a SysOp comes? I guess someone will be blocked for a long long time... (and no, I have no affiliation with DAB)[[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 13:38, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== Let's not get carried away here, please ==
The picture at the very top of the page right away makes a direct visual attachment of communism and socialism as if they are one in the same. As the vast majority of editors and sysops here are quite cleary well educated people, I am shocked that the picture in question remains. Communism is not the equal of socialism, nor is the reverse true either. Communism is socialism taken to the far extreme. For example, Finland is socialist, but try labeling them communists and see what happens, lol... I'm all for removing that picture, and perhaps replacing it with something more indicative of socialism in general rather than Marxism/Leninism/Communism in specific. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 16:35, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
:Oh, umhh, I see. Care to explain how [[Hitler]] was misunderstood, too? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:39, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
::Rob, he never said anything about "misunderstanding" the ideology. He made the valid point that socialism and communism are ''not'' the same thing. Canada, Finland, Sweden, etc. They are socialist, but ''not'' communist. Do you wish to dispute that? This conversation had nothing to do with Hitler. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:50, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Pardon me for not wading into a [[leftist]] ideological fever swamp, but I really don't care to decipher the degrees of complicity in [[democide]] based upon an avowed [[atheistic]] philosophy. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:05, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
::::So then don't contribute to the article. Your responses do not address the complaints, but rather your refusal to accept anything other than what you think you already know. Your defense for completely screwing up the distinction between two ideologies is a refusal to even ''attempt'' to understand the distinction. That makes ''perfect'' sense. I'd be glad to wade into that "leftist ideological fever swamp" for you, Rob, seeing how scared you are of it. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:13, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
We are not in the position of advocating, defending, or apologizing for [[democidal]] ideologies. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:18, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
:No, we are in the position to write an '''encyclopedia article''' about them. And saying that communism and socialism are identical ideologies is completely false. Once again, you change your reasons for wanting to include the misleading picture. How is being factual "apologetic", "advocating for", or "defending" socialism? Are you suggesting we deliberatly mislead readers? And the ideology is not democidal. Last I heard, Canada, Finland, Sweden, etc. don't commit democide. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:27, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

Quite so Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ. If I seek to distinguish between a shark and a barracuda I am not taking sides with either. Rob seems pathologically incapable of listening to reason and seems to view any considered response of this subject to be an act of Marxist-Leninist subversion. Ignore him.

RobS it appears you misunderstood what I was saying and clearly the fault is on me as I should have explained my position better.My apologies on giving the impression that I was apologizing for communism. Was not my intention. I think however you should really think about what Hojimachong is saying though, since he has explained it perfectly =) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 23:33, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

:: I went ahead and removed the picture in question. I do apologize to you RobS however, in truth it was misleading and out of place. It would PERFECT for the article on Communism, or articles about the old Soviet Union and presently existing communist regimes. But this is the socialism page. Let me put it this way: Having that picture represent socilism in general is like making an article about the primary colors and only showing blue. It is misleading. But this is in no way a reflection of any supposed sympathy for communism in specific or even socialism in general. And as for democide, well, isn't that getting a bit off track? I know one of the key principles of communism is an athiestic society, but that's all part of the package, I don't see how making your major argument revolve around democide makes sense. Also, again, that's communist specific. There are SOCIALIST countries that are Christian by LAW, as a STATE RELIGION (something that America has avoided as we all know), regardless of the denomination. So applying democide to socialism is another exercise in ignorance. But I digress; I simply removed a misleading graphic. I would like to add something more illustrative of socialism in general, however while I could find such a thing, I sadly am not well versed in editing yet, specificaly when it comes to posting images. Yes, that IS a call for help by the way, =) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:06, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
:::That's odd, I thought the name of the state Stalin & Lenin presided over was, "The Union of Soviet '''Socialist''' Republics, not "the Union of Soviet Communist Republics". I must have been sleeping in class again the day they set that straight, I guess. [[User:RobS|RobS]]
00:23, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

::::"What's in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell just as sweet," or in this case "would be just as red." hahaha, sorry, bad joke. But here is my response: That was simply a name. If I call a ka-bar a fluffy teddy bear, does that make it any less lethal a weapon? No. Granted, the USSR itself may not have been total communism, however it was far closer to communism than it was to the "ordinary" socialist idealology that spawned it. As I stated earlier, "socialism" is a generalism, while "communism," "USSR," etc. are specifics. If you're talking about a broad issue like socialism, it's not academically responsible to, whether accidently or otherwise, make the specific general broad issue appear to others as nothing more than one single specific. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:38, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

If you have two children, and the children are quite different from one another in most respcts, but naturally they are both YOUR children, do you take any more pride in the one, than you do the other? Is socialism nothing more than communism that spawns from it? Of your two hypothetical children, does only one of them represent you? [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:43, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

::As a side note, I truly do believe in at least replacing that image, and I do notice it is back up, though I'd rather not take it back down again unless some sort of consensus is reached or I get solid support for my argument. I do not wish to be accused of starting an edit war or seem like I have a vendetta against RobS now :) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:52, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
Also I am pleased to see the "different strands of socialism" section. I completely support that. The existence of that section lends even more to my argument that that graphic on the socialism article in general ought to be removed. The section listing different strands of socialism clearly indicates the author knows communism is not the entirety of socialism. So why the communist specific graphic? =)

Just to go back to socialism and atheism for a minute, while it's true that Marxist Communism certainly is atheistic, socialism isn't neccesarily. In fact, there was a strong Christian Socialist movement in Britain in the 19th century that helped lead to the British Labour party, and there was certainly a Jewish Socialist movement that contributed to the Zionist movement.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 01:22, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

Frédéric Bastiat

2007-06-22T22:57:29Z

Epicurius:

Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850) was a French economist who promoted free enterprise and opposed government regulation. The [[Austrian School of Economics]] often praises his writings and work.

In "Sophismes économiques" (1845), Bastiat wrote this famous piece of satire:

A PETITION From the Manufacturers of Candles, Tapers, Lanterns, sticks, Street Lamps, Snuffers, and Extinguishers, and from Producers of Tallow, Oil, Resin, Alcohol, and Generally of Everything Connected with Lighting.

To the Honourable Members of the Chamber of Deputies.

Gentlemen:
You are on the right track. You reject abstract theories and little regard for abundance and low prices. You concern yourselves mainly with the fate of the producer. You wish to free him from foreign competition, that is, to reserve the domestic market for domestic industry.

We come to offer you a wonderful opportunity for your -- what shall we call it? Your theory? No, nothing is more deceptive than theory. Your doctrine? Your system? Your principle? But you dislike doctrines, you have a horror of systems, as for principles, you deny that there are any in political economy; therefore we shall call it your practice -- your practice without theory and without principle.

We are suffering from the ruinous competition of a rival who apparently works under conditions so far superior to our own for the production of light that he is flooding the domestic market with it at an incredibly low price; for the moment he appears, our sales cease, all the consumers turn to him, and a branch of French industry whose ramifications are innumerable is all at once reduced to complete stagnation. This rival, which is none other than the sun, is waging war on us so mercilessly we suspect he is being stirred up against us by perfidious Albion (excellent diplomacy nowadays!), particularly because he has for that haughty island a respect that he does not show for us [1].

We ask you to be so good as to pass a law requiring the closing of all windows, dormers, skylights, inside and outside shutters, curtains, casements, bull's-eyes, deadlights, and blinds -- in short, all openings, holes, chinks, and fissures through which the light of the sun is wont to enter houses, to the detriment of the fair industries with which, we are proud to say, we have endowed the country, a country that cannot, without betraying ingratitude, abandon us today to so unequal a combat.

Be good enough, honourable deputies, to take our request seriously, and do not reject it without at least hearing the reasons that we have to advance in its support.

First, if you shut off as much as possible all access to natural light, and thereby create a need for artificial light, what industry in France will not ultimately be encouraged?

If France consumes more tallow, there will have to be more cattle and sheep, and, consequently, we shall see an increase in cleared fields, meat, wool, leather, and especially manure, the basis of all agricultural wealth.

If France consumes more oil, we shall see an expansion in the cultivation of the poppy, the olive, and rapeseed. These rich yet soil-exhausting plants will come at just the right time to enable us to put to profitable use the increased fertility that the breeding of cattle will impart to the land.

Our moors will be covered with resinous trees. Numerous swarms of bees will gather from our mountains the perfumed treasures that today waste their fragrance, like the flowers from which they emanate. Thus, there is not one branch of agriculture that would not undergo a great expansion.

The same holds true of shipping. Thousands of vessels will engage in whaling, and in a short time we shall have a fleet capable of upholding the honour of France and of gratifying the patriotic aspirations of the undersigned petitioners, chandlers, etc.

But what shall we say of the specialities of Parisian manufacture? Henceforth you will behold gilding, bronze, and crystal in candlesticks, in lamps, in chandeliers, in candelabra sparkling in spacious emporia compared with which those of today are but stalls.

There is no needy resin-collector on the heights of his sand dunes, no poor miner in the depths of his black pit, who will not receive higher wages and enjoy increased prosperity.

It needs but a little reflection, gentlemen, to be convinced that there is perhaps not one Frenchman, from the wealthy stockholder of the Anzin Company to the humblest vendor of matches, whose condition would not be improved by the success of our petition.

We anticipate your objections, gentlemen; but there is not a single one of them that you have not picked up from the musty old books of the advocates of free trade. We defy you to utter a word against us that will not instantly rebound against yourselves and the principle behind all your policy.

Will you tell us that, though we may gain by this protection, France will not gain at all, because the consumer will bear the expense?

We have our answer ready:

You no longer have the right to invoke the interests of the consumer. You have sacrificed him whenever you have found his interests opposed to those of the producer. You have done so in order to encourage industry and to increase employment. For the same reason you ought to do so this time too.

Indeed, you yourselves have anticipated this objection. When told that the consumer has a stake in the free entry of iron, coal, sesame, wheat, and textiles, ``Yes,'' you reply, ``but the producer has a stake in their exclusion.'' Very well, surely if consumers have a stake in the admission of natural light, producers have a stake in its interdiction.

``But,'' you may still say, ``the producer and the consumer are one and the same person. If the manufacturer profits by protection, he will make the farmer prosperous. Contrariwise, if agriculture is prosperous, it will open markets for manufactured goods.'' Very well, If you grant us a monopoly over the production of lighting during the day, first of all we shall buy large amounts of tallow, charcoal, oil, resin, wax, alcohol, silver, iron, bronze, and crystal, to supply our industry; and, moreover, we and our numerous suppliers, having become rich, will consume a great deal and spread prosperity into all areas of domestic industry.

Will you say that the light of the sun is a gratuitous gift of Nature, and that to reject such gifts would be to reject wealth itself under the pretext of encouraging the means of acquiring it?

But if you take this position, you strike a mortal blow at your own policy; remember that up to now you have always excluded foreign goods because and in proportion as they approximate gratuitous gifts. You have only half as good a reason for complying with the demands of other monopolists as you have for granting our petition, which is in complete accord with your established policy; and to reject our demands precisely because they are better founded than anyone else's would be tantamount to accepting the equation: + x + = -; in other words, it would be to heap absurdity upon absurdity.

Labour and Nature collaborate in varying proportions, depending upon the country and the climate, in the production of a commodity. The part that Nature contributes is always free of charge; it is the part contributed by human labour that constitutes value and is paid for.

If an orange from Lisbon sells for half the price of an orange from Paris, it is because the natural heat of the sun, which is, of course, free of charge, does for the former what the latter owes to artificial heating, which necessarily has to be paid for in the market.

Thus, when an orange reaches us from Portugal, one can say that it is given to us half free of charge, or, in other words, at half price as compared with those from Paris.

Now, it is precisely on the basis of its being semigratuitous (pardon the word) that you maintain it should be barred. You ask: ``How can French labour withstand the competition of foreign labour when the former has to do all the work, whereas the latter has to do only half, the sun taking care of the rest?'' But if the fact that a product is half free of charge leads you to exclude it from competition, how can its being totally free of charge induce you to admit it into competition? Either you are not consistent, or you should, after excluding what is half free of charge as harmful to our domestic industry, exclude what is totally gratuitous with all the more reason and with twice the zeal.

To take another example: When a product -- coal, iron, wheat, or textiles -- comes to us from abroad, and when we can acquire it for less labour than if we produced it ourselves, the difference is a gratuitous gift that is conferred up on us. The size of this gift is proportionate to the extent of this difference. It is a quarter, a half, or three-quarters of the value of the product if the foreigner asks of us only three-quarters, one-half, or one-quarter as high a price. It is as complete as it can be when the donor, like the sun in providing us with light, asks nothing from us. The question, and we pose it formally, is whether what you desire for France is the benefit of consumption free of charge or the alleged advantages of onerous production. Make your choice, but be logical; for as long as you ban, as you do, foreign coal, iron, wheat, and textiles, in proportion as their price approaches zero, how inconsistent it would be to admit the light of the sun, whose price is zero all day long!
[[Category:Economists]]

Francisco Villa

2007-06-22T22:55:49Z

Epicurius:

Francisco "Pancho" Villa was the pseudonym of Doroteo Arango, a prominent leader of the Mexican Revolution.
[[Category:Mexico]]

Frederick the Great

2007-06-22T22:53:12Z

Epicurius:

King of [[Prussia]] from 1740 to 1786, Frederick increased and modernized the Prussian [[army]] and turned Prussia into a [[world power]].
[[Category:Germany]][[Category:Monarchs]]

Aristides

2007-06-22T22:51:18Z

Epicurius:

Aristides (also known as "Aristides the Athenian") lived in the mid-2nd Century. He was converted philosopher from Athens who wrote an apology for the Christian faith to Emperor Antoninus Pius in AD 140.
[[Category:Christianity]][[Category:Ancient Rome]]

103rd United States Congress

2007-06-22T22:50:36Z

Epicurius:

The 103rd United States Congress finally saw an increase in the Republican majority of Congress. House speaker [[Newt Gingrich]] declared Congress "under new management" during this Congress. This Congress was able to pass much excellent conservative pro-American legislation despite liberal and impeached president [[Bill Clinton]] being in office. Coincidentally, the ushering in of a Republican dominated Congress exactly coincided with the success of the US economy, an strong economy that lasted until the [[Democrats]] surprisingly won power back in 2006. Not surprisingly, the economy then dropped sharply, as did Congressional opinion polls.
[[Category:US Congress]]

American Decency Association

2007-06-22T22:48:26Z

Epicurius:

The '''American Decency Association''' (ADA) is a [[conservative]] [[religious]] group based in [[Fremont]], [[Michigan]]. The ADA's chief focus is lobbying against what it perceives as [[moral]] evils in mass [[media]] programming, commercial venues such as malls, and advertising, particularly programming characterized by [[sexual]] or [[sexually suggestive]] content.

== Statement of Purpose ==

According to the group's website:

''The mission of the American Decency Association is to educate the general public on matters of decency; to initiate, promote, encourage and coordinate activity designed to safeguard and advance public morality consistent with biblical Christianity. And most importantly, as Christians to love Jesus Christ and to do His will - to “Pursue holiness without which no man shall see the Lord.”'' [Hebrews 12:14]

== External links ==

* [http://www.americandecency.org/ The American Decency Association]
[[Category:Politics]][[Category:Nonprofits]][[Category:Christianity]]

Association of American Physicians and Surgeons

2007-06-22T22:47:33Z

Epicurius:

The '''Association of American Physicians and Surgeons''' (AAPS)<ref>http://www.aapsonline.org</ref> is the oldest active [[conservative]] and [[libertarian]] group in the world. Founded in 1943, AAPS is a membership-based physician organization that does not accept funding by corporations or government, thereby ensuring AAPS's independence. It may be the largest physician organization funded virtually entirely by membership dues. Rival organizations, such as the American Medical Association, are funded primarily by revenue from business ventures and payments by pharmaceutical companies.

For over 60 years AAPS has remained dedicated to the preservation of the ethical practice of private medicine. It adheres to the [[Oath of Hippocrates]]. The motto of AAPS is "omnia pro aegroto," which is Latin for "all for the patient." AAPS has about 4,000 members, including members in every state and virtually every specialty of medicine.

AAPS files more legal briefs on behalf of physicians and their patients than most medical societies combined, and is often successful. In 2006, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit sided with AAPS and cited its ''amicus curiae'' brief in the first paragraph of the decision. ''Springer v. Henry'', 435 F.3d 268, 271 (3d Cir. 2006). Later in 2006, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit agreed with an argument advanced by AAPS in its ''amicus curiae'' brief in overturning a highly publicized conviction and 25-year sentence of Dr. William Hurwitz for treating pain in his patients.

In ''Stenberg v. Carhart'', 530 U.S. 914 (2000), U.S. Supreme Court Justice Kennedy frequently cited material provided in a submission by AAPS. In ''United States v. Rutgard'', 116 F.3d 1270 (9th Cir. 1997), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed a lengthy sentence as urged by an ''amicus curiae'' brief submitted by AAPS. In ''Veeck v. Southern Building Code Congress Int'l, Inc.'', 293 F.3d 791 (5th Cir. 2002), the ''en banc'' Court of Appeals for the Fifth Court adopted an argument urged by AAPS in establishing that no one may own the law.

AAPS has also been successful on issues of policy. It reviewed the approval data for Wyeth's rotavirus vaccine and declared it to be unsafe before the FDA ultimately came to the same conclusion and pulled it from the market. AAPS is the only entity to have defeated the FDA twice in litigation, in both cases establishing limits on its power.

More recently, AAPS spoke out against the mandate for the [[HPV vaccine]]. Subsequently the Texas Medical Association and a broad coalition of organizations also opposed this mandate.

The AAPS publishes the [[Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons]].<ref>http://www.aapsonline.org/jpands/</ref>

----

'''Sources:''' <references/>
[[Category:Politics]][[Category:Nonprofits]]

Assembly of Tribes

2007-06-22T22:46:54Z

Epicurius:

The Assembly of Tribes was an annual gathering of the [[plebians]] in Ancient Rome which elected [[tribunes]] and passed resolutions that the [[tribunes]] could present to the senate.
[[Category:Ancient Rome]]

Arnold Plant

2007-06-22T22:46:21Z

Epicurius:

Sir '''Arnold Plant''' (1898-1978) was an influential professor at the [[London School of Economics]] whom [[Ronald Coase]] credits with converting him to free market principles like the "invisible hand."

Professor Plant argued that authors would still find a way to sell their writings even in the absence of laws granting copyrights to them, if a demand truly existed for the authors' works.<ref>[http://www.acton.org/publicat/m_and_m/2001_spring/cole1.html Would the Absence of Copyright Laws Significantly Affect the Quality and Quantity of Literary Output?]</ref>

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:Economists]]

Archaeoraptor

2007-06-22T22:45:28Z

Epicurius:

'''Archaeoraptor''' was a forged [[fossil]], originally hailed as the missing link between [[dinosaurs]] and [[birds]]. It was created by a Chinese farmer who sought to make extra money by recovering and selling fossils. The farmer glued several fossils together, either out of the belief that they belonged together or a desire to make a more pleasing subject for display. The composite fossil was purchased by a US museum and eventually made their way to [[National Geographic]]. There, it was discovered to be a fake, but miscommunication and editorial oversight allowed National Geographic to proceed with an article anyway. While National Geographic published an article on archaeoraptor, several peer-reviewed journals declined. Eventually, the forged nature of the fossil was made public, and National Geographic retracted their claims.<ref>Simons, Louis M. "Archaeoraptor Fossil Trail." ''National Geographic,'' October 2000, http://csip.cornell.edu/Curriculum_Resources/CEIRP/NGArtHlt.html Accessed April 18, 2007.
</ref>

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Paleontology]][[Category:Hoaxes]]

Alphabet

2007-06-22T22:44:24Z

Epicurius:

An '''alphabet''' is a series of symbols that enable the spoken word to be recorded for later use and are the foundation stone of [[writing]]. The word "alphabet" is a combination of the first two letters ([[alpha]] and [[beta]]) of the [[Greek]] alphabet. Modern alphabets have evolved from ancient ''pictograms'' where a spoken sound was represented by small drawing of an object. These pictures eventually developed into formalised graphical symbols. By convention these symbols are written in a specific order ([[alphabetic]] order).

== Latin Alphabets ==

Most Western alphabets are based on the script of ancient [[Rome]] which comprises the following 23 characters or letters:

:[[A|Aa]], [[B|Bb]], [[C|Cc]], [[D|Dd]], [[E|Ee]], [[F|Ff]], [[G|Gg]], [[H|Hh]], [[I|Ii]], [[K|Kk]], [[L|Ll]], [[M|Mm]], [[N|Nn]], [[O|Oo]], [[P|Pp]], [[Q|Qq]], [[R|Rr]], [[S|Ss]], [[T|Tt]], [[V|Vv]], [[X|Xx]], [[Y|Yy]], [[Z|Zz]]

=== English Alphabet ===
In the English language three characters have been added to the Latin alphabet, and the English alphabet comprises the following '''26''' characters:

:Aa, Bb, Cc, Dd, Ee, Ff, Gg, Hh, Ii, '''[[J|Jj]]''', Kk, Ll, Mm, Nn, Oo, Pp, Qq, Rr, Ss, Tt, '''[[U|Uu]]''', Vv, '''[[W|Ww]]''', Xx, Yy, Zz

=== Other Languages ===

Most European languages use the same letters as the English alphabet but often less than the full 26 except in the case of imported words. Other languages have extended the alphabet with [[diacritic]]s<ref>Sometimes referred to as ''accented'' letter, e.g. á, ç, è, î, ñ, ü</ref>, [[digraph]]s<ref>Two letters that represent a single sound and are regarded as distinct from their individual components, such as ''ll'' in Welsh or Spanish</ref> and [[ligature]]s <ref>Two letters that are combined into one such as the German double-S: '''''ß'''''</ref>.

== Greek Alphabet ==

The Greek alphabet comprises the following characters:

[[Alpha|Αα]], [[Beta|Ββ]], [[Gamma|Γγ]], [[Delta|Δδ]], [[Epsilon|Εε]], [[Zeta|Ζζ]], [[Eta|Ηη]], [[Theta|Θθ]], [[Iota|Ιι]], [[Kappa|Κκ]], [[Lamda|Λλ]], [[Mu|Μμ]], [[Nu|Νν]], [[Xi|Ξξ]], [[Omicron|Οο]], [[Pi|Ππ]], [[Rho| Ρ ρ]], [[Sigma|Σσς]], [[Tau|Ττ]], [[Upsilon|Υυ]], [[Phi|Φφ]], [[Chi|Χχ]], [[Psi|Ψψ]], [[Omega|Ωω]]

==Notes & References==

<references/>
[[Category:Language]]

Anagram

2007-06-22T22:43:56Z

Epicurius:

An anagram is the rearrangement of another set of letters.

pardon me = mean drop

[[Category:Language]]